Beef and Greenhouse gas emissions

Originally posted by timebombted
Your missing the point - Bad Wolf is not saying that vegtables have a lower carbon footprint because they require less transport, he is just using car emissions as a comparison to the "cost" of producing beef (any agricultural meat).

The reason veg production has a lower carbon footprint than meat is because of trophic levels, the loss in inefficiency is ~an order of magnitude at each trophic level.

Yes, Cows lose energy through keeping warm and such, much less than all of the energy is used to make the animals grow and be passed onto humans; compared to crops.
Cows also produce large amounts of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas), whilst they are alive, Crops don't do that (actually, rice does...)

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Oh well, I guess we will have to disagree.


Why be so spiteful?

I've always been cynical about things that become fashions very quickly, especially ideas and theories that engender a large public following very quickly. There is ALWAYS more to it. The reason for my cynicism and scepticism of such fashionable notions as this is that history is replete with beliefs, theories, presumptions and suppositions, all widely held as the unassailable 'Truth', only to be proven completely wrong or inadequate by some lone maverick who chooses to think different and who is brave enough to look further into it, even at the risk of being labelled a "denier".

Here is another paragraph from my article:

"Being an incorrigible cynic is a profane pastime, but I blame my father for my iniquity. He taught me to question the fundamentals of any belief system, whether in science or religion, and to be wise to fashions, especially in science, that ultimately become sacred cows. Perversely, to question such fashions in science is seen by many as throwing mud in the eye of respectability; to insult Truth itself. Surprisingly modern science is so replete with sacred cows one might be forgiven for thinking the modern scientific establishment indistinguishable from the Church of the Reformation, with its dogmas, its High Priests and its heretics. Like the early Church, the scientific fraternity is hamstrung by fundamentalists who defend the Faith - that is the "accepted wisdom" - and who thus damn the heretics. The "heretics" of course are freethinkers like Copernicus, Galileo and many others who challenged the "consensus" view of nature at the time and who were ultimately vindicated, forcing a change in thinking despite intense outrage at their effrontery.

But science is not done by consensus or by a show of hands. Science is systematic knowledge of the world through unbiased observation and experimentation, sometimes to test the strength of a theory. So why then is the term "consensus" used to determine which idea is right and which wrong? Why is a moral imperative attached to the idea of the majority vote, as though merit is always on the side of greater numbers, when the history of science itself suggests the exact opposite? "

I am not spiteful. I am disdainful and contemptuous.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
I've always been cynical about things that become fashions very quickly, especially ideas and theories that engender a large public following very quickly. There is ALWAYS more to it. The reason for my cynicism and scepticism of such fashionable notions as this is that history is replete with beliefs, theories, presumptions and suppositions, all widely hel sts the exact opposite? "

I am not spiteful. I am disdainful and contemptuous.

When I said 'spiteful' I was referring to the way you say you go out of your way to increase your carbon footprint...

Originally posted by Bad wolf
When I said 'spiteful' I was referring to the way you say you go out of your way to increase your carbon footprint...

Oh right. Ok fair enough. I guess that is spite. But I enjoy mocking and thumbing my nose at loony ideas that have become fashionable and I enjoy outraging the people who have fallen for these ideas. They are like so many sheep who need some self-aggrandizing charlatan like Al Gore to tell them what to think and how to behave.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Yes, Cows lose energy through keeping warm and such, much less than all of the energy is used to make the animals grow and be passed onto humans; compared to crops.
Cows also produce large amounts of methane (a powerful greenhouse gas), whilst they are alive, Crops don't do that (actually, rice does...)

Quick! Call China! They need to break their addiction to rice, stat! Or the world is doomed! Doomed I say!

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Eating 1 kilogram of beef is responsible for the equivalent of the amount of CO2 emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometres.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html
If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but can't afford to buy one those fancy, ladeda, hybrid cars, perhaps stopping eating beef would be a cheaper solution for you.

so let's .... shoot all the cows?

Originally posted by SpastiGov
But science is not done by consensus or by a show of hands. Science is systematic knowledge of the world through unbiased observation and experimentation, sometimes to test the strength of a theory. So why then is the term "consensus" used to determine which idea is right and which wrong? Why is a moral imperative attached to the idea of the majority vote, ...[text shortened]... the side of greater numbers, when the history of science itself suggests the exact opposite?

No science is done by consensus. Evidence has to be assessed and there is a debate about how to interpret the evidence, revolutions in our understanding are possible - but always happen on the basis of new evidence. What happened during the renaissance was scientific method being born, the old theories where religeous and not scientific. If you can't get anyone else to agree with you then you're wrong, since if you are right you'll be able to convince people. The last "lone maverick scientist" in this country started a scare over MMR innoculations which meant that children ended up unprotected against Measles. You've misunderstood what science is.

Originally posted by DeepThought
No science is done by consensus. Evidence has to be assessed and there is a debate about how to interpret the evidence, revolutions in our understanding are possible - but always happen on the basis of new evidence. What happened during the renaissance was scientific method being born, the old theories where religeous and not scientific. If you can't that children ended up unprotected against Measles. You've misunderstood what science is.

As your name implies, you've lost your thread. Science should not depend on a show of hands as though deciding some moral issue. But I guess since the notion of man-induced global warming & climate change has become something of a moral and religious issue, as opposed to actual science, I'm not surprised it depends on a show of hands to decide its validity. It is no different to when the so-called "consensus" view was one of an earth-centred universe when it was treasonous and heretical to suggest otherwise. The "consensus" view then was held by people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (ie., priests), people who shut their eyes and their minds to contrary evidence and arguments that suggested the opposite to what they wished everyone to believe. So if global warming is not a moral and religious issue, why then are detractors of the theory labelled "Deniers" as though akin to "heretics" and in similar vein to being labelled a Holocaust "Denier"? Why is it considered imoral to dissagree and to suggest the idea is fatally flawed?

The issue is far more of a religious nature than scientific. It has a thin veneer of science attached to it for the purposes of respectability, but it is mostly specious and fatally flawed.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
As your name implies, you've lost your thread. Science should not depend on a show of hands as though deciding some moral issue. But I guess since the notion of man-induced global warming & climate change has become something of a moral and religious issue, as opposed to actual science, I'm not surprised it depends on a show of hands to decide its validity it for the purposes of respectability, but it is mostly specious and fatally flawed.

Thin veneer of science? The Met office know what they're doing, despite popular belief they get the weather pretty accurately, and their climate model is saying watch out. What is really laughable is that there is some vested interest for the Met office scientists to make this stuff up. They'll have a job either way. The real vested interests are with the oil companies, airlines, and car manufacturers whose profits depend on spewing out climate forcing gases.

Science doesn't deal in hard facts, it deals with uncertainty and how to control it. Because there is a margin of error in measurements we can't prove theories, we can only say that they are consistent with observation or not consistent. This means that scientific results are open to debate. Scientific papers are accepted for publication on the basis of peer review, they are then either believed or not believed by other scientists in the community. Scientific ideas become canon when there is a general acceptance within the relevant field that they correctly describe whatever phenomenon is being described. This means that in practice that the validity of scientific ideas is, to all intents and purposes, decided by a show of hands.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Thin veneer of science? The Met office know what they're doing, despite popular belief they get the weather pretty accurately, and their climate model is saying watch out. What is really laughable is that there is some vested interest for the Met office scientists to make this stuff up. They'll have a job either way. The real vested interests are wit he validity of scientific ideas is, to all intents and purposes, decided by a show of hands.

Oh yes the climate models. Where do I begin? The weather cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty two weeks in advance, let alone years, so why are climate models that attempt to do so held in such high regard? The atmosphere is so hugely complicated, any attempt to model it is a futile excercise and bound to result in a primitively crude and unreliable approximation at best. The trouble is, computer models are the 'IN' thing so there is some kudos in referring to them. People put way too much faith in models that by their very nature must be extremely limited and dependent upon myriad assumptions to even attempt to make up for the infinity of variables in a system as complex and fluid as a living breathing atmosphere.

There is indeed a vested interest on the part of many scientists to perpetuate the myth of man-induced global warming: research grants and funds showered upon them by government-funded establishments. The governments in turn are motivated by potential votes so everyone stands to gain by perpetuating the myth. Except of the course the average citizen who will ultimately pay for all this stupid nonsense.

Oh and by the way, since when does science not deal in hard facts? You are confusing it with religion. But as I said earlier, the anthropogenic global warming myth is a religion so the mistake is understandable.

Here's a very pertinent link on the subject of global warming and religion:
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/03/page/2/

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Oh yes the climate models. Where do I begin? The weather cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty two weeks in advance, let alone years, so why are climate models that attempt to do so held in such high regard? The atmosphere is so hugely complicated, any attempt to model it is a futile excercise and bound to result in a primitively crude and unrel ...[text shortened]... earlier, the anthropogenic global warming myth is a religion so the mistake is understandable.

"There is indeed a vested interest on the part of many scientists to perpetuate the myth of man-induced global warming: research grants and funds showered upon them by government-funded establishments."

The irony in this statement you "claim" is that it's actually the opposite that holds true. If there were no conspiracy theorists claiming the anthropogenic falsehood, then funds would now be directed largely at R&D to solve the problem, and scientists would be moving onto the next field of research having done themselves out of their current job.

Instead governments continue to fund scientists to prove an anthropogenic cause because of the unsubstantiated rumours the biased non believers create. How much evidence do idiots like you require, so thank yourself for a larger proportion of your taxes being invested into science.

Your non evidential beliefs / conspiracies are keeping us scientists with "research grants and funds showered upon them by government-funded establishments"

Again, think about what you are actually writing it will help to make you look less stupid.

Originally posted by timebombted
"There is indeed a vested interest on the part of many scientists to perpetuate the myth of man-induced global warming: research grants and funds showered upon them by government-funded establishments."

The irony in this statement you "claim" is that it's actually the opposite that holds true. If there were no conspiracy theorists claiming the anthrop ain, think about what you are actually writing it will help to make you look less stupid.

Who's the idiot? Yes there is indeed a vested interest because there's plenty of money available for jumping on the global warming bandwagon. It's the most fashionably sexy thing in science these days, especially if you can impress everyone with another computer model that predicts another disaster around the corner. Global warming has spawned an entire industry and created a lot of new jobs in "researching" a non-problem so who would want to give that up when everyone is so fashionably frightened and when politicians are falling over themselves to look green and concerned for the environment. You better believe there's money in it. Maybe you personally have missed the money train. But don't despair because there's another hobgoblin just around the corner waiting for you to do "research" on.

Why not check these sites out and then come back more informed and less naive:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA679.htm

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=Opinion

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/03/page/2/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Who's the idiot? Yes there is indeed a vested interest because there's plenty of money available for jumping on the global warming bandwagon. It's the most fashionably sexy thing in science these days, especially if you can impress everyone with another computer model that predicts another disaster around the corner. Global warming has spawned an entire in ...[text shortened]... s.com/2007/03/page/2/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

With that opinion it's clear who the naive idiot is here.

The money and size of the global warming bandwagon would be considerably less if we were allowed to progress with the real issue instead of being stunted by nay sayers like yourself. To repeat the nay sayers are the ones that have inflated the size of the industry and then use this to support their claims.

Of couse theres money in it, more so thanks to your sort, but nothing gets solved for free.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Who's the idiot? Yes there is indeed a vested interest because there's plenty of money available for jumping on the global warming bandwagon. It's the most fashionably sexy thing in science these days, especially if you can impress everyone with another computer model that predicts another disaster around the corner. Global warming has spawned an entire in ...[text shortened]... s.com/2007/03/page/2/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

I don't currently do research in global climate change so personally have no motive to try and grab funds etc, my research interests are more genetic based in other fields.
However I certainly understand the plethora of evidence out there for anthropogenic GW. Maybe you should start reading the vast and varied sources of peer reviewed articles on the subject and come back here when you are less naive.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
Oh yes the climate models. Where do I begin? The weather cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty two weeks in advance, let alone years, so why are climate models that attempt to do so held in such high regard? The atmosphere is so hugely complicated, any attempt to model it is a futile excercise and bound to result in a primitively crude and unrel ...[text shortened]... bject of global warming and religion:
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/03/page/2/

Is your argument against computer models that we're not allowed to process data any more? Are you just naturally untrusting of technology?
Or is your argument that the data processing is flawed? If so, precisely how?

Science never deals in absolute facts, that's religion. Science deals with probabilities, tendencies and theories that can be proven or disproven. It, unlike religion, responds to new evidence.