Beef production contributes to global warming (Page 2)

Careful now, I'm still a strong advocate of taking care of the planet so you better stick to one tire. (preferably bicycle)

I'll try again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VUPIX7yEOM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ7ppxvW_5k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBjtO-0tbKU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2euBvdP28c

I'm getting tired of saying this...SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES

can you find a source that's not fox news?  The Austrailian is a tabloid with a center-right political alignment, Owned by News Corps.....which is Rupert Murdoch's company.  Of course its going to say this.  In fact, it was one of his first papers.

The article is devoid of any scientific merit.  It is some dude's opinion.  You sir, live in a bubble. Everything you read and watch is written and said by fox news or related conservative "news" I use the word extremely loosely. It is impossible to have a real conversation with you about this when you deny FACTS and SCIENCE in in turn cite fox news. 

Have a look at this for example.... its real science, from a real science journal...not some guy's opinion on what he wants to be the truth

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta

oh and this study published by EXXON FREAKING MOBILE: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models

You truly crack me up with your complete and utter lack of objectivity.  It doesn't matter what I tell you, you will absolutely ignore it and attack the sources.  The source of that article was an interview with a SCIENTIST.  He was interviewed and explained the flaws of the current AGW models in how they are wrong.  You completely ignore that and blabber on about a consensus and attack the source of the article.  His interview is covered by 100's of news sources, so I can find another source if it makes you feel better.  However, we both know that you cannot objectively listen to his argument because it is counter to your religious beliefs on alarmist global warming.

The article you just posted made me laugh because it proves MY point about the consensus.  Did you even read it?

Let me quote it for you:
Here we report on a survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference. Most respondents (93.6%) believe that mean temperatures have risen and most (91.9%) believe in an anthropogenic contribution to rising temperatures. ... Those who disagree about climate change disagree over basic facts (e.g., the effects of CO2 on climate)

The shocker here is that it's not 100% consensus because everybody knows the earth has been warming for tens of thousands/millions of years.  There's also no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that man has contributed to the temperature increase.  The question is how much does CO2 contribute and that's where the whole consensus argument falls to the floor.  There is absolutely no consensus on that because the more we study it the more we find out we were wrong.  Hence the interview I posted above.

Let me grab a few more stats from your study (thanks for posting that btw)

52% of the people polled responded that none of my research concerns climate change or the impacts of climate change. (um, not even client scientists?)
78% said Climate science is a credible science. (shouldn't that be higher?)
38% couldn't agree strongly that Climate change is independent of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. (I strongly agree that  CO2 has an effect so I'm in the strongly agree camp here too)
38% strongly believe Climate models have improved in their ability to predict surface temperature patterns.
68% strongly believe Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to greater atmospheric warming. (I would have said strongly agree on this myself)

I found this quote kind of amusing and agreeable in the conclusion:

However, the fact that cultural values and political ideology appeared to influence the scientists' beliefs underscores the difficulty of climate change as a public issue. There is a temptation to think of those who don't believe in climate change as uninformed or irrational. However, studies are increasingly showing that knowledge and rationality are just one piece of the complicated climate puzzle.

A big part of the problem on this discussion is that anyone who doesn't fall in line with "the planet is burning up and all our children are going to die" (spend spend spend) is labeled as a denier and and idiot.  The problem is that the consensus is actually quite the opposite.  Most scientists agree that the alarmist viewpoint is unsupported by the data.  IF the models were to have been accurate and lead to a 3 degrees C increase in temperature this century then yes we could have some problems.  However, the empirical data has shown that the predictions are inflated because of the model's improper attribution to CO2's forcing effect.  Look for yourself: 
(btw, this consensus is scientifically factual and not based on an opinion survey)

One scientist going against the consensus does not invalidate all the other research on a particular topic.  The scientific method dictates that, when a scientist has data that contradicts the consensus, that the burden is on that scientist to explain why their data is different.  "Culture" and "ideology" are not sufficient; they have to provide data.  In addition, the scientist cited is a meteorologist.  He studies weather, not climate.

In addition, all the statistics you cited really aren't relevant here.

In all seriousness I think what you're doing is you're getting confused by what the "consensus" is.  The consensus is that the planet is warming and that humans are a contributing factor.  You and I both agree 100% that it's true and virtually all scientists believe it is true.  However, the science beyond the consensus is very much unsettled and every year that goes by we learn more and more.
What's happened is our politicians have taken the word "consensus" and "settled science" and they've used it as a scare tactic to fund the billion dollar alternative energy industry with our tax dollars because if they don't our children and grandchildren will all die.  Politicians have to have a boogieman to take our money.

The unfortunate thing about climate science is that it's become such a huge industry "Big Climate" that it doesn't matter what the science really says anymore.  There are industries depending on it now, which is way beyond the scope of science.

Climate science is one of my side hobbies and I really do enjoy the topic.  I follow both points of view very closely and over time it became fairly obvious to me who had the facts on their side and who didn't.
Here's the two blogs I follow most closely to learn both sides of the story.  I strongly encourage you to research for yourself both sides and come to your own conclusions after considering both sides of the argument.

http://wattsupwiththat.com  (leading blog countering climate alarmism)
http://www.skepticalscience.com  (leading blog countering alarmist skepticism)

I think you got it backwards.  Ruminants produce methane, a cow produces tens of thousands of lbs of manure each year, the water consumption/lb of beef is upwards of 1,000 gallons, the crop space required to feed a cow is far larger, and the housing required is far larger.

that said, stop eating meat, the most gentle way to eat for the environment is vegan, bonus if you have a big garden and eat local produce.

ETA: I can find sources and exact numbers for these later if you want them (a little too busy at work atm), or you can trust the environmental engineer :D

punnnn

As long as we all know what our food choices do, and the consequences, everyone has to make their own decision.  I just take issue when people try to pretend that their actions don't have impacts.

In short, no.

BUT......in the interest of compromise, when I retire I will have a very large garden....but there will be cows walking around near it, so I can use their manure for fertilizer.... and so I can kill them and eat them.

And rice, everyone needs to stop eating rice.  

rice is by far a better alternative than any animal food source

Again, I'm all about compromise.  I almost always eat rice with my chicken........it just goes well together.

Just out of curiosity are you a Vegan for sustainability reasons or health reasons?  I only ask because I always find it curious.  My daughter is a vegetarian, but she does it due to being an animal lover.  She can't stand the fact of eating somethings mommy.  lol

Hey....let me ask you, dmiller....this whole deal has me thinking.  

Do you have any numbers on how much methane a human puts out?  How much "manure" they leave in a lifetime?  How about how much water one person drinks?  I'm thinking if we really want to save the planet we need to get rid of THEM.

But for the vegans a more gentler way to eat for the environment is without rice, right?

I don't think we should be growing rice in California, a state with a severe drought, but otherwise no. 

You're right, we are severely overpopulated.  The world would be a much better place if we had a 2-child policy which would result in a slow population decline to a more sustainable level.

So greenhouse gasses produced in rice paddy farming do not harm the environment?

Its a combination. I started becoming interested in it for health reasons. Once I was vegan it became a lot easier to see the compassionate side because I didn't have to rationalize my behavior anymore.  If you eat meat every day, it is very difficult to decide that eating meat is a bad thing to do, because then you are in effect deciding that you're being a bad person.  Once I stopped eating animals I found it much easier to sit down and say, I can be a healthy person without animal products. The reason I eat animal products is because they taste good. I can now make the decision that I care more about animals/the planet than I do about eating a steak.

Also need to caveat that vegans wouldn't consider me vegan. Its the easiest way to explain it, but I don't do the checking every product in my house for traces of animals, like glue, or table sugar, etc. etc.  And I will eat animal products on occasion.  I'm about 99.9% vegan by diet if I had to guess.

Just going on the record to state that I'm roughly 58% vegan.

your post reminds me of how crazy the sustainability discussion gets at times.  I saw this the other day.  (and I'm the crazy one)

HAVE we been looking at the climate change issue all wrong?

Scientists are becoming increasingly interested in whether changing ourselves instead of the environment could be the unexpected solution to the world’s biggest problem.

The controversial idea of “human engineering” to lower our impact on the planet was suggested by New York University bioethics professor S Matthew Liao in 2012, who said the concept was “potentially less risky than geoengineering” and “could help behavioural and market solutions succeed in mitigating climate change”.

Meanwhile in the Future: To Stop Climate Change, We Must Genetically Engineer Humans

NIGHT VISION

The first proposal we cover is night vision — the idea that we could genetically engineer humans to have more rods so we could better see at night, and thus reduce our dependence on electric lights.

SHORTNESS

Smaller people, quite logically, tend to use up fewer energy resources. We were much shorter 100 years ago, and Prof Liao says we could go back.

COGNITIVE ENHANCEMENT

Mental alterations are even more divisive than physical “improvements”. Could making us smarter guarantee better choices? Prof Liao suggests administering drugs including Ritalin and Modafinil to improve our intelligence, pointing out the link between cognitive ability and having fewer children.

What greenhouse gasses?

To live on this planet we will have an impact.  Farming plants has impacts. Those impacts are lesser than farming animals.  Saying that plants also have impacts does not negate that they are FAR LESSER impacts. 

Do you throw your garbage on the ground?  Landfills have environmental impacts, but they are lesser than the impact of everyone throwing their garbage in the river.  Waste water treatment plants have impacts, but they are far lesser than everyone throwing their chamber pots on the street.

We, individually and as a species, make decisions about how we are going to act, and those decisions impact the world.  Eating plants has less impact than animals. Period.  We can go into which plants to eat, and how to grow them, etc. That could result in a better way of eating vegan, but to dismiss plants because the way we do things isn't "perfect" is a poor argument.

Methane.  Isn't that the whole point about not eating beef that started this discussion?  Rice paddy farming produces methane by the same mechanism that wetlands produce methane, although there has yet to be a push to drain the wetlands.

So a vegan, practicing eating as gently as possible for the environment, would not eat rice, correct?