You don't have to wait long when talking about Iraq to hear a lib say " if you are for the war, then you go fight it, or send your sons and daughters, etc." Isn't it interesting how those same people can never be heard saying "since it is we liberals who believe in gw, then we will be the ones to give up our gas guzzlers, etc. We won't force those who don't believe it to do the same."
No question about it. Methane generated by cattle is definetly adding to greenhouse gases. Be aware though that as the human population grows, our demand for more cattle byproduct (milk and beef) is elevated. More humans = more cattle = more methane = more ghgs. The human population is now beginning to accelerate non-linearly. In 2007 we stand at about 7 billion. Imagine in 2050 when the population is 25B :eek: Worse, we are getting better at keeping people alive longer. So while cattle is a big producer of greenhouse gases, the correlation to human consumption is clear. Once again, the problem stems from the demands that (a growing population of) human beings put on the closed system we call the Earth. I wish I knew more about what percentage of the ghgs is attributable to cattle methane, but to me that is only a detail in the overall solution to the problem of human forced GW, which will at the solutions heart include reining in humans abuse of earth's atmosphere (and indirectly earth's oceans and marine life), directly or indirectly. nitro
I would love to but im afraid the pot smoke might warm up the earth and cause NY to become the new florida
...... (all species are interrelated) will affect the rest of the species that survive it is an experiment we don't want to run. You use the word logic a lot. So you will understand this. There is nothing logical to assume that we can prevent the "experiment" (above) . Quite the opposite we can make a safe assumption it will be going on in the future because it has been going on for eons WITH AND WITHOUT US. Assuming that 80% of the modern forcing in GW is attributable to human beings (I am using the word assuming for your sake, not mine - I have no doubts that GW in the last 200 years is due 90% to human forcing) What fascinates me is the fact how you can easily go from making unwarranted assumptions ( how sure you feel doesn't mean a shit) (above) to logic(below). Flawed logic since there is no evidence that we cause it or can actually prevent it. ......., then by definition by not doing or by reducing what we do as human beings to cause the forcing, we can start to reverse the process. Regarding logic once again, since the"experiment" has been going on (regardless of humans) in the past it cannot be proven logically we cause it (or may be able prevent it) to a major degree. Last thing, you stating you are "sure" 90% is caused by human activity is just laughable. Prove me wrong Nitro (logically!!), no opinions.
All logical argumens begin with a premise, or axioms. When I made the statement, I assumed as a premise that current extremes in GW is caused by human beings, and therefore we are running the experiment. Therefore, we can stop running it. I take it as axiomatic that the current extreme GW is human forced. For me that debate is long over. Read the sentence again and you may understand why I chose the word "assume." The issue is not whether the Earth warms and cools through the eons. We know that, and that experiment has been running with or without us. The question is whether the indesputable accelerated forcing caused by humans in the last two hundred years has reached levels that will send thousands of species, into extinction. We don't know all the harm that will come. That is the experiment we do not want to run (or at least stop running), since it is us that is at cause and not natural weather cycles. Logically it has already been proven in the language of science, to a certain degree of uncertainty where reasonable people accept it as fact. It is possible that GW is not due to human beings. It is just not probable, at about 10:1 odds. Proving it to you would cost me about $100,000 in time and travel expenses. It would require that we pour over mounds of data and study and collect tree rings, go to Antartica and collect ice samples from deep beneath, travel to places where sediments store weather patterns in the soil over eons. Etc. I simply trust that those whose jobs it is to do this work are not conspiring and lying about it to the rest of us. So does nearly every major leader in the developed world btw, thank gawd. nitro
Let's not even bother to try to prove it one way or another. When the argument is framed by the warming or not question both sides just produce a haze of statistics or "facts" or whatever. Just look at the pollution - particulary air - both outdoor and indoor. It's terrible. Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Rio, all those pictures from the Asian cities. We're not getting by this problem w/o some big changes. How can anyone argue that these clouds of vehicle exhaust and coal smoke are not unhealthful? At some point people have to start seriously worrying for their kids. The world needs abundanat clean electricity It's nuclear or nations of asthmatics as far as I can see. And is fusion technically more difficult than the atomic bomb or moon landing? They had a primative fusion reactor machine at the 1964 Worlds Fair. This isn't any closer?