PETA: are you for them or against them?

[Wannabe Yogi]

Well no they aren't the BIGGEST cause of Global warming. The planet does that on it's own. If a volcano erupts, which does happen, the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is millions of tonnes compared to what human CO2 emits in years.

If you want to be a part of the solution stop eating factory farmed meats.

How Meat Contributes to Global Warming: Scientific American

 

[ninerbuff]

The modern industrialized farming is one of the great evils of the world today.
It is causing climate change (More then cars) And the starvation of the world poor. The fishing industry is killing all the large fish in the sea. In 50 years there will be no fishing because there will be no large fish according to many scientists. When you compare the problems that are cause by PETA and ALF to the real issues of our planet. I would be a little less concerned about Peta.

Again you are misinformed on climate change. Climate change happens in cycles. Look at the Younger Dryas. Climbing temperatures before a cooling. And there wasn't any industrial influence back then.
And if genetically altered wheat was allowed in "starving countries" they wouldn't be starving.
We've been doing industrial fishing for years. There are even "fish farms" raising fish to reduce the amount of mercury contamination.
I think you're speaking more out of compassion of animals than actual fact.

 

[ninerbuff]

If you want to be a part of the solution stop eating factory farmed meats.

How Meat Contributes to Global Warming: Scientific American

While this seems to be "true", one cannot predict how the Earth "acts". Right now, after the article was written, we've endured one of the coldest winters in the past few years. If warming was prevalent, then it should have been warmer.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

While this seems to be "true", one cannot predict how the Earth "acts". Right now, after the article was written, we've endured one of the coldest winters in the past few years. If warming was prevalent, then it should have been warmer.

I sorry I trust the scientists on this one. Yes, the US was cold this year. Over all the world is warming. This is a fact. Ice caps are melting deserts are expanding water is becoming in short supply in many parts of the world. Humans are starting to suffer because of it.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion on climate change. I will go with the scientists over FOX news any day of the week.

 

[ninerbuff]

I sorry I trust the scientists on this one. Yes, the US was cold this year. Over all the world is warming. This is a fact. Ice caps are melting deserts are expanding water is becoming in short supply in many parts of the world. Humans are starting to suffer because of it.

Wait till spring. The water will be replenished by all the snow. It was cold for the whole world this past winter. And the predictions for more "devastating" hurricanes has proven to be false so far.
Remember fear is the one of the best ways to make money. And while scientific evidence does show warming over the past few years, there is NO SCIENTIST that will claim that the warming was the DIRECT CAUSE from human CO2.
We're due for another big cold spell. Get ready.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Trust me, she didn't start it. that fear has been floating around for decades. You would not believe( maybe you would) some of the extremes parents will go to just to "cure" their child.

I used to belong to a group for parents with autism. I got disgusted with it after a while because of the pushed agenda one particular mother had. "Heavy medals were the cause of autism and it must be eradicated from all drugs and foods."

It is such a hard thing for many parents. There have been so many false hopes over the years.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Wait till spring. The water will be replenished by all the snow. It was cold for the whole world this past winter. And the predictions for more "devastating" hurricanes has proven to be false so far.
Remember fear is the one of the best ways to make money. And while scientific evidence does show warming over the past few years, there is NO SCIENTIST that will claim that the warming was the DIRECT CAUSE from human CO2.
We're due for another big cold spell. Get ready.

read this

The panel released a condensed version of the first part of the report, on the physical science basis of climate change, in February. Called the “Summary for Policymakers,” it delivered to policymakers and ordinary people alike an unambiguous message: scientists are more confident than ever that humans have interfered with the climate and that further human-induced climate change is on the way. Although the report finds that some of these further changes are now inevitable, its analysis also confirms that the future, particularly in the longer term, remains largely in our hands—the magnitude of expected change depends on what humans choose to do about greenhouse gas emissions.

The Physical Science behind Climate Change: Scientific American

Yes we have had a cold year but over all the world is warming. This is a fact. There will be cold years in our future also. Maybe areas of our planet will get colder. Still over all it's getting warmer.

Sorry I can see any reason to cut back on greenhouse admissions other then personal greed. Even if there is only a chance of it being true.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

What if you are wrong.

Twenty Nobel prizewinners, including US energy secretary Steven Chu, Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka, and Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai, have compared the threat of climate change to that posed to civilisation by nuclear weapons.

Borrowing a phrase from US civil rights leader Martin Luther King, they said at the end of a three-day climate change symposium hosted by Prince Charles in London: "We must recognise the fierce urgency of now. The evidence is compelling for the range and scale of climate impacts that must be avoided, such as droughts, sea level rise and flooding leading to mass migration and conflict. The scientific process, by which this evidence has been gathered, should be used as a clear mandate to accelerate the actions that need to be taken. Political leaders cannot possibly ask for a more robust, evidence-based call for action."..."We know what needs to be done. We cannot wait until it is too late. We cannot wait until what we value most is lost."

Nobel laureates compare climate crisis to threat to civilisation from nuclear weapons | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Are you willing to put your personal feelings up against all the top scientists of the world
on our planets health. Even if there is only a chance that they are right should we not change our life styles ?

 

[ninerbuff]

What if you are wrong.

Twenty Nobel prizewinners, including US energy secretary Steven Chu, Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka, and Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai, have compared the threat of climate change to that posed to civilisation by nuclear weapons.

Borrowing a phrase from US civil rights leader Martin Luther King, they said at the end of a three-day climate change symposium hosted by Prince Charles in London: "We must recognise the fierce urgency of now. The evidence is compelling for the range and scale of climate impacts that must be avoided, such as droughts, sea level rise and flooding leading to mass migration and conflict. The scientific process, by which this evidence has been gathered, should be used as a clear mandate to accelerate the actions that need to be taken. Political leaders cannot possibly ask for a more robust, evidence-based call for action."..."We know what needs to be done. We cannot wait until it is too late. We cannot wait until what we value most is lost."

Nobel laureates compare climate crisis to threat to civilisation from nuclear weapons | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Are you willing to put your personal feelings up against all the top scientists of the world
on our planets health. Even if there is only a chance that they are right should we not change our life styles ?

I'm all for science, however just think about this: let's say we totally cut out all CO2 industrial production right now.............what do you think the actual recovery would be? Would the Earth magically be healed? Even in 50 years the climate would probably be no different than now.
But what would doing that do to the actual economy of the world? No shipping, no flying, no import or export of goods, heck even no internet. Before the climate could even "heal" itself from CO2, countries would be fighting, wars over resources would happen, even just neighboring cities would be fighting for resources.
We as a country are working toward greener options, but to say that we can "cause" the climate to change without mother Earth lending a hand it pretty exaggerated.
Again, if your fight is about passion for animals, that's fine. But climate change is not a byproduct of industrialized farming. Climate change happens with or without the help of man.

 

[fenrisx]

It should also be remembered that the factory farming of the meat Industry is one of the great evils of the world. They are the biggest cause of Global warming and are one of the greatest exploiters of workers all over the world. The ALF are very minor players when you compare them to the human suffering the meat Industry causes.

understood but the message could use a better saleperson...

 

[Orias]

understood but the message could use a better saleperson...

Sometimes the best way to get the message across is to be harsh

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

understood but the message could use a better saleperson...

Great point !

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Climate change happens with or without the help of man.

I like you a lot ninerbuff but please......

This sounds like the scientist who worked for big tobacco in the 60's who said cigarettes don't cause cancer.

Or, The creationist denying evolution. Very unscientific.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well no they aren't the BIGGEST cause of Global warming. The planet does that on it's own. If a volcano erupts, which does happen, the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is millions of tonnes compared to what human CO2 emits in years.

Actually, volcanos generally create short-term global cooling because of the extra particulates that they release into the atmosphere. Remeber the Mount Pinatubo eruption?

I'm all for science, however just think about this: let's say we totally cut out all CO2 industrial production right now.............what do you think the actual recovery would be? Would the Earth magically be healed? Even in 50 years the climate would probably be no different than now.

A large part of the answer to that question depends on what we do with our carbon sinks - e.g. our forests - and whether we clear them for grazing land.

But what would doing that do to the actual economy of the world? No shipping, no flying, no import or export of goods, heck even no internet. Before the climate could even "heal" itself from CO2, countries would be fighting, wars over resources would happen, even just neighboring cities would be fighting for resources.

Quite a bit of the problem is that we've often been stupid about how we use our resources.

My building science prof was fond of pointing out that our campus' computer science building (which was all glass on the outside, like a big greenhouse) was built facing the "wrong" direction, and if the design was rotated 90 degrees, the university would've been able to hire at least one more professor with the money they would've saved in energy costs associated with cooling the building.

We as a country are working toward greener options, but to say that we can "cause" the climate to change without mother Earth lending a hand it pretty exaggerated.
Again, if your fight is about passion for animals, that's fine. But climate change is not a byproduct of industrialized farming. Climate change happens with or without the help of man.

:sarcastic

Deforestation and climate change

​

​

​

Estimates on the contribution of deforestation to carbon emissions vary, but are commonly held to be around 19 per cent of global emissions – greater than those emissions produced by the whole of the global transport sector (Figure 1). The bulk of emissions from deforestation arises when land is converted to agricultural production, particularly if forests are first cleared with burning.​

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/intro_factsheet_27nov07_lr.pdf

And that's only the impact of preparing the land to be farmed in the first place. It doesn't even consider the impacts of the farming itself.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

And that's only the impact of preparing the land to be farmed in the first place. It doesn't even consider the impacts of the farming itself.

It is also a big issue for world hunger.

According to the USDA, growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the U.S. water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain.[11] In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1.[12] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits,

Peta says you can't be an environmentalist if you eat meat. This of course is over stated, But there is some of truth in the statement. The world must eat much less meat.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm against them. I love animals, but they go too far. They also don't help the image of normal, rational animal lovers, which annoys me.

 

[waitasec]

Sometimes the best way to get the message across is to be harsh

i agree...

if one wants to cause an impact...it's gotta hurt on some levels.

 

[ninerbuff]

I like you a lot ninerbuff but please......

This sounds like the scientist who worked for big tobacco in the 60's who said cigarettes don't cause cancer.

Or, The creationist denying evolution. Very unscientific.

Let's look again real quick. The computer models that are being used are based on yearly output of CO2. As CO2 increases, the temperature does too. I don't deny this. I would have to be a total idiot to say that there isn't a warming of the Earth.
However looking at it from the perspective that we DON'T fully understand how Earth's climate works, we can only estimate what may happen based on computer models. Do these models take into consideration, solar activity? Or even just the orbiting of Earth right now (since it's an elliptical orbit). Any difference in just solar activity alone, would change the computer model.
It's not like finance or even weight gain where science has almost absolute knowledge to predict what can happen. Earth's climate changes on it's own, and while we may have some influence or even accelerate it some, there really isn't anything man can do to change it. We know what causes earthquakes, but do you think that industrializing an area (like SF or LA for example) and putting more "weight" in certain areas than others affects them? I doubt it.

 

[ninerbuff]

Actually, volcanos generally create short-term global cooling because of the extra particulates that they release into the atmosphere. Remeber the Mount Pinatubo eruption?

I don't dispute that, I'm just stating that a volcano produces more CO2 in one eruption than we could do in a decade.

A large part of the answer to that question depends on what we do with our carbon sinks - e.g. our forests - and whether we clear them for grazing land.

And also what do we do to supply energy to the cities we already have established? Obviously we won't all use gas, that would only increase CO2. I'm for nuclear power, but that's another thread.

Quite a bit of the problem is that we've often been stupid about how we use our resources.

My building science prof was fond of pointing out that our campus' computer science building (which was all glass on the outside, like a big greenhouse) was built facing the "wrong" direction, and if the design was rotated 90 degrees, the university would've been able to hire at least one more professor with the money they would've saved in energy costs associated with cooling the building.

Lol, there's lots of stupid things we do to waste or misuse resources.

:sarcastic

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/intro_factsheet_27nov07_lr.pdf

And that's only the impact of preparing the land to be farmed in the first place. It doesn't even consider the impacts of the farming itself.

Food will always be at the top of the list for any country. Unfortunately, the industry is like any other, spend as little as possible and make as much profit as possible.

I doubt anyone here would put their full efforts (unless they are already a farmer of some sort) into gardening and raising their own food.

 

[ninerbuff]

It is also a big issue for world hunger.

According to the USDA, growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the U.S. water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain.[11] In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1.[12] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits,

Peta says you can't be an environmentalist if you eat meat. This of course is over stated, But there is some of truth in the statement. The world must eat much less meat.

World hunger has more to do with greed than eating meat. While the figures are astounding at how much grain and corn are given to livestock, would that translate ending world hunger if that food was established and dispersed to other countries? I doubt it. It's the countries governments themselves that are responsible for world hunger, not people who decide to eat meat.