Yeah so global warming huh...

[Judge Jude]

everyone concerned with this issue would best help the cause, or any cause, by not outkicking the coverage

[onejayhawk]

Is there room next to you at that rock you're living under?

BTW, Thanks for finally moving your fixation of me from the 3 year old memes to the new one.

I own a small house.

I can always go to you for humor. Like Congress you never disappoint.

J

[Teenwolf]

I find that rather hard to believe. I'm sure going vegan cuts your carbon footprint, but 70%? I'd need to see data to buy into that.

Here's a couple of articles about how food supply is driving climate change. The first one deals with a study by the UN. The 2nd article talks in more general terms.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...meat-free-diet

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...act-vegetarian

Regarding carbon footprint, the most recent studies say vegan eating cuts your carbon footprint 50%, but I've read it's higher. But you can google any number of articles quoting 50%.

Cattle production alone contributes more to greenhouse gas emissions than all cars and trucks on the planet! Check out this report from the EPA:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemis...gases/ch4.html

Here's another one, this one from the UN, regarding my statement about cattle production's impact being greater than all cars on earth. It's kind of buried in the article, but it states "globally, the agriculture sector is the primary source of CH4 emissions." This is meat being produced for North America, by clearcutting rainforest to create grazing space for our increasing food "needs", which are really preferences.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...2#.VQUOm_nF_8g

Is the United Nations lying to the world about the environmental impact of meat production? What motivation could they possibly have?

The primary greenhouse gas emitted from cattle is 23 times more deadly to the environment than CO2. These aren't made up compounds, or made up statistics, or politically or financially driven studies. This is reality. Nothing will more greatly impact the environment than a vegan diet. I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I'm saving the planet. We're all screwed, as I mentioned earlier. Creatures of convenience, digging our own graves.

[onejayhawk]

Is the UN lying? This is a joke, right?

J

[Teenwolf]

Is the UN lying? This is a joke, right?

J

Everything is a left wing conspiracy to you.

Show me evidence to support your denial. That's how discussions work.

[onejayhawk]

Everything is a left wing conspiracy to you.

Show me evidence to support your denial. That's how discussions work.

No. I do not see a conspiracy, right, left or any other. I simply have no faith in the UN.

J

[bryanbutler]

The evidence indicates that our planet was in a period of extended cooling but that trend got reversed. Best estimates are that this trend got reversed wholly by human activity. Wholly. However, this cannot be stated with 100% certainty.

There can obviously exist other contributions to global warming. However, again, evidence indicates that those contributors were either not adding to global warming at all or very, very little . And herein lies the variance we see in the IPCC report. Note where the apex of the bell curve is regarding at what percentage human activity is the driving force behind global warming. I assume you read the article I linked, right? ""The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C."" That's directly from the IPCC. The strongest likelihood is that global warming is 100% due to humans, according to compilations of studies. As I already stated, the graphs do a better job of explaining than I do - please read the link I've posted.

apologies - got taken away from the forum since friday afternoon. i have not had time to read that article, i will attempt to do so tomorrow.

but absent reading that, i see a claim that 100% of global warming is caused by human factors as indefensible as a claim that there is no global warming, or that 0% of it is caused by human factors. there is simply too much uncertainty in the models to make those extreme claims.

and taking the numbers from your quote, if you put the natural forcings and internal variability numbers each at 0.1%, that means about half of the current warming is caused by human factors (if you take the current anomaly to be 0.4 C).

[Teenwolf]

No. I do not see a conspiracy, right, left or any other. I simply have no faith in the UN.

J

Your lack of faith in the UN doesn't convince me of anything. Read the article and disprove it's points. Make an actual argument, if you please.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Your lack of faith in the UN doesn't convince me of anything. Read the article and disprove it's points. Make an actual argument, if you please.

there will be climate change in Hades before that happens..........

[Teenwolf]

It takes 23-49 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of any of these crops: lettuce, tomatoes, potatoes, wheat, carrots, or apples.

It takes 815 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of chicken.

It takes 1,630 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of pork.

It takes 5,214 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef.

Sustainability is impossible without lowering our demand for meat. California has 1 year of water left! It will only get worse. We need to do something, and I've seen zero other suggestions to helping the problem.

http://abc7news.com/weather/nasa-off...r-left/558932/

In California, you can save more water by not eating 1 lb of beef than you can by not showering for 6 months!

[onejayhawk]

California's problem is too many people living in a desert. You could have Colorado's problem, where they bottle their natural water and ship it out in Coors cans.

J

[Teenwolf]

California's problem is too many people living in a desert. You could have Colorado's problem, where they bottle their natural water and ship it out in Coors cans.

J

You continue to spout opinions instead of citing sources to back up your claims. What's the deal?

[GwynnInTheHall]

You continue to spout opinions instead of citing sources to back up your claims. What's the deal?

Welcome to One Jay land.

[Pogues]

there will be climate change in Hades before that happens..........

Wait...the Browns might win the Super Bowl!?!?!?

[Pogues]

It takes 23-49 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of any of these crops: lettuce, tomatoes, potatoes, wheat, carrots, or apples.

It takes 815 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of chicken.

It takes 1,630 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of pork.

It takes 5,214 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef.

Sustainability is impossible without lowering our demand for meat. California has 1 year of water left! It will only get worse. We need to do something, and I've seen zero other suggestions to helping the problem.

http://abc7news.com/weather/nasa-off...r-left/558932/

In California, you can save more water by not eating 1 lb of beef than you can by not showering for 6 months!

Just a quick search on the internet shows a ridiculous spread on the amount of water to produce any of those meats.

For instance, one site tells me it takes 518 gallons for a pound of chicken, and 704 gallons for a pound of lentils. The site also quotes 258 gallons for a pound of asparagus. Another site reports 2,464 gallons for a pound of beef.

Now I think there is a difference between how much water it takes to produce something and how much water is actually consumed, which I would guess is not taken into account in some of these numbers. Water in the production of many products can be re-used, put back into the water table, and so forth.

Either way, I think your numbers are over-inflated for the production of those meats. Sites I think you would consider referencing are 30-70% lower than your numbers. EPA.gov suggests 1799 gallons for a pound of beef.