Farting mooses (meese?) more dangerous to global warming than cars

Uh oh...looks like a moose generates more CO2 than a car does....should we kill all the mooses (meese?)??? And what about Cows as well, should we kill them all?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html

Also, just for those global warming nuts out there...SC almost tied a record for the most # of consecutive days over 100 degrees...but didn't. That record was set in 1900, before cars....

and also, NYC has set a record for the coldest day in August....global warming anyone??

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_233143509.html

 

You think the greenhouse gasses produced by 100 thousand moose is comparable to the carbon emissions of hundreds of millions of cars? If that is the level of scientific enquiry you are capable of id suggest you stay out of topics on global warming and stick to simpler things, like my little pony or computer games.

Even if the moose produced 1000 times the greenhouse gasses as a car the sheer amount of them would still make their contribution utterly insignificant.

I see you anti-global warming nuts as being on a level with the last few hundred people still protesting that the earth was flat after everyone else had accepted it. Give it up, The planets weather is changing, It's a fact.

 

This is why reading is important and you should do it before a kneejerk reaction. The story says that 1 moose emits more CO2 than 1 car.

Directly relating to Norway.

On the plus side, Norweigens are about to take out 35,000 cars this year:

 

That's pretty funny.

But, let's get real. D16man, do you really want to hang your hat on a couple of atypically cool days? This is where you are resting the strength of your viewpoint?

Additionally, please let's not try to construct an argument based on a few paragraphs in Der Spiegel, while dismissing, as has been done with alacrity on this board, the overwhelmingly preponderant view of the world scientific community - Nobel Laureates, and lesser company alike - as "on the take." It smacks of, uh, just a bit of hypocrisy, and the very political agenda you accuse us envirowackos of.

The day a moose starts cropdusting your average fjord or the mountain meadows above with polycyclic hydrocarbons, NO2, CO, SO2, Benzene, and a host of suspended airborne nasties (before we even move beyond cars to industrial effluent generally), let me know, because we're truly screwed. Have you seen a moose?

Alas, on the other hand, having been at the business end of a moose cow with her youngin's, I can vouch for the dangers of "suspended particles" coming from her business end. But I'd still take her output to the L.A. 405, 5:45 p.m., July 7. Nothing like descending through the pass into that soft vermilion sky, like shot silk - only to know it's all of us taking a big dump on the air we all breathe.

 

There is no global warming! Screw the United Nations carbon tax!



D

 

I think you must have missed out the in that post - you did didn't you?

 

What knee-jerk reaction? I was asking him what he thought. Put your glasses on. See that squiggly line and a dot at the end? That symbolises that the sentence preceding it is a question.

I want to know if he thinks that the contribution from all the moose is as damaging as the contribution from all cars. If it isn't then the article is fallacious, His point is misleading and you just showed yourself up for 1) not understanding a basic tenant of the English language and 2) showing solidarity with an argument that is more interested in misleading people than it is in telling the truth.

 

I loved reading that as I sit here in Alaska, with moose everywhere. So kudos to my fellow Alaskans who are doing their part to reduce global warming by shooting their annual moose for the dinner table.

 

Shibby


D

 

Phew! Thanks, I was a bit unclear on the whole thing until now.

 

If farting is a cause of "global warming" then I'm afraid I'm one of the worst offenders. In my life, I may have single handedly caused a four mile wide hole in the ozone layer

 

so can you honestly say that data collected over the last 175 years (Thats a stretch) is acurate in predicting global warming, considering the earth is thousands (if not millions, scientists can't agree) years old???

 

Are you serious?

 

Uh, I'd say the available data, accepted, analyzed and reported on by Nobel Laureates (here - one: Rowland; another, Crutzen and their colleagues globally is likely a bit more rigorous than a referenced article in Der Spiegel, or an atypically cool day, yes.

You see, you dismiss, let's say, 175 years of data, and you dismiss the work of folks a helluva lot brighter than both of us put together, which is fine. Except you then you pose an article in Der Spiegel and a couple of atypical weather examples, measured in days, as proof of your position. Therein lies the rub, and my problem with your logic here, friend.

To your final statement, do you have a source indicating there is disagreement among scientists as to whether the earth is thousands, or millions of years old?

 

I don't dismiss 175 years of Data....what I do dismiss is that this is ALL that the global warming community is looking at...they fail to look at anything else. Scientists have already proven the earth goes in cycles, that there was an ice age, and that more than likely some sort of heat wave perhaps killed off the dinosaurs....but regardless of all that, all Owl Bore looks at is 175 years of data....how many hurricane's last year? How come Nasa had flawed data? How come the earth produces more CO2 than humans? facts, facts, facts....these are always ignored by people like you?

 

Why do you, and folks like you, continue to bring up the straw man Gore, yet ignore the world scientific community, the studies they conduct, and the facts they use? The usual answer, when it comes to this, is that the entire world community of scientists squarely in the "we're screwed if we don't cool it camp" are simply on the take, in the hands (or pockets) of some kind of media conspiracy.

I wouldn't be accusing one of ignoring facts so blithely, brother.

And again, I'll repeat: you said there is argument between scientists over whether the earth is thousands v. millions of years old. I ask: source, please?

 

i also read somewhere that animals eating plants and producing gas is not adding to the carbon to the system, because they plants are already in the system, and would have rotted when they died producing the same carbon

whereas fossil fuels take carbon from the earth and add it to the system, I'll try to find a link

 

Amen Brother

 

How many millions of cows, bulls, antelopes, reindeer, bison etc.. are there in the world? Obviously they all eat grass and they all fart. Therefore, they all emit this gas.

How can this amount of gas be attributable to the poor old moose?

Now, for a more interesting topic. How about someone measure what the stinkiest farts are from which animal?

Col

 

Contest over. Max, my loyal labrador, takes the win.

At this very moment, as a matter of fact, with a lazy lift of his head, and an accusing glare my way, saying "that you?"