Cattle are a large contributor to methane. But we are working on that. Methane is produced by about 50% of each species of mammal, even humans produce methane, But not all of us do. The methane is produced by a bacteria in the gut, But if you didn't get some of this bacteria from your mother or if you have had a particularly strong course of antibiotics then this bacteria may not be present and you will not produce methane. A number of farmers are working with biologists to formulate a garlic additive for cattle feed that will stop them producing methane.
Garlic is great. It keeps vampires from sucking your blood. Lets hope that there isn't such a large demand for garlic for cattle to keep them from farting and shitting that it causes a world wide increase in the cost of garlic. That it would destroy the Italian food industry!!!!!!
And I am willing to accept your argument, to that point. But the follow up question must be asked. How much of our current round of climate change, is due to man? So you're saying how much of an effect we are having is irrelevant? I hope that isn't what you are saying, because it's pretty silly. Sure, we should do something about it. I'm not arguing that. But how can you select the cure, until you fully understand the disease? Just keep treating the patient with every drug you have hoping you cure him before you kill him? What happened to science as religion? If you truly believe in science, why abandon study now? Why abandon debate and discourse? That's not scientific at all. No problems will arise from being too environmentally friendly? You mean besides public schools encouraging children to rat out their parents for being wasteful, and taxing people into a lower standard of living, which will translate to another transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich? Who do you think it is who will be able to afford the latest energy efficient cars, appliances and consumables? Not the poor. Not a middle class that can't get health insurance. Nope, and they will be doubly penalized for this with carbon credit taxes. Don't tell me there is no cost. You're economically and historically naive, but you're certainly not a fool. As to Monckton, why are you so scared of him? His work has been publicly published, in a journal that will receive peer review. There is nothing secretive about his conclusions or methods, he isn't promoting his science through vague press releases, he's being quite transparent. This is what I am talking about when I talk about environmental fanaticism. He may be right. Why all of the venom for a scientist whose only crime appears to be differing with your preconceived notions, and questioning and exposing a corrupt institute for publishing and promoting lies. If the IPCC was a nazi group, Monckton would be a hero for exposing them. But because it questions, yes ONLY QUESTIONS official climate change doctrine, he will get personally attacked with little regard to discussion of his SCIENTIFIC and MATHEMATICAL conclusions. The first part is the most sensible thing you have said in this thread. Kudos to you. I'd like to see all taxes eliminated, but I will take *some* taxes in the interim. It is a positive step. As far as people changing due to education, that's sorta false. Education doesn't exclusively shape consumer behavior. Price is the largest factor, which is why the tax incentive may be more powerful than education. Besides, a lot of this education, is based on bad science and the lies and propaganda of the IPCC. I'm not spreading misinformation. I'm seeking the truth. Unfortunately, you call everything you don't agree with, proven or not, a lie. This is on it's face, the same behavior that religious nuts project, the very same people you question for not being rational. I have an open mind. I agree it is better to be green than not to. I do agree that man pollutes. But beyond that, I'm not ready to tax or mis-educate the next several generations based on a future calamity that may be entirely man made. Man made propaganda. As far as Monckton (again) you only contested 1-1/2 of his conclusions, so wouldn't you say that calling it a red herring is not entirely genuine? Go back and read everything you have written about Monckton in this thread. Now find one thing substantive about his scientific analysis, not including where I asked you directly about the bullet points. See what I mean? You're attacking the man, and not his research. Keep an open mind, and you will never be a slave.
A lot, probably. Many forests have been destroyed and many species have become endangered or extinct over the ages. Deforestation has an adverse effect on climate. Many people complain of the heat in many places. If everything's so cool, how come?
These are issues that should be addressed, but I am hesitant to put a calamity level cost on it, without having the science to back it up. It is very strange that we use science to determine that there is a calamity (now debunked), but refuse to use science to accurately measure how big the calamity will be, when, and how we can precisely arrest, lessen or combat it. It's like buying a map for a long road trip, then putting it away once you get out of the driveway. These are the questions we need answers too. Hi lightless!
I don't think the sky is falling and maybe the stats are exaggerated to call more attention to this matter. But something definitely needs to be done.
Now that is a position I can get behind. Let's do the research, let's make meaningful effective gains.
I thought you were against direct democracy air is a common. We can't have it any other way Hi, what's up? Do you come here a lot? We currently can barely predict the weather for a week or so. How are we supposed to know precisely the effect we have on the climate over periods of decades? We can only make calculations and get an estimate. But hey, let's asume the scientists would come to a conclusion and find out our exact influence on the climate. Would their conclusions even be accepted? I mean seriously, dude, most of the world's population is still debating wether people were made by god or allah or brahma (or whatever the hell other people believe) with "evidence" such as "my book sais so" and "my uncle is not a monkey". Basicly my point is we know for sure we're affecting the climate, we just don't know how much. But frankly I wouldn't bet the very future of humanity as we know it on a bunch of calculations that can't at least calculate for sure what temperature will be this sunday. In conclusion, I think we should do as much as we can now rather than wait until it's too late.
Ok guerilla, time to stir the pot... You state more than once that the Monckton paper you linked to was peer-reviewed. This is not true. There is a disclaimer from the American Physical Society prior to the article (emphasis added) that reads: To be fair, this same disclaimer appears before the pro-global warming article published in the same newsletter, which you can read here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm Incidentally, you can find many of the mathematical formulas you requested that refute Monckton's claims and support global warming in this article as well. Additionally, Monckton has NO degree in physics or any related field. He is by no means an expert on the physical indicators and processes by which global warming occurs. Here's a link to a critique of Monckton's work by someone with at least a little background in physics: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php Guerilla, I actually agree with your belief that more research needs to be conducted before we attempt to do anything about our (supposed) contribution to global warming. I also do not believe that throwing money at the problem will fix anything. But try to hold yourself to the same standards, of reviewing ALL the related facts of an issue, that you expect from other posters.
Damian, you're right. It was not peer-reviewed, but I honestly did not know that. When the article came out, there was no disclaimer posted, reading blog comments, it was added after. That said, people are reviewing Monckton's work, and that is exactly how it should be. It is very creepy to read the pro-climate change blogs, and people call themselves "true believers" and skeptics "disbelievers" in the comments. Very cultish, very unintellectual. Sorry for any confusion or misrepresentation on my part.
I definitely am. Democracy is the God that Failed. No way a guy with a Lysander Spooner avatar would be pro-democracy! My friend, let's just say, you can't imagine it any other way. I choose to believe that air is in (limitless for our purposes) supply, and thus has a cost of zero. As air becomes polluted, "pure" or "clean" air will come at a premium, and be property because there will be a labor and resource cost to clean or purify it. Are you flirting with me? lol I know. It's a real uphill battle. Many people are happy not knowing things or clinging to what they think they know. The future of humanity is not my problem. There is no positive obligation on me to serve the future of the race, if there was, I would be a slave to that obligation. Now from a moral standpoint, I might choose to be a caretaker of the future, or a better steward of the now, but that is voluntary. Great. You start. Let me know what and is not working, and I will help you publicize that, and adopt the better measures my self. Leadership comes from within, not from above.
People have to do more to cut back on pollution and waste. The are only so much resources to go around. Just taking the bus to work or a subway instead of a taxi could help a lot.