DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
On belching you mean.I happily concede that you're an expert on flatulence.
On belching you mean.I happily concede that you're an expert on flatulence.
The need for most of which has never existed - unless agribusiness profits are classified as a "need". Which they are, quite often, for some reason, but not here."That's not true, in general - only as applied to current livestock and farming practices."
The need for which will only increase.
Point of order:My point is "The Astonishing Hypocrisy of Climate Alarmists" when the solution is obvious. Governments should be promoting plant-based diets.
OK then. It might be better to arrange a concise thesis in the OP than just post over an hour long video.My point is "The Astonishing Hypocrisy of Climate Alarmists" when the solution is obvious. Governments should be promoting plant-based diets.
Most certainly, AGResearch is more credible than a pirated denier video that keeps getting pulled for copyright violations.Most certainly todayifoundout.com isn't as credible as the U.N. report cited in the documentary.
In what way is the video a denier video? Why aren't you listening to our resident expert on cow flatulence?... a pirated denier video
Well, now it's just snow.In what way is the video a denier video?
The thesis of the documentary is stated in under a minute, starting at the 4 minute mark.Point of order:
SciFo members have been infracted for posting videos without supplying their own arguments. Videos a lot shorter than an hour and a half, too.
I think that reading generally requires more concentration and effort than watching TV. These people don't want to have to think too hard.What is it about climate change deniers (and anti-vaxxers, and UFO believers) that makes them unable to process any information unless it is presented as a video? Perhaps trouble reading, or a steady diet of Youtube videos, makes them more susceptible to conspiracy theories, science denial and other pernicious memes.
Then you can summarise it in a line or two, can't you? Why don't you?The thesis of the documentary is stated in under a minute, starting at the 4 minute mark.
29 November 2006 – Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.Then you can summarise it in a line or two, can't you? Why don't you?
The most appropriate section would be one dedicated to true science breaking taboos.Shouldn't this be in the Breaking Moos section?
In my casual, undocumented reading of climate alarmists I have found that most, possibly all, have been equally critical of our intensive farming methods, meat eating and cattle rearing. Hence, no hypocrisy. Case closed.The most appropriate section would be one dedicated to true science breaking taboos.
I'm all for promoting plant-based diets (although since I am not in favor of powerful, authoritarian governments, I don't think taxing people is the way to accomplish that, for several reasons.)Governments worldwide should be promoting plant-based diets and hefty taxes on meat consumption.
It's not hypocrisy. Climate activists, which I assume you agree with, since you brought this livestock matter to our attention, support any measures to reduce greenhouse gasses, including methane. Meat happens to be a life-sustaining issue, and taking any measure that might result in more difficult access to meat is political suicide, and a class issue. The nature of these issues are very different, even if they seem to fall under the same category. The government does in fact promote eating more plants.The astonishing hypocrisy is that virtually all climate alarmists refuse to mention the most obvious solution: Governments worldwide should be promoting plant-based diets and hefty taxes on meat consumption.
If you're not for wise government and the rule of law, then you're for anarchy. Right now, the environmentally catastrophic meat, dairy and egg industry are heavily subsidized by taxpayers, which is the exact opposite of what justice demands. Justice requires that polluters should be paying damages to repair the environment that they are destroying. What you're really advocating is Ayn Randism, which is rightly labeled the first demon's message. http://truthinverity.org/three-angels-messages/I'm all for promoting plant-based diets (although since I am not in favor of powerful, authoritarian governments, I don't think taxing people is the way to accomplish that, for several reasons.)
If you believe that, then you need to watch the Cowspiracy documentary for an eyeopening experience.Climate activists, which I assume you agree with, since you brought this livestock matter to our attention, support any measures to reduce greenhouse gasses, including methane.