Cowspiracy: The Astonishing Hypocrisy of Climate Alarmists

karenmansker said:
I'd like to interject into the discussion an interesting phenomenon . . . . studies (Russian) of the Vostok ice core found that there is definitely a positive correlation between CO2 and global temperature. Unfortunately (for the climate-change fanatics) the study found that rises in CO2 FOLLOWED temperature inceases by about 1000 years. Funny how that works . . . . .!
Click to expand...
Why do you think that's funny? Dinosaurs didn't drive cars or huddle next to cavemen's fires, no matter what the creationists claim.

If you don't have people releasing CO2, then you get the releases when large amounts of plant and animal matter start to decay due to climate change - and they then drive further increases in temperature. Even more proof that CO2 causes warming.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
That would include . . . billvon.
Click to expand...
That would be a lie (or, to put it another way, your usual MO here.)

Do you expect anyone at all to take you seriously after all these lies and misinformation? Perhaps someone in the Trump administration; you could try there.
 
billvon said:
Why do you think that's funny? Dinosaurs didn't drive cars or huddle next to cavemen's fires, no matter what the creationists claim.

If you don't have people releasing CO2, then you get the releases when large amounts of plant and animal matter start to decay due to climate change - and they then drive further increases in temperature. Even more proof that CO2 causes warming.
Click to expand...


Source: http://www.collective-evolution.com...ata-suggestss-global-warming-is-not-man-made/
Vostok Data
The Vostok ice core sample was obtained by drilling down into the ice above Lake Vostok to a depth of 3623m. The graph built from the Vostok ice core data shows us the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. Contrary to current belief today, the Vostok data shows us that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. This means that CO2 is not the cause of the increased temperatures, although it might potentially play a small role. This cannot be confirmed at this time however. The Vostok graph also shows us the cyclical pattern that occurs with warming and cooling as well as the increase in CO2 levels. The graph below indicates the approximate 110,000 year cycles that took place over the past 420,000 years, in which there is a clear relationship between higher temperatures and increased CO2.
 
It is said that if you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water it will jump out immediately (mmm even that sounds suspect but let's go with it because I want to make a point) but if you place said frog in a pot of room temp water and slowly bring it to the boil the frog will stay and get cooked.
I think when it comes to avoiding the warming we will wait until we cook ...mmm cooking.
I think I might do a lamb roast.
A have this rotisserie and use wood from a gum tree takes hours but beats a carrot hands down.
It doesn't matter that it takes a long time I just watch the car races.
Alex
 
billvon said:
Not sure what a laydown is.
Click to expand...

A laydown is "Someone who buys a car in a dealership on the first visit without negotiating," "an easy sale."

And that's a very polite description of a moral coward that is very accepting of injustice continuing without expressing the slightest whimper of protest.
 
karenmansker said:
Evidently you missed this part of the excerpt . . . . ." the Vostok data shows us that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years"
Click to expand...
And you missed the replies, including mine in #176.

Again: what's your point?

Are you trying to argue that the current CO2 started and driven warming doesn't exist and will not continue because some past warmings started in other ways?
 
Last edited:
eugene said:
"Who accepts, approves or tolerates the major environmental disaster known as the meat, dairy and egg industry being subsidized by taxpayers?"
That would include spidergoat, DaveC426913 and billvon.
Click to expand...
Not according to your quotes. They sound if anything kind of disapproving, to the limited extent they address the matter.
 
billvon said:
People demand such things as agricultural subsidies. Since we live in a democracy, that demand is expressed by the government.
Click to expand...

In other words, people demand global warming and you refuse to reason with them because you're a hypocrite that also demands to be subsidized to eat meat, dairy and eggs.

iceaura said:
Not according to your quotes. They sound if anything kind of disapproving, to the limited extent they address the matter.
Click to expand...

Let me guess. You also want others to subsidize you for your consumption of meat, dairy and eggs.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Please post links from a few well-known environmentalist organizations containing such assertions to prove your point.
Click to expand...


Greenpeace address the Cowspiracy issue directly and also note: "The greenhouse gas emissions of the meat industry are greater than every plane, train, car, lorry and boat – put together. Overall, livestock agriculture (including all cows, pigs, sheep etc.) is responsible for about 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions – well below the burning of fossil fuels at 57%, but still of vital importance."

The IPCC seems to have considerable material on the subject. I refer you to this. Go to page 110, Section 4.3.4.2. The IPCC address the issue, not by reducing meat eating, but by better management of cattle and their diets. Nevertheless, it is clear that they consider the issue an important one. As they remark,"Total methane emission from the digestive processes of domestic ruminant animals have been estimated to be between 60 and 100 million metric tonnes per year, accounting for about 15 percent of the global methane emissions, second only to flooded rice field systems."

Friends of the Earth are equally well aware of the issue. Their document, What's feeding Our Food, deals with the broad environmental impact of livestock production. They observe (page 15) "Methane emissions from livestock contribute around 6 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. 71 Cows, sheep and goats emit methane through the digestive process (enteric fermentation), while manure is also high in methane. As meat and dairy consumption increases, methane emissions are predicted to rise by up to 60 per cent by 2030."
 
Ophiolite said:

Greenpeace ... Overall, livestock agriculture (including all cows, pigs, sheep etc.) is responsible for about 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions – well below the burning of fossil fuels at 57%, but still of vital importance."
Click to expand...

Please explain why Greenpeace seems to contradict what other experts have stated.

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.

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author.

Source: Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
In other words, people demand global warming and you refuse to reason with them because you're a hypocrite that also demands to be subsidized to eat meat, dairy and eggs.
Click to expand...
You are, as usual, completely incorrect.
Let me guess. You also want others to subsidize you for your consumption of meat, dairy and eggs.
Click to expand...
You are scoring zero.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?
 
Greenpeace:

We all share Cowspiracy's concerns about the environmental impact of animal agriculture and it's great that these issues are being given more attention. However, our US office declined to take part in this project as they felt sure our position would be misrepresented.
Click to expand...

There is no question that Greenpeace would look bad with their eat less meat or no meat platform when compared to the unquestionable sincerity of a true climate alarmist that has eloquent arguments for all environmentalists going totally vegan.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top