It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Climate Change Causes Your Government Doesn't Want You To Know About

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:54 PM
a reply to: Anosognosia

I still can not believe that we humans that occupy more of this earth than animals do not product more methane.

With all the bloating in this earth in humans, with all the GMO crap that people eat.

I say lets plug everybody, animals and humans,

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:55 PM
In 2025 the Climate Change Tax will be around $350.00 per month per citizen, $4,200.00 per person per year. Parents and legal guardians will need to pay for their dependents until they turn 18.
Mandatory Health Insurance will be $280.00 per person per month with the lowest policy, $3,360.00 per person per year.
The average family of 4 will pay $30,240.00 per year in mandatory taxes. Forever.

Game over.

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:00 PM
a reply to: dimaryp

Great post dimaryp.

I feel the same way. I love eating meat, and have a hard time imagining a world without it. I don't think the answer is to stop eating meat all together, but if we want to be able to keep feeding the people of earth 20, 50, and 100+ years from now, we need to make some changes.

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:04 PM
a reply to: Indigent

I am not saying that nothing at all is being done to try and combat this issue, but have you ever heard the MSM or the Obama administration talk about livestock agriculture?

I know I haven't. I do however see endless amounts of fear mongering speeches/news articles/studies/TV specials etc...on CO2 and how it is going to destroy mankind.
edit on 9-12-2015 by Anosognosia because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:22 PM

originally posted by: Anosognosia

TY! I think if we can focus on this aspect of climate change, we can expose the hidden agendas, and at the same time actually help the environment.

Are you familiar with a open sourced investigative journalist by the name James Corbett?

If not I highly recommend his work, starting with his breakdown of an individual by the name of Maurice Strong, not many know of his name, however he founded the United Nations Environmental Panel, which went on to create the IPCC. The man made his fortune with rockefeller oil interests. I believe you will find this information interesting to say the least!

The man is no longer with us, given that he worked for globalist and pushed the population agenda, one can only hope his agenda went along with it!

edit on America/ChicagoWednesdayAmerica/Chicago12America/Chicago1231pmWednesday11 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:44 PM
a reply to: elementalgrove

Do you know what episode it is where he goes explores a topic tangent to food production with Ezekial Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel's brother). The topic of food production ties in directly with bioethics and population control.

The excerpt from the talk is on Corbett's website here:

Why would I include that?

Well Dr. Emanuel is closely tied to the organizations that are working to direct food and health policies so I think when examining the climate impact of food it would be good to identify the players (and the bench).

The cowpiracy kid even hails Bill Gates as a promoter of the innovative farming techniques which could be more sustainable and no cause is an island (or is it man?) so it would be good to look here also.

Food World Order

Corbett is a professed anarchist and as such he is much better at politics and non-science research so there are several links to science which really isn't being presented properly.


posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 12:35 AM

almost every major environmental organization refuses to acknowledge that a major factor in climate change is Methane produced by Livestock &/or Humans

thats cause it doesn't fit into their agenda of having the west paying for their Carbon Tax scam...

India has the largest cattle inventory in the world followed by Brazil & China.

The countries with the largest population in the world by far are China & India

Pre-1800 Buffalo population 60 million

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 12:36 AM
Imagine if the methane was heating our homes and running our cars, well, there are better methods but they do need to start harvesting the methane.

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 01:48 AM
This needs to be moved to the hoax bin. Cows and people have more effect on climate than the huge flaming orb in the sky......... I must have been blinded by the light.

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 01:50 AM
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

At the core of just about everything that does not make sense within the world at large, I have always suspected the Eugenicists, which now I have learned, sometime ago, morphed into the field of Bioethics!

It does not surprise me in the least that Dr. Emanuel would be that criminal Rahm's brother.

Thanks for the information FBB, it much appreciated!

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 02:06 AM
I have heard that methane is the result of the breakdown of cellulose. This is in most plant life. So it makes no difference if this gets broken down inside a cow, sheep, elephant, kangaroo, human or simply left to decompose by itself. It will create methane. So does mowing the lawn. But what are you going to eat? Cropping does more damage to the planet than letting livestock eat grass. Grass fed livestock is more natural than growing crops. Cows are just tamed aurochs when it is all said and done and are really wild animals like everything else. It is a silly argument.
edit on 10-12-2015 by grumpy64 because: because

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 02:20 AM
I always wonder how these discussions will look like in 10 years.

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:42 AM
To me its always been common sense that food production, the number of mouths to feed and the waste products are going to have to be absorbed by the earth's eco system. Once we get to a point of over population/production on this things alone, without our urban spread, industrial requirements, the number of trees, deserts etc etc there is going to be some kind of reckoning, which ancient beliefs claim to have happened to us in the past if one takes any of them seriously.

Just looking at our population and its requirements along with the necessary environments to provide food etc its obvious we are coming fast to crunch time.

Tragically it should have been avoidable. People don't have to breed as though humanity is going out of fashion and we shouldn't be expecting to give them financial incentives to produce more than they can personally support. Our throw-away society, despite many people's great efforts at recycling (which amounts to zilch when one looks at factory production of goods) far extends everyday needs. I rather expect though we are past turning things around, although were people asked if they would want to I suspect the majority would jumpy at it - its the greedy and needy though who would do anything to keep going to the bitter end.

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:45 AM
Interesting, but I don't think this is quite right.

I found a short description of the study you're citing and it says:

In a paper published by a respected thinktank, the WorldWatch Institute, two world bank envrionmentalists claim that instead of 18% of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51%.

They claim that the United Nation's figures have underestimated the greenhouse gases caused by tens of billions of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and other animals in three main areas: methane, land use and respiration.

Assuming the real figure is 51% (as CO2 equivalent) it does not mean that livestock agriculture would be contributing 51% to the increase in CO2 every year because the net-effect from livestock would be self-neutralizing. When these animals respire and poop-out greenhouse gases at the same time they are also taking in the same greenhouse gases when they inhale and eat food; so I suspect it is something that would produce little change at the end of the day. The same thing applies to natural CO2 emissions which are about 750 gigatonnes/year and account for 96% of all emissions.

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:49 AM
Assuming natural CO2 emissions are in equilibrium of course...

EDIT: I haven't read the study as of yet so maybe that 51% are newly-created emissions though it would be remarkable to me if that were the case.
edit on 10-12-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 05:17 AM
a reply to: Anosognosia

The really BIG Elephant in the room is that we do not live in a greenhouse . A green house doesn't have oceans nore does it have Arctic poles . A greenhouse is designed to trap heat and does much better when saturated with CO2 .(plant food) ....A greenhouse after construction needs maintenance to perform it's function .If left alone the only plants capable of growing would be weeds . It's a kind of laboratory .Not all lab experiments will work because some conditions need thing from outside . The best models have failed to correlate the relationship of CO2 and earth's temperature . The models diverge from reality . The models must be missing some factors ....

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 05:45 AM
a reply to: grumpy64

Imagine for a moment of the great heard's of Bison and Caribou not long ago just in North America . I am sure that Africa's populations have decreased as well . I have seen a number of CO2 making up only 4% of the earth's greenhouse gas .A small portion of that 4% is man induced .The earth's sensitivity to CO2 correlates well with plant growth but not with temperature in that ,CO2 follows temperature rise .At least that is what the historic records show .History shows big fluctuations in both CO2 and Temp's with CO2 always following . There is a cart and horse principal . Trying to marry the two rather then considering the relationship to be more akin to cousins ....

Have you noticed that there has been papers produced recently addressing what is called the Pause . This to me signals that there is a Pause because if there were not then they would have no need to address the question . I wish there would be a real debate but the consensus people cant or wont do that .... They are plenty capable of producing peer review papers showing they are right but simple accounting can be in error as well as being correct .

I think there needs to be two different teams and let the debate happen for all to see . Give us your best ....I would love to watch that show .....

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 05:54 AM
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Without fossil fuels and large electrically and gas powered machines, current farming practices would be bankrupt including the meat industry since meat production requires much more water and fuel than protein from other sources like grains, beans, seeds and animals lower on the food chain. Diet for a Small Planet was followed by another two dozen books by Francis Moore Lappe and her daughter on the subject that have been substantially ignored as was Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. We would need 3-5 planets if all earthlings ate the diet of Americans and used the energy we use.

The folks are missing the point that this planet cannot afford the energy consumption OR food consumption
patterns of the rich US population. Cowspiracy should be required in schools. Yet, there are only about 5% vegetarians in the US. We have a long way to go. One of the best ways to learn to give up meat is to take up fasting, after a few long fasts, meat is repulsive to eat.
edit on 10-12-2015 by EarthShine because: mis spelled a word and added a couple words

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:36 AM
a reply to: Anosognosia

It would seem that the best alternative all around is to humanly house livestock in a pressurized building where the methane can be captured and re-used as an on-site energy source (heating boilers to produce steam) or even just to burn it off.

Unfortunately, people don't realize that rain forests are also a huge source of methane.

My thoughts is that the pattern of warming and cooling that changes naturally every 30 years is actually normal to our climate and it is not necessary to do anything at all.

Tired of Control Freak

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:39 AM

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
This needs to be moved to the hoax bin. Cows and people have more effect on climate than the huge flaming orb in the sky......... I must have been blinded by the light.


new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in