The consequences of climate policy ...

I've always said it, and I think personally it's a conspiracy ... so I put it into general conspiracies, feel free to move it if you think it's in the wrong category.

Just this morning I came across this in the local newspapers here.

Nötköttet är den största miljöboven

Basically, what this is stating is that to help the climate problem we should consume less beef and drink less milk. The reason is, that cows fart too much ... literally speaking. It states, without a blink of an eye, that methane is a huge problem for our planet and is making the association, that to live ... we need to reduce the live stock.

A dangerous president, but where we are going in my opinion, is that we have already accused the human race of the climate change. All this, is not nature ... but it's literally our fault. Now, we make the association that "cows fart" is dangerous to our health, and we need to reduce the stock.

How much further down the road, do we have to go ... before the association of "reduce the human population" is made. If you think about it, that stating seriously that "cow farting" is dangerous to the climate. Is only one step away from saying "we need to attack the real cause of the climate problem ... the human race".

To me, the entire climate discussion is wrong ... the human race is not the cause of the climate change. The climate change, is the cause for the increase in human population. But fear, is a strong driver of human activities and people are afraid of what the climate change will have as a consequence. And we already starting to see ... just a glimpse, of how far this will go ... at the end of the line.

Human population reduction ... is just a step away folks.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Well, frankly I find the suggestion ridiculous.

If you want climate change to slow down, you need to power the transport and energy grids with one hundred percent renewable, low emissions alternatives to the coal, oil, and other fossil products which are doing the job at the moment, prevent nations from exceeding certain parts per billion totals on emissions. That is the starting point. We finish that work, before we get rid of Daisy the cow and her milk. Why? Because milk is one of the most important liquids for bone health, aside from its other benefits health wise.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: bjarneorn

Well, frankly I find the suggestion ridiculous.

If you want climate change to slow down, you need to power the transport and energy grids with one hundred percent renewable, low emissions alternatives to the coal, oil, and other fossil products which are doing the job at the moment, prevent nations from exceeding certain parts per billion totals on emissions. That is the starting point. We finish that work, before we get rid of Daisy the cow and her milk. Why? Because milk is one of the most important liquids for bone health, aside from its other benefits health wise.

Of course it's ridiculous ... that's not the point.

The point is, we aren't even close to "having a problem" yet, and we're already at the "let's get rid of daisy", scenario. And "getting rid of daisy" is just another step into the "reduce the human population", direction.

Think about it, if we're thinking "this" now, when we're actually having plenty ... where do you think we're going to go and do, when we actually start having problems? Getting rid of daisy, is never a rational thought ... and when the problems really start piling up, we're going to get even "less" rational thought.

Actually methane produced by cows is a massive problem to the environment. Without sounding patronising, anyone who knows anything about the climate and the gases that cause it knows this.

However there is a solution, or indeed possibly a few solutions that do not mean we need to reduce the bovine population or our consumption of their products.

There is a but, it may be hard to persuade every cattle owner on the planet to adopt these changes or actually inform them of the changes needed due to locale etc. The additives may also increase cost to farmers, but the energy retained due to the reduction in methane production may balance or out weigh this.

Here are a couple of links, the first two of results from google, but there are many and possibly better ones.

www.abc.net.au...

www.landlearnnsw.org.au...

a reply to: bjarneorn

Get rid of the cow they say eh . I know for a fact that the great heard's of Bison in North America are no longer here as well as the Caribou .With out checking I suspect that Africa has far fewer animals migrating every year .One could imagine that in all parts of the world this is the same . Even the Whales are far fewer and they probably fart too .Probably sounds more like a frump but you get the picture :>) ....The MIC sucks great amounts of fuel to run .From Jets,to Ships ,Submarines, to Tanks and Trucks .Just imagine the fuel that is needed to build this industry ,and then throw on top of that the fuel to run it . But no ,its the cow they say .....yep were going to by that one lol

why not put Beno in the grain? It works on my father-in-law.

a reply to: bjarneorn

The cattle industry has a number of negative impacts on the general environment; it requires a great deal of fresh water and locks land into the cultivation of crops that cannot be eaten by human beings. If grazing land were converted to soybean and other protein rich plants, each acre (or hecatre) of farmland could feed thirty times the human population that raising beef on it could.

Well, if the cow farts are the problem, then it is obvious.

The dinosaurs farted themselves into extinction.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Maybe if you made an attempt to understand the science behind what they are talking about you wouldn't be dismissing cow farts as some silly conspiracy. Methane happens to be a very potent greenhouse gas. Being that this is likely true, it really sucks because I LOVE meat (especially cow meat), but it's not like humans can't survive without eating cows...

a reply to: chiefsmom

The warm blooded dinosaurs more likely died from a dust cloud caused by a meteor that cooled the earth. Global warming is political and when something becomes political truth and logic goes out of the window. It is of course politically correct to not question socialist dogma in any way shape or form.

a reply to: DeadAgain

Actually global warming is scientific. It was the right denying it that politicized it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know, I know. The science is settled. Theory is fact in the closed mind of the liberal.

a reply to: DeadAgain

I never said the science is settled. There is quite a bit about climate science that scientists do not know still. Good job making zero attempt to actually understand this climate science though. I guess propaganda outlets denying it blindly are good enough for you.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bjarneorn

Maybe if you made an attempt to understand the science behind what they are talking about you wouldn't be dismissing cow farts as some silly conspiracy.

It is a silly conspiracy, and there is no science behind it ... it's like many of those popular science mumbo jumbos ... that isn't worth the paper it is written on. And putting a stamp on something, calling it "science", doesn't make it so.

Why don't we just cut to the chase and state ... life is DANGEROUS ... we might even DIE ... let's start killing off all the livestock and human being, so we can LIVE.

If that isn't "obvious" ... than I don't know what is.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DeadAgain

Actually global warming is scientific. It was the right denying it that politicized it.

Really, what is scientific about it?

People gathering information on carbon dioxide and putting it aside information on temperature changes, that are gathered from ice melt/freeze periods.

Do you REALLY think, this is all there is to it?

It isn't scientific, because it's ignoring mountains of data ... just for the purpose of proving an assumption, and that isn't science.

I seem to remember a few years back a scientist found massive plumes of Methane coming from the ocean floor, much more than had been previously theorized.

But since it didnt fit the narrative it was barely a blip on radar screen... its possible since the report I read it was disproved.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DeadAgain

Actually global warming is scientific. It was the right denying it that politicized it.

Really, what is scientific about it?

There is a really complicated answer to this question and going by the hyperbole following your question here, I doubt you are interested in me actually taking the time to explain it to you.

It isn't scientific, because it's ignoring mountains of data ... just for the purpose of proving an assumption, and that isn't science.

Is it now? Which data exactly is it ignoring? Please post it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

i believe its people like you that accuse someone of not understanding the science, not understanding it himself.

originally posted by: theboarman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

i believe its people like you that accuse someone of not understanding the science, not understanding it himself.

Ok. Let's go with that. Explain to me in detail what I'm not understanding about the science of climate science. I'm all ears. Remember, don't discuss anything political. You have to stick to scientific data, definitions, and the scientific method.

Here is your shot to prove me to be full of it. Don't drop the ball now.

If all AGWers fell on their sword there wouldn't be a concern about climate change. It would change as it has done in the past and will do so in the future, regardless if mankind exists, or doesn't exists.