Raisin Caine
And just what did Elizabeth say that contradicts "HUMANS FIRST!!!"? She said that there is a sturdy that says that developing nations are following the bad habits of the developed nations. If we want to ensure that there is enough food for "HUMANS FIRST!!!" shouldn't we be developing sustainable methods of cattle ranching?
Are you a "lukewarmer" or a denier? Because I would really like to know how an electric car, charged with solar panels, in California would have any effect on food production and clean water in Africa, other than to neutralize whatever threat, big or small, that additional carbon dioxide poses.
Guys i'm going to let you in on a little secret. Basically for the last 2 or so months i've been making $4000 /month by cheating at online roulette. I just watched a youtube video that taught me the method: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMn3sdBcN...
One more question that proves you don't have any interest in the truth.
It's been pointed out in here numerous times that there are physicists, chemists, oceanographers, meteorologists, statisticians, ecologists, biologists, botanists, geologists, etc., that work on climate, so the expertise in many different areas come from them being experts in many different areas, each with their own area of specialty. That really shouldn't be so hard for someone with an advanced degree--like you--to understand.
We won't put all of the blame on you for conflating two different studies, part of that blame can be placed on the reporter for not making it clearer. It does show typical sloppiness on your part, though.
Hah I bet he got funding from the corn industry, It is difficult if not impossible to raise poultry and pigs, without artificial feeding.
Whereas cattle (and sheep) can be raised completely free range, you just have to herd them from place to place, and round them up when you need to harvest them, this means of farming is good for the cattle, is good for the land, and good for the people who eat the meat (much tastier healthier meat)
There was once 60 million bison on the American plains, there are no where near that number of cattle raised, so if 60 million buffalo did not cause land/climate damage why should free range cattle.
When they give results that are not factual. Basically, no one is really an expert when it comes to climate. No one really knows when and how a calamity or disaster strikes. Just my two cents.
Certainly not in temperature collection and calculation. The are screaming that the temperature is going up when, in fact, it is declining. Even Phil Jones was forced to admit that.
Certainly not in their predictions for Manhattan is still above water. They predicted that it would be under water by the year 2000.
Certainly not at climate modeling. For they hit 100% wrong in their findings.
Certainly not in their assessment of the melting of the Himalayas.
Certainly not in their assessment of the melting of Mount Kilimanjaro.
Trevor, "disappointed to note the tone and content." Are you hearing things again? Tone is usually a sense that ears gather in. We are using typed words on the internet. No ears involved. I guess greenies have a true sixth sense. Do you contribute that to evolution?
Changing your eating menu will not affect the climate at all.
Yeah, it's called living in the real world and thinking for one's self.
Many of them have become quite adept at getting published.
However most seem to have somehow completely missed or ignored this basic instrument remedial course.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/v...
There is a broad (97%) consensus among published climate scientists that climate scientists are experts at everything.
So there you have it. Do not question anything a climate scientist has to say.
A new study shows off climate scientists expert advice in dietary practices and agriculture related to water usage, fertilization and raising farm animals in general: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-scientists-beef-20140721-story.html
Well actually, the study itself was not that scientifically rigorous with one the lead scientists, Ken Caldeira, noting his study amounts to a "broad "rule of thumb" estimate".
He further shows another aspect of his expertise by noting that "the developing world is adopting the bad habits of the developed world,”. How dare they?
In the end, these scientists figure their work, regardless of it being "rule of thumb", is robust enough to "guide not just consumer choice but also government policies".
Let’s see, you have a collaborative study by one person from the Physics Department at Bard College, two people from the Department of Plant Sciences at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, and another from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/0...
I do not see that as unreasonable – especially compared the number of Deniers who claim to be climate experts even though they cannot define science, have never studied any science, have never done any science, and have never published anything about any science.
It also makes a great deal more sense than believing that thousands of scientists from numerous fields of science are all conspiring in a socialist plot to destroy western civilization.
Well, if you'd bothered to look you'd have discovered the following.
Firstly, the authors of the study about cattle, dairy products, pork, poultry, etc are Gidon Eshela, Alon Sheponb, Tamar Makovc, and Ron Milob. If you look at the affiliations of the authors you'll find they work for the Physics Department, Bard College, the Department of Plant Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, and Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. That seems like the right mix of people to be talking about dairy and crops and climate effects on those ...
Ken Caldeira, who is quoted, is a Carnegie Institution ecologist. His paper isn't the same as the first. His paper examined the increase in CO2 emissions due to livestock. There is no suggestion that that study wasn't scientifically rigorous. What he's saying is that, based on the rises his paper identified, the 'rule of thumb' is that the practices of livestock farmers in developing nations is following the 'bad habits' of the developing world, hence leading to massive increases in CO2 emissions. That's a valuable statement. It suggests that western nations need to help developing nations adopt best-practice to minimise their CO2. Hardly controversial ...
Your outrage should be tempered with a bit of reading rather than jumping to a conclusion.
Well I certainly think this guy knows what he is talking about. In some developing countries, they are treating AIDS by raping virgins, as it should be done. What happens if they adopt our bad habits of treating AIDS with medication??? And can you actually imagine if they adopted our bad habits of sanitation, water purification, irrigation and crop production??? Then where would they be???
The horror. They might actually extend their lifespan and have to live an average 20 years longer. OH THE HUMANITY!!!
Elizabeth.
HUMANS FIRST!!!
You environuts can prattle on and on all you want about CO2 emissions or whatever new idiotic environmental apocalypse runs through those brains of yours. BUT HUMANS FIRST. Do not even pretend that the developing countries should not be doing all they can to feed and provide clean water to their people, regardless of the CO2 emissions. Because lets be PERFECTLY honest.
Your made up catastrophe has shown NO DEATHS while these people are dying in the millions. Some self-righteous well-fed pompous professor sitting in the lap of luxury should be more careful with the idiocy he decides to spew. "How dare they?" is entirely correct, unless those professors would like to go and live in those third world countries and eat as little as they do.
Considering that the study was into the emissions of greenhouse gases then climate scientists are probably the best placed people to comment on the issue. Had they been advising on policies regarding cattle rearing, meat processing, dietetics etc, that would have been a different matter, these are areas that other people are better qualified to discuss.
The revelations aren’t at all new, the authors merely revisited something that has been known about for a long time. Farming and agriculture produce a little over half of all human emissions of methane and over three-quarters of our total emissions of nitrous oxide, which are respectively the third and fourth most significant greenhouse gases (in terms of contribution to global warming).
The purpose of studies like these are to look at emissions from the food industry and to examine ways in which to reduce emissions in such as way as to have minimal impact on the farmers, retailers, consumers etc.
When I saw the question I thought it might be a serious discussion about weaknesses in our understanding of climate science, so I was disappointed to note the tone and content of what is really rather a trivial question.
- - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO RAISIN CAINE
Re your added comment: Your comment is not pertinent to the article, not to the question and not to my answer. Irrational.
You refer to it in the context of the “whole discussion” when the reality is that it’s one single abstract sentence. Again, irrational.
You react as if Caldeira is condemning developing countries when in reality he is making a statement of fact in the context of highlighting an existing problem. Once again, irrational.
- - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO SAGEBRUSH
Dictionary.
I haven't seen anywhere where climates scientists are expert in anything frankly, including climate. Our self proclaimed climate scientists are expert on whatever the latest leftists Zeitgeist is, whether it is gay marriage, drought, or whatever.
They are against beef, not because it is harming the planet, but because it is a leftist cause and that is their primary, almost sole objective. If climate change wasn't useful in pushing the cause, they would drop it in a heartbeat.
Cows have been domesticated for over 10 thousand years across Africa and Eurasia and into the New World. They have been a benefit to mankind in so many different ways and allowed us to prosper and flourish which makes them a target for alarmists because of who alarmists are, not because of what cows are.
Nope, they know EVERYTHING. (sarcoff)
