Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

What causes global warming?


Recommended Posts

The world is warming. You would be ignorant to the facts to state otherwise.

A better question would be surrounding the cause of global warming. The fact that it is or was warming is indisputable. The fact that global warming appears to have slowed or peaked is also indisputable. The argument over whether the cooling trend will continue is debatable. The root cause of global warming is debatable. The effects of Government intervention and cost/benefit analysis on attempting to spend a trillion dollars globally combating a problem that even the staunchest environmentalists claim is only caused by about 1-3% from human action is also debatable.

Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is warming.

Wrong.

You would be ignorant to the facts to state otherwise.

Wrong again.
The world has gone through a significant warming trend for some time now. Only in the past 7 years has the temperature begun to decline, but it is still far above temps 200 years ago.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The root cause of global warming is debatable.

Why is there only one root cause? Why can't there be two? Three?
There could very well be a dozen causes. This is true. The argument is what is the primary change that is leading to this rapid change in temp.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The root cause of global warming is debatable.

Why is there only one root cause? Why can't there be two? Three?
There could very well be a dozen causes. This is true. The argument is what is the primary change that is leading to this rapid change in temp.
Isn't it conceivable there isn't a "primary" cause?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is warming.

Wrong.

You would be ignorant to the facts to state otherwise.

Wrong again.
The world has gone through a significant warming trend for some time now. Only in the past 7 years has the temperature begun to decline, but it is still far above temps 200 years ago.
Oh really?

http://www.nipccreport.org/

As Congress debates global warming legislation that would raise energy costs to consumers by hundreds of billions of dollars, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has released an 880-page book challenging the scientific basis of concerns that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects.

In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.

The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The glaciers have returned?

Why would the glaciers have to have returned for GW to be declining or peaked?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is warming.

Wrong.

You would be ignorant to the facts to state otherwise.

Wrong again.
The world has gone through a significant warming trend for some time now. Only in the past 7 years has the temperature begun to decline, but it is still far above temps 200 years ago.
But not 70 years ago. :excited:
Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is warming.

Wrong.

You would be ignorant to the facts to state otherwise.

Wrong again.
The world has gone through a significant warming trend for some time now. Only in the past 7 years has the temperature begun to decline, but it is still far above temps 200 years ago.
Ok, so there was global warming for 193 years and global cooling for 7 so far. Since Earth is a million years old (ok, I'm guessing), I bet it pretty-much all evens out in the long run.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is warming. You would be ignorant to the facts to state otherwise.

A better question would be surrounding the cause of global warming. The fact that it is or was warming is indisputable. The fact that global warming appears to have slowed or peaked is also indisputable. The argument over whether the cooling trend will continue is debatable. The root cause of global warming is debatable. The effects of Government intervention and cost/benefit analysis on attempting to spend a trillion dollars globally combating a problem that even the staunchest environmentalists claim is only caused by about 1-3% from human action is also debatable.

Thoughts?

Well lets see. It's June 8th and the high for today here in Michigan is 47 degrees.....and even though you shouldn't need to calculate wind chill in June its probably going to be more like 42 today, and rain. Man, am I sweating.

So please Democrats take some more of my money so you can cool the earth.....cause I want to wear my snowmobile gear to the next golf tournament.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the OP asks what for me is the key question in this debate. Suppose we accept as true:

1. Climate change is occuring.

2. Climate change is harmful, perhaps devastating for humanity's future.

3. We have caused climate change through industrial development, especially the use of carbon based fuels.

The question then becomes: will the proposed solutions to this problem (Cap and Trade, for example) have any effect on the problem? This is something that liberals seem to have difficulty answering, and it is the central issue at hand, it seems to me. We know that these restrictions on our economy are going to have draconian effects. I can live with that, if I believed it would help solve the environmental crisis.

But I have my doubts. I doubt that we can even make a dent with such measures. I doubt that the USA acting alone will really help matters when China and India increase their use of carbon based fuels every year. Until such time as it is proven that these measures will have some positive result, I am against them as too costly.

I would much prefer tax incentives to companies that help us find alternatives to carbon based energy. Nuclear power seems the obvious solution, especially if we can ever develop fusion. But the same environmentalists who are so big on restricting our economy are also against all development of nuclear power plants. I have to say this makes me very suspicious of their motives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the OP asks what for me is the key question in this debate. Suppose we accept as true:1. Climate change is occuring.2. Climate change is harmful, perhaps devastating for humanity's future.3. We have caused climate change through industrial development, especially the use of carbon based fuels.The question then becomes: will the proposed solutions to this problem (Cap and Trade, for example) have any effect on the problem? This is something that liberals seem to have difficulty answering, and it is the central issue at hand, it seems to me. We know that these restrictions on our economy are going to have draconian effects. I can live with that, if I believed it would help solve the environmental crisis.But I have my doubts. I doubt that we can even make a dent with such measures. I doubt that the USA acting alone will really help matters when China and India increase their use of carbon based fuels every year. Until such time as it is proven that these measures will have some positive result, I am against them as too costly. I would much prefer tax incentives to companies that help us find alternatives to carbon based energy. Nuclear power seems the obvious solution, especially if we can ever develop fusion. But the same environmentalists who are so big on restricting our economy are also against all development of nuclear power plants. I have to say this makes me very suspicious of their motives.

If you are going to make those presuppositions, you should probably start another thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is warming. You would be ignorant to the facts to state otherwise.

A better question would be surrounding the cause of global warming. The fact that it is or was warming is indisputable. The fact that global warming appears to have slowed or peaked is also indisputable. The argument over whether the cooling trend will continue is debatable. The root cause of global warming is debatable. The effects of Government intervention and cost/benefit analysis on attempting to spend a trillion dollars globally combating a problem that even the staunchest environmentalists claim is only caused by about 1-3% from human action is also debatable.

Thoughts?

Well lets see. It's June 8th and the high for today here in Michigan is 47 degrees.....and even though you shouldn't need to calculate wind chill in June its probably going to be more like 42 today, and rain. Man, am I sweating.

So please Democrats take some more of my money so you can cool the earth.....cause I want to wear my snowmobile gear to the next golf tournament.

I always use anecdotal evidence when debating scientific issues, too. It makes me feel smart, and quipy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always use anecdotal evidence when debating scientific issues, too. It makes me feel smart, and quipy.

Just like the AGW proponents! There isn't much difference in degree when using one day's worth of evidence or 200 years worth of evidence when we are examining a subject that has existed over billions of years.
Link to post
Share on other sites

listen

we cannot even agree what killed the dinosaurs, or if there were dinosaurs, or how old the earth is, so we cannot freely discuss things like natural cycles, man's impact or lack of impact on them, or their consequence for human existance

science has taken a back seat to religion and politics, 'tis sad but true

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cow farts.

Cows really get a bad rap.

The Inconvenient Cow

In late November of 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization released a startling report. Its official title is “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” References to this report have been frequent in the last year, especially on environmental and nutrition-related fronts. The report accuses the cow of the worst environmental crimes—land degradation, water pollution, acid rain, biodiversity and habitat loss, desertification, deforestation, and foremost among the headlines, global warming. Cows and other ruminants are responsible for generating 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous-oxide, 64 percent of ammonia, and 37 percent of the world’s methane, the U.N. scientists declare.

Ancillary reports that expound upon these figures are everywhere. The American media have enjoyed selling the annihilator-cow theme to an audience conditioned by anti-animal foods propaganda and environmental fabrications, such as the “fact” that greedy farmers in the Amazon eradicate rain-forest for more and more land to graze their cattle.

Syndicated nutrition columnists present us with lists of environmentally friendly food choices, invariably free of any and all animal products, and environmentalists cite the report as further evidence to keep cattle out of national parks and “protected” public lands. But it’s not just the mainstream news networks and publications that have circulated these accusations against livestock.Alternative energy and sustainable living magazines have produced a smattering of recent articles: “Eat Less Meat,” “Meat is Methane,” “Save theWorld; GoVegan.” These catchy titles sit on the magazine rack at your local natural foods co-op.And so the readership of these publications continues to patronize those trendy pseudo-foods like soy milk and veggie burgers—the production of which is a principle reason for deforestation in the Amazon. The other use for soybeans from these degrading land use practices is feed for confinement animals—beef and dairy cattle, pigs, poultry and fish—for which pastured cows continue to be blamed.

INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTALISM

Make no mistake; rainforests are not cleared in any drastic measure by independent farmers who want to graze a few steers. They are cleared by United Nations-supported corporate giants under the guise of feeding the world and alleviating poverty—all for the production of more of their patented seed. This seed, of which the U.N. and its “green” lobbyists are so fond, assumes the role as displacer of traditional food and farming all over the world. That means health-giving foods like lamb tallow for frying, lard for baking, and real butter, which the industry-led dietitians have condemned from on high, are the foods these GMO seeds are displacing. It is no wonder the U.N. has so urgently launched its campaign against livestock—these animals represent the only food source that can supply the people with enough good nutrition to empower them (both physically and emotionally) to resist the global onslaught of food police, biotech crops and chemicals.

Arecent article in Business Week reports that Brazil alone grows over 25 million acres of soybeans—all of which are genetically engineered. The Wall Street Journal reports that Monsanto’s stock has tripled in the last year due to Brazil’s demand for Roundup Ready soybeans—a genetically engineered plant that can withstand multiple, frequent applications of toxic herbicide. Allan Nation, editor of The Stockman Grass Farmer, reports back from his recent trip to Argentina that “eight dollar” soybeans for world export are edging out the domestic, sustainable grass-fed beef industry. Why don’t we hear environmentalists denouncing this supreme symbol of industrial agriculture with the same passion they muster for condemning beef? Why are the green-conscious not boycotting the oilseed plant that literally drinks Middle Eastern oil in the form of petrochemical herbicides? That’s because our society has been conditioned to support a co-opted environmental movement in the name of a chemical-intensive vegetable bypass industry, at the tragic expense of good health to both man and environment via the qualities of grazing animals (those methane-belching creatures that we love to hate) and their products—meat and milk for people, manure for the soil—none of which our society can afford to lose.

DESTRUCTIVE PARADIGM

The real paradox of the report is the way in which it avoids dealing with the twin-conundrum of mass-scale monocultural grain production and confinement animal feeding operations (CAFOs). These are the two destructive pillars of an industry gone wrong, yet the U.N. points its global finger not at bad management practices like feedlots and confinement dairies, but at the cows themselves; not at Monsanto, but at real farmers, who raise livestock in accordance with nature’s principles—on grass.

The U.N.’s accusations ought to be directed at chemical-intensive, industrial CAFO agriculture. Yet the U.N. only presents solutions that fit within the confines of the industrial framework—the framework they are obliged to uphold through the preordained results of taxpayer-funded university research.

Indeed, the solutions have already been written, and at best they are dubious and vague. They include “improved diets for ruminants, which reduce enteric fermentation.” These diets, you can be sure, are grain-based, laced with all kinds of chemical concoctions. No mention of the carbon released into the atmosphere in the production of these “improved diets,” just as there is never any mention of the petroleum requirements to produce corn-based ethanol. Another U.N. solution is an overarching vaccination protocol also aimed at reducing fermentation activity in the rumen. Aren’t these solutions brilliant? The U.N. cuts a check to the likes of Monsanto for the “improved diets,” and to the likes of Merck and Pfizer for the vaccines, all the while reducing “harmful emissions” so that you can enjoy beef from an animal that’s been pumped full of genetically engineered viruses and aluminum, and has had all of its gut flora eradicated, but at least you can eat that beef without a guilty conscience. This is indeed U.N. science at its finest, and it does not have the best interests of the environment, the cow, or the consumer in mind. Its interest lies in perpetuating consumer fear, so as to further its campaign for global governance and corporate farming all over the world.

NATURE’S SOLUTIONS

Such U.N. research will not yield low-cost, common sense solutions—like freeing the world’s beef animals from their feedlot bondage, and returning them to the world’s grasslands and deserts so that their manure may become a product that gets recycled by earthworms into soil wealth—becoming a healing agent—rather than a product of volatile nitrous-oxide generation. The U.N.-sponsored research will not yield solutions like shutting down our confinement dairy camps and using these animals to return the Midwest’s eroded and degraded cropland to the fertile prairie of yesteryear. That thick layer of black gold upon which a blanket of robust native grasses once grew was a priceless gift to us from the American bison—a gift we have chosen to send to the Gulf of Mexico on the order of millions of tons per year via the erosion caused by mass-scale grain production to feed concentration camp cows—animals not designed to eat grain in the first place.

Indeed, if the U.N. chose to, they could suggest the above solutions, which would sequester carbon and add it to the soil bank, thus reducing this apparently harmful greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. As it currently stands, our farming practices both in the field and in the feedlot xidize carbon into the atmosphere causing an historic increase in CO2 levels. A shift from a carbon-releasing agriculture to a carbon-sequestering agriculture requires nothing more than a shift from CAFOs and monocultures to grain-free, all-grass livestock farming. In the process, we could restore the floral and faunal ecology of the Great Plains to its pre-colonial status—a phenomenal, yet highly achievable prospect. One of the greatest ironies of this whole scenario is that many of the world’s environmental activists stand behind the U.N. without examining the agenda behind the “green” façade. This is in large part because many environmentalists have no better understanding of nature and its functions than the apologists of industrial agriculture. These seemingly opposing sides share a common vision for the future—a world devoid of farmers and domesticated animals, with fields of monocultures that stretch to the horizon, and token wildlife preservation zones that remain locked up for eternity. These zones will inevitably begin to deteriorate, as most of them already have, for lack of good land management and husbandry by man and livestock.

In short, what we are lacking from an environmental perspective is precisely that which the U.N. would like to annihilate: farmers who use livestock to enhance and embellish landscapes. These are the wonderful people who supply us with raw milk and butter, grass-fed beef and lamb, pastured poultry and eggs. I would argue that these farmers, those sturdy individuals presented with the daily task of managing plants and animals in harmony with one another for the benefit of their land and their patrons, hold the most supreme understanding of ecological processes and are the world’s true environmental activists. The managed landscapes of these pasture-based farms are the healthiest, most biologically diverse places on earth, and the sheer volume of life in their soils proves it. And had it not been for the advent of an artificial support system called chemical fertilizers and farm subsidies, healthy soil—via livestock and their manure—would be the foundational vehicle for our prosperity and propagation upon the earth.

Let’s now examine the U.N.’s foremost accusation against livestock, specifically as it applies to global warming, and determine whether or not this accusation deserves the merit it is currently receiving in the public arena. Perhaps if we remove the cow from the industrial context within which the U.N. would like her to reside, and put her back into nature’s context—where she ought to be and where grass farmers have put her—she will become our best ally for a future free of environmental devastation and an escalating health crisis.

THE WAR ON METHANE

The U.N. claims that “the livestock sector is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent, a higher share than transport. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants.”

Here we have a process as elegantly natural as the fermentation of forage in the rumen, a process that has occurred since time immemorial, probably on much vaster scales than today, being declared an environmental crime. Unfortunately, our society relies on these world police for the most up-to-date scientific data.The fact is that these data have nothing to do with good science, but are instead science manipulated to support the industrial agenda to plant the earth with more GMO soybeans (see sidebar, page 22). Such an agenda sends profits in the direction of the fossil fuel giants and corporate farms.

I would like to ask the U.N. scientists whether the vast herds of wild methane-generating ruminants are also guilty, or if the world’s wetlands, gurgling methane from their anaerobic decomposition processes on the order of ten times that of cows, or our politically correct forest trees, now found to emit huge amounts of methane through their leaves, are also charged with crimes against the environment. If methane generation regardless of its origin were the problem, the U.N. would be launching a campaign to back-fill the earth’s wetlands and we would lose these divine mechanisms for water purification and retention, these supremely diverse corridors that bridge terrestrial and aquatic life. My point is that even a standardized, globalist bureaucracy like the U.N. would never dream of launching such a campaign, yet without any qualms, they take the fermentation of plant material in the rumen, a perfectly stable, natural process that somehow is in conflict with their current political agenda, tailor it into an environmental offense, and call for its annihilation. On top of that, they use environmental pawns to vigorously spread the word. PETA, The World Conservation Union, Al Gore and the growing vegan contingency are among the many whistleblowers disseminating a politically correct falsehood.

Rumen fermentation is the process, remember, that gives us fats like conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), and bone-building nutrients like vitamin K. The miraculous conversion process, achieved only by ruminants, that takes grass—nature’s most nutritious vegetable but indigestible for humans—and converts it into metabolically available, exponentially superior nutrition for people.With these accusations brought to the table, we can confidently surmise that the rumination process along with the ruminant are certainly under assault, and we must be prepared to defend these animals and our right to consume their products with the same valiant effort with which we have defended raw milk.

The ploy to displace the products of the ruminant from the world’s table is not new. Public relations campaigns from the self-righteous, plant-based diet community have been at work since 1871, when the first butter substitute entered the U.S. marketplace. In 1984, the Center for Science in the Public Interest began its anti-saturated fat crusade, and by 1990, beef and lamb tallow had been replaced by partially hydrogenated soybean oil as the collective, commercial frying fat in the Unites States. I hope we’ve noticed that obesity, diabetes, cancer and heart disease have all increased since we switched from animal fats to vegetable oils.Yet these public interest groups, despite their addiction to lawsuits and bureaucratic control of our nation’s food supply, are not held accountable for the destruction to our nation’s health caused by this politically correct charade.

We are currently witnessing the physical, emotional and moral decay that results from living without animal foods. Remember the “displacing foods of modern commerce” that Weston A. Price spoke of? Today many of these are based on soy and its many derivatives, and any of the other rendered vegetable products from the biotech trough, all sanctioned by the U.N as the foods that will feed the world and eliminate global poverty. A glance at the status of many of these Third World peoples reveals that we further impoverish these once robust, self-reliant communities with every bag of soy flour we deliver to them.

SIXTY MILLION BISON

In his fascinating recent book, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, Charles Mann paints a picture of wild ruminant populations before the arrival of Europeans: “North America at the time of Columbus was home to sixty million bison, thirty to forty million pronghorns, ten million elk, ten million mule deer, and as many as two million mountain sheep.” That’s just North America. We have not even considered the enormous herds pounding the African plains, nearly all of which are methane-producing ruminants including wildebeest, Cape buffalo, giraffes, gazelles, antelope, kudu—you get the point. Even today, these animals number in the hundreds of millions; their numbers were many fold greater in the past. How can it be that we have been able to overlook this perfectly natural scenario and move forward with casting the blame on the world’s 1.5 billion domesticated cattle?

Nature’s herds are by no means light on the land. Reports from the travels of Lewis and Clark attest to the fact that the herds of bison left not one scrap of fodder for their horses to eat, and the land was coated with a sheet of manure so thick, it turned vast expanses of prairie black. This manure, with the help of sage grouse, prairie chickens and dung beetles was then quickly recycled into some of the richest soil on the planet; this is the same manure that the U.N. blames for poisoning our atmosphere with nitrous-oxide.

MIMICKING NATURE

Managed grazing, which attempts to mimic the grazing patterns of these great wild herds, can produce an abundance of nutritious animal foods, while sequestering massive amounts of atmospheric carbon. We are told by the global warming gurus that the earth is heating up due to excess carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere. Through specific grazing strategies we can sequester this excess carbon and form rich, productive topsoil in the process. We do this not by planting more trees, or even setting aside more wildlife preserves. We do this with domesticated ruminants—pulsing the landscape with large numbers of animals for short periods of time.

In nature, bison and wildebeest graze in huge mobs, remaining in one location briefly, and then they move on to fresh ground. They keep bunched together tightly for fear of pack-hunting predators. These ruminants are Nature’s soil-building and fertility management mechanism. We also know that the soils under which these animals graze are our largest land-based carbon sinks on earth. All we need to do, then, is to mimic these native grazing patterns with our domestic stock, and we have an easily achieved, rapid solution to the excess carbon in the atmosphere. The hoof action, manure, urine and saliva all act as bio-stimulants on the pasture, encouraging the grass plants to thicken, bare spots to fill in, and species diversity and succession to accelerate forward from simplicity to complexity.The productive grasslands of the world and the massive herds of herbivores that grazed them co-evolved together. One cannot exist without the other. The grass relies on the ruminant for its full expression just as much as the ruminant relies on grass. Without ruminants to fertilize the soil and break down cellulose in dry climates, prairies quickly become deserts; and with managed grazing of ruminant animals, deserts can be restored to productive land.

GRASS-FED BUTTER: MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY FOOD

Grass farmers produce the most ecologically sensible food on earth, food derived nearly in its entirety from solar energy. Grass-fed butter is perhaps the finest example of solar energy converted into nutrient-dense food for people. Grass-fed meat and other grass-based dairy products are equally wonderful, earth-friendly foods. However, I use butter here to illustrate how we can derive pure, nutrient-dense animal energy from solar energy with very few steps in between. Here’s how it works: Grass plants convert solar energy (and atmospheric carbon dioxide) into plant biomass, and the cow synthesizes that plant material into her own energy via the cellulose-digesting microbes in her rumen. From this energy she then produces milk, of which the energy-rich portion (the cream) is separated. The cream is then made even more energy-dense through churning into butter. No chemicals or petroleum required (except electricity for churning the butter); just the sun, the grass and the cow (and her rumen flora) in an elegantly simple process.

Let’s run a quick comparison to the production of a food that the U.N. and its whistleblowers tell us has a smaller ecological footprint—the production of vegetable oil. First the soil must be plowed; a process that requires immense amounts of diesel fuel. Then the seed, whether it’s rapeseed (canola), soybeans, corn or any other oil-producing seed, must be planted. This is accomplished by a tractor as well, thus more diesel fuel. After the plant begins to grow, the field must be cultivated to kill the invading weeds. Then the fields are sprayed several times by a tractor-mounted rig, dowsing the weeds in oil-derived petrochemical herbicide. If bugs are a problem out comes the pesticide, also derived from oil. Harvest time, and massive combining ensues. The seeds are then trucked cross-country to a factory where a multi-step refining process takes place. The factory is similar in design and practice to a crude oil refinery. After much chemical and mechanical refining of our seed, we have a product, which is not food, but which the U.N. tells us is the earth-friendly substitute for our solar energy-derived butter.The average environmentalist pays little attention to these details, turning his back to the truth. He is not really concerned with the details of how our choices about what we eat influence our soil, our landscape, or our environment as a whole. He is ultimately concerned only with saving one more tree, lobbying for one more acre to be locked away from human influence, which is certainly a reductive proposition. And therein lies the problem with the national park mentality: the lobby to spare land from “negative” human influence also denies it positive human influence.Without warm bodies consciously and periodically disturbing the landbase, whether we use livestock, chainsaws, or other land-healing measures, we will ultimately witness deterioration. Ecosystems are meant to be dynamic, with a lively growth and decay cycle, not held in artificial suspension by political boundaries.

A REVERENCE FOR LIFE

What has the world come to when today’s young teens contemplate childlessness in order to reduce their carbon footprint, and the U.N. is prescribing “defaunating” agents for ruminants to kill their gut flora, and when the predominant rural landscape consists of endless expanses of corn and soy with not one cow and not one farmer in sight? We are certainly entering the age of sterility, not to mention infertility. A reverence for life and all things that give richness to life has taken a back seat to the idea that we must reduce our “impact” on the planet. Our children are now being brought up to believe that their daily activity is a detriment to the earth, and we wonder why the self-esteem of our young people has hit a record low.

Ironically, the call to reduce our environmental impact has caused more degradation than it has spared. Seventy-five percent of the world’s rangelands are considered degraded, not because there are too many cows but because there are too few. National forests are ablaze because of campaigns to silence the chainsaw—this is fuel that could be utilized and instead it is left to burn out of control. Nevertheless, in the midst of lifeless landscapes all over the world, real farmers and livestock husbandmen are asked to seek jobs somewhere outside the livestock sector—in sterile fields of soybeans, I suppose—what the late Mark Purdey referred to as the “vegan ecological wasteland.” What we are witnessing now is our own, modern version of the “Trail of Tears,” where both man and beast are forced off the land to toil in confinement houses and feedlots where their activities can more easily be regulated and so that the land can be “freed up” for the production of more “efficient” vegetarian fare.

THE FUTURE

Now imagine a world in which we revere and hold our animals sacred, the soil so sweet and so fertile that our farms become inevitable wildlife corridors—we may even have to hunt to keep these wildlife populations in check. But this just means supplementing our diets with a little wild venison or gazelle now and then. The vast Great Plains of North America are restored to their original deep black loam by vast herds of beef cattle mimicking their native cousins the bison. African men, displaced from their traditional cattle-keeping by the U.N.-sanctioned call to vegetarian efficiency, return to their native lands to take on the noble pursuit of land healing, leading great herds of cattle through the bush under the thoughtful tutelage of Holistic Management. Parched river beds become vegetated and begin to run again, bare soil heals over with a thick carpet of green, all due to the life-giving forces of the cow in great numbers. Our redemption is not in her annihilation as the U.N. would have it, but in truly understanding her environmental and nutritional restorative traits, and putting those traits to work for us.

These land-healing processes generate a new food supply. This food supply is unique in the fact that it produces grass-finished meat and dairy as a byproduct of innovative land management and carbon sequestering strategies. With these processes, we are not merely sustaining the land but enhancing and embellishing it, turning the deserts green.That should be our goal. While the U.N. continues to dabble in their industrial, government-funded solutions based on tax incentives and negative reinforcement, we will just vote with our food dollars for environmentally enhancing, animal agriculture. Soil building, grass-based farming, utilizing livestock to our environmental and nutritional advantage is the key to our future prosperity. Can you imagine the diversity of traditional foods we could revitalize on a grand scale through a worldwide effort to restore degraded landscapes with cows, sheep and goats? The potential to flood the marketplace with old-fashioned animal fats would be endless. I’m ready to live off the (grass-fed) fat of the land and I hope you are, too. Let’s move forward, full speed ahead, with this special life-respecting movement, and instill in the next generation a reverence for life and all that gives richness to it. Our movement to curb climate change will be validated by the beauty of rich soil, green pastures and healthy generations to come. For this, we owe immense gratitude to the ruminant livestock of the world, and their enduring service to mankind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crib notes?

The U.N. and others blame cows for contributing to environmental degradation and global warming.

But it's not cows per se; it's factory-farmed cows eating monoculture-farmed corn.

Cows raised on pasture are quite good for the environment.

Meanwhile, conventionally grown corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and cotton (using petroleum-based fertilizers) degrade the environment and contribute to global warming, but the U.N. and numerous environmental activists seldom call out U.S. plant-based agriculture the way they call out cows.

Cows get a bad rap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always use anecdotal evidence when debating scientific issues, too. It makes me feel smart, and quipy.

Just like the AGW proponents! There isn't much difference in degree when using one day's worth of evidence or 200 years worth of evidence when we are examining a subject that has existed over billions of years.
True to a certain extent. However, at least looking at 200 years of data can determine a trend. Of course, ignoring trends over other periods of time is intellectually dishonest, but at least there is some value to the data. The fact of what the weather is like today is completely irrelevant on all levels.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Crib notes?

The U.N. and others blame cows for contributing to environmental degradation and global warming.

But it's not cows per se; it's factory-farmed cows eating monoculture-farmed corn.

Cows raised on pasture are quite good for the environment.

Meanwhile, conventionally grown corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and cotton (using petroleum-based fertilizers) degrade the environment and contribute to global warming, but the U.N. and numerous environmental activists seldom call out U.S. plant-based agriculture the way they call out cows.

Cows get a bad rap.

Got it.

Now if you really want to make cows look a little better keep them out of the ####### rivers and streams! Cows destroy more small streams than logging, all of which used to have really good trout fishing. Stupid cows. Buffalo on the other hand!!

Ok, off the box. Carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always use anecdotal evidence when debating scientific issues, too. It makes me feel smart, and quipy.

Just like the AGW proponents! There isn't much difference in degree when using one day's worth of evidence or 200 years worth of evidence when we are examining a subject that has existed over billions of years.
True to a certain extent. However, at least looking at 200 years of data can determine a trend. Of course, ignoring trends over other periods of time is intellectually dishonest, but at least there is some value to the data. The fact of what the weather is like today is completely irrelevant on all levels.
Oh, you mean like the trend of reocurring ice ages in the period of the Earth's life that we are currently in, and the interglacials between ice ages where by definition approximately half of the interglacial period is defined by a warming period? That kind of trend (that the AGW proponents cleverly ignore because it is so inconvenient)?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The root cause of global warming is debatable.

Why is there only one root cause? Why can't there be two? Three?
There could very well be a dozen causes. This is true. The argument is what is the primary change that is leading to this rapid change in temp.
Isn't it conceivable there isn't a "primary" cause?
:yes: But the likes of Al gore and his :lmao: followers would have us believe it is the evil humans that are at fault here.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...