Global Warming Debate

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Has anyone noticed that seems to be Disney's new tack?

I was at the grocery and there was a rack full of books written from the villian POV. I wonder what the kids of today will grow up to believe, if Ursula the sea witch was just "misunderstood."

[brownjenkins]

Maybe. Understanding evil is the best way to combat it.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

Correction, my good friend, I never said cows contibute to global warming I said they put out more gas than we do, so presumedly according Nurv's theory, cows (hypothetically) could, would, should, be what they should focus on exterminating (or making them even more eco-friendly).

Cows are animals which were domesticated and bred in mass number by human beings. Cows, like domestic cats and dogs, would not exist in their present form today if not for extensive human influence; they are very far removed from their wild ancestors.

If, as you imply, cows produce more global warming gas than humans do directly, then this is still a contribution of humans. (This was also Jonathan's point.)

However, I doubt that this is so. Do you have anything to back up this fairly outlandish claim?



Now, since I'm asking for an article or the like, I feel I should provide one too. Fair is fair. I have a Wikipedia article here I think is worth reading. Wiki does have its weak points, but its strength is controversial science-related articles, and the greenhouse effect (the mechanism of global warming) perfectly fits the bill.

Maybe we should make sure that we're all on the same page in this thread before we continue debating. Does this article make sense to everyone? You don't have to agree, but does it make sense?

If we're all on the same page, then we can debate the fine points.

EDIT: See also: Global Warming

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No I didn't say they did...my implied argument is that if cows really do emit that much, then the problem is not simply extra greenhous gases, but breathing in general. Life is the problem. We need to all die so that there won't be anymore global warming to worry about...

Breathing is hardly a problem. Livestock respiration is not a net source of CO2 because it's part of a rapid biological cycle. Cows eat grass and breathe, grass absorbs CO2 and gets eaten. The emitted and absorbed quantities of CO2 are considered equal. (They're not really equal though, there's a disruption in the cycle due to overgrazing, land degradation etc.)
The biggest problem is not breathing, it's farting. You need to keep these two separated. As you know cattle produce methane which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Because we breed them, cattle continues to make up a bigger and bigger part of the total biomass and with all that enteric methane production of theirs, greenhouse gas emissions get out of hand.

Humans could slow down the greenhouse effect. Thus, life is not the problem. We are.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Earniel did explain to me the idea of the overbreeding of cows; however, I find it hard to believe that this is the first time in history that there have been this large a percentage of animals on the planet. Aren't humans always blamed for eliminating millions of different species?

Did Dinosaurs cause global warming in their day by breathing too much, and thus bring about their own destruction? It's worth considering....

The many species that humans have eliminated make up only a tiny bit of biomass. Humans responsible for a much greater increase in biomass due to the livestock sector than they are for a decrease due to extinct animals.

And actually there is a theory that dinosaurs farted (not breathed) themselves to death . That's probably not true because it is believed the dinosaurs died out really, really quick. So an asteroid impact or volcano eruption sounds more likely. But it's an funny thought and who knows, maybe they did warm up the globe a bit before they died?

edited in:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

That is if you think "balance" stays the same. New balances arise. Adaptation. Isn't that the grounds of "survival of the fittest"?

New ecological balances arise at the expense of all life which does not cope with the environmental changes. In other words, extinction. Better to keep the old balances intact.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

However, I doubt that this is so. Do you have anything to back up this fairly outlandish claim?

I didn't believe in the cow thing either. I thought the cows emissions were balanced naturally somehow. But a month ago I decided to look into facts and it turned out I was wrong. This is what I read:

Livestock's Long Shadow

It's a 400-page-UN report. And I didn't read all of it, just the relevant chapter

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So you agree that LIFE itself is the problem, not just cows.

I can't help but notice the suggestion that we, by merely living, are somehow evil for just existing. And animals and plants would be better off without us.

Nietszche disagrees with you by the way, he thought we were the greatest things because we "willed" ourselves into existence. Naturally it follows that we are God

Well both you and Nietzsche are wrong of course.

This isn’t a political issue for me. I approach this not from the point of view of how do I spin this issue based on my philosophical/political persuasion but instead whats the reality of the situation. And the reality is humans are exploitive and weak (which by the way does NOT equal "evil"... mathematics and biology are not moral fields...) while also being highly adaptive and resourceful. That combination leads to great tragedy and hardship as well as resilience. So the unthinkable is inevitable.

Now this is by no means a justification for conservatives to promote the idea of trashing the environment and killing the ozone and the rain forests and the snowy egret etc. simply because we are doomed to mess everything up anyway. That’s a sad and despicable approach that values profiteering and immediate convenience above all else. Its no different then justifying burning down your neighbors house to expand your yard because it would fall down from old age eventually…

How we impact the environment TODAY effects us TOMORROW. Not just 1,000 years from now. And there are basic things that we need to do to make life better for US and our children not simply the unknown babies of the far future. It was not very long ago that man used to be able to swim and fish in the clean waters of the Danube and the Yangzi and countless other rivers. Not so today. Fish used to be virtually boundless. Not anymore. The prospect of fishing our fish to death is within sight. Yes of course you can argue “Well so what. The environment will adjust itself accordingly� and that’s true but then you are basically condemning hundreds of millions to immediate hardship and eventual suffering and death because that’s what a global biological adjustment consists of… Anguish of an unimaginable level is just normal operating procedure for old mother earth and her natural cycles. Ice ages? Asteroids? Life forms that trash their environment and die en mass like locusts? Par for the course… We should be wary of ALL of them…

Of course those things aren’t necessarily directly related to global warming but my point really goes beyond that. We need to be wise about our choices with the environment or else immediate life gets bad. The idea that its an ok thing to spin this issue and avoid dealing with it for as long as possible should be a despicable approach for anyone that speaks of morals… If you ask me Christians should be spearheading the environmental movement. Its too bad we resort to speaking the party line on such fundamental and important issues and ignoring our conscience, our better judgment and our self proclaimed "sense of morals".

[nokom]

Call me whatever you want :P Heres my view: The world works itself out. Thats how it works. We won't go extinct until our set date. Many could die, yes, but there is not danger whatsoever of extinction until the right time comes. And when that does, nothing can stop it.

[Insidious Rex]

...and so your point is that its ok to pollute and trash the environment?

[nokom]

No... I am just saying its not something we should get all woried and worked up about... I mean, I totally disagree with trashing the enviroment. We should not do so. But we SHOULD NOT go crazy over protecting it. I have heard people who seem to want us to go to the stone age again. Thats extreamist.

[Jonathan]

You say "many could die, yes" and don't think that's something to be worried about?

[nokom]

Yes I do, but, we may not always be able to....

[Nurvingiel]

I believe you Jonathan. Is it that cows actually emit methane? So they really do?

My argument that this is still a human effect on the environment, since we domesticated cows and bred them in large numbers, still stands.

There is a happy medium between going "crazy" over protecting the environment and "sending us back to the stone age" and polluting at will you know Nokom. The whole 'envionmentalists just want to send us back to the stone age' argument is a weak attempt to put off responsibility for the environment. We live on this planet, and if we want to continue doing so, then it's up to us and no one else to take care of it. We're the only animal that consistently degrades the environment and overuses resources.

Right now, our date with destiny is somewhere along when our Sun becomes a red giant. If we alter the planet's ecosystem to the point where it will no longer support human life, then it will be us, and not divine intervention, that extincted the human race.

[The Telcontarion]

Nurv, I can't believe ur being so annoying in this thread. I think there has been more than enough facts presented to prove that global warming is not caused by humans; I am tempted to spank u (which would actually be worth the trouble). Tell u what, why don't you explain which parts of the arguement against humans being responsible for global warming u don't agree with and why.

[The Gaffer]

No, I'll tell you what. Instead of mouthing off, why not address the damning evidence which has been presented in this thread that climate change deniers are fraudulent:

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/sho...3&postcount=158

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I believe you Jonathan. Is it that cows actually emit methane? So they really do?

Technically it's the cows' gastrointestinal bacteria that produce the gas, but yes. Indirectly (via grass or whatever they eat), cows convert carbondioxide into more detrimental methane.
By breeding cattle, humans are responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases to a great degree. Not to mention the negative effects cattle breeding has on freshwater resources and arable land in many parts of the world which indirectly contribute to global warming.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Right now, our date with destiny is somewhere along when our Sun becomes a red giant.

Oh yeah, I saw that episode on the new Doctor Who .
But yes, life on earth will meet its definitive end on that celestial occassion 5 billion years from now.

edit: Hey Gaffer, you should always test your links after you've posted them . You didn't get the entire URL in there.

[Nurvingiel]

Are you kidding me? The evidence that you've posted that wasn't fabricated by a total fraud has already been refuted in this thread.

Meanwhile:

An article about hom humans dominate Earth's ecosystems, including our contribution to carbon dioxide to the atmosphere

Human alteration of the nitrogen cycle (N2O is also a greenhouse gas)

(Let me know if a link doesn't work, I'm at university right now and have a lot of access to journals.)

For starters.

Before we go on, do you understand what global warming is? Whether you believe it is happening or not, understanding the mechanisms of global warming is important to the debate.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Are you kidding me? The evidence that you've posted that wasn't fabricated by a total fraud has already been refuted in this thread.

Meanwhile:

An article about hom humans dominate Earth's ecosystems, including our contribution to carbon dioxide to the atmosphere

Human alteration of the nitrogen cycle (N2O is also a greenhouse gas)

(Let me know if a link doesn't work, I'm at university right now and have a lot of access to journals.)

For starters.

Before we go on, do you understand what global warming is? Whether you believe it is happening or not, understanding the mechanisms of global warming is important to the debate.

I believe I understand it very well thank u. I do believe it is happening, I don't believe it is humans but the sun.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

I believe I understand it very well thank u. I do believe it is happening, I don't believe it is humans but the sun.

I didn't mean to imply you were dumb, I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page.

[brownjenkins]

It should be noted that even if we produced no greenhouse gases, the earth will eventually warm again in the future, just as we will have future ice ages. So, in the long run, the changes are inevitable. But, with greenhouse gas emissions, we are speeding things up dramatically.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

No, I'll tell you what. Instead of mouthing off, why not address the damning evidence which has been presented in this thread that climate change deniers are fraudulent:

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/sho...3&postcount=158

That link is fraudulent.

BJenkins, once you learn the actual amount of co2 emitted by humans in comparison to everything else natural that does, you will see that it is insignificant.

One more thing: I have recently heard that co2s rise into the atmosphere BECAUSE of the heat, not the other way around.

This would make sense on some level, wouldn't it? I mean, heat does after all, smoke the water out of your cup. Precipitation anyone?

Isn't water vapor considered a greenhouse gas?

This may just be natural cycle afterall...


Is this just a case of not seeing the forest for the trees for scientists? And the public can only see the forest, because they don't understand the mechanics of science (Trees) as well.
Pretty apt comparison, IMO.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

BJenkins, once you learn the actual amount of co2 emitted by humans in comparison to everything else natural that does, you will see that it is insignificant.

The CO2 balance is delicate. However small in comparison they might be, the greenhouse gases we emit could disrupt the balance and start a downward spiral of climate change. The straw that broke the camel´s back is not an insignificant one.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

One more thing: I have recently heard that co2s rise into the atmosphere BECAUSE of the heat, not the other way around.This would make sense on some level, wouldn't it? I mean, heat does after all, smoke the water out of your cup. Precipitation anyone?

Isn't water vapor considered a greenhouse gas?

This may just be natural cycle afterall...

It's a vicious circle that humans probably helped get started. Global warming induced by us would itself induce even more global warming. Scientists have been saying this for years already.

To sum up - it's fallacy to state that because something is small (human emissions) compared to something else (nature's emissions), the small thing must therefore be insignificant
And it's a fallacy to think that because one thing (heat) can cause a certain event, a second thing (humans) is therefore unable to contribute as well, either independently or by affecting one another