But those have also been here without human too, 2 million years ago or so I think those were in somewhere where India is now and 250 000 years ago came to europe, that is quite long time ago, our so called civilization is much shorter.
But those have also been here without human too, 2 million years ago or so I think those were in somewhere where India is now and 250 000 years ago came to europe, that is quite long time ago, our so called civilization is much shorter.
yes but there were _a lot_ less cows around before man decided to domesticate them
Granted, that's probably true. I thought that would have happened (the increase in cows) quite some time ago though (hundreds of years, if not over a thousand?), while the recent temperature increases are, well, much more recent than that.
Yes, I would like to believe so too, just have not much data or relieable info from such.
Wiki also says there is 1.4 billion cow type of animals, those are emitting gases 24/7, that is a lot, imo.
Recent warming surely is not from one thing, but combination of things as everything is in a world, but it is quite difficult to say what is what as there are certain factions that say something and they mask everything else under their message, we have then few of these and real data is something that we could see if we could filter all that crap out, which becomes harder every day.
I believe this was part of reason why interenet 2 was created.
supermarkets ... massive cow farming to supply mac donalds and the like are all short term developments
remember the whole meat and bone meal discussion during the bse scare ? weve got to the point where weve run out of farmland to produce food for the cows we eat
But how about milk then? I don't drink that at all, but it is really insane amount of milk sold daily world wide and which is worse, 1 litre of gasoline or 1 litre of milk if we look whole effect?
Don't know, sometimes I get this feeling that goverments do little things that cause major annoyance, even they could do something that really would matter.
Basic problem on this planet is that there is too many people, planet can't provide food for everyone, that is something that would be needed to realise before it is too late and instead of playing with small things like car emissions these bigger issues should be sorted some way first.
Don't know, sometimes I get this feeling that goverments do little things that cause major annoyance, even they could do something that really would matter.
Basic problem on this planet is that there is too many people, planet can't provide food for everyone, that is something that would be needed to realise before it is too late and instead of playing with small things like car emissions these bigger issues should be sorted some way first.
Feed the cows with all those excess chickens that KFC leave out of their buckets of grease. Genius. 
The problem I have with that study is that there are 6 billion humans, all who fart, breathe out CO2, about a quarter use cars, electricity and other resources which create pollution as an end result. The amount of pollution we humans create on a daily basis is far far worse than some cow farting.
You say there are 1.4 billion cow type animals, there are nearly as many cars in the world than that each car chucking out co2 and other pollutants. Cows don't fart constantly 24/7 as people don't drive cars 24/7 but I am sure humans still create more pollution than some cow.
Couldn't agree more on that, there are definitely too many people and with the predictions predicting that we will have 9 billion by the end of the century then there will be problems. Human population needs to be limited but the problem is religion teaches people to be fruitful and to multiply so i don't see a limit on the ammount of children any time soon....
world definitly needs a wake up call... we are going in a bad direction which is destructive all for a short term profit...!
Yes and humans create more co2 than cars do, cows put methane into air that is much worse than co2.
Strongest greenhouse gas is H2O, what is eventually truth here, that is quite impossible to see with all this green propaganda everywhere.
Also we should remember to look how long it takes until certain greenhouse gas disappears, there is some that took nearly 200 years until they disappear, imagine how during 200 years all that is pumped into air is staying there and adding to existing, even producing 0 of some gas it would take long time to disappear and still it is bit unclear what amount of effect it has in reality.
milk ... beef ... name your poison ... point is ever since the population exploded theres a whole lot more cow farts each second than there would be if humans wouldnt use cows for sustenance
to the question which is worse ... i really dont know
problem is that doing anything that really matters would cause an even bigger annoyance thus decreasing the chances of being reelected ... the fundamental problem of democracy
actually thats not necessarily correct ... have you got any idea how much food gets thrown away or is not being used under different circumstances ?
i dont have any numbers but im sure you could feed quite a few starving people from it
Yes, that is true also, but to get 100% efficency would mean everyone should grow his/her own food or something like that and in todays 'civilized' world such thing is not possible.
Greed is to be doomed or something like that and sometimes I think I see this process happening when looking this world
decadence has been the downfall for many cultures in human history ... on that note im surprised the west is still standing
Haven't read the article yet, just responding off the bat... the trouble I have with this debate is that people are always trying to find a specific root to the problem: its cows! its cars! its holidays in Benidorm!
If the effect is attributable to human activity, then, sorry to state the obvious, but the root is ... dah dah!... human activity. This includes intensive farming techniques, which must have massively increased the bovine population of the planet in recent years (I don't have exact figures to hand, but McDonalds has only been in existence since the fifties, and I seriously doubt that the number of cows being bred before that time was anything like enough to supply the subsequent explosion of the hamburger industry)
And humans are, quite frankly, the only animals that actually care about this "crisis". It is not so much a case of saving the planet, but of preserving a climate that is economically beneficial to human activity.
Now, does anyone see the inherent contradiction here? The cause is human activity, and we want to solve the problem in order to preserve said activity. Its a lot harder than just blaming one specific aspect of the social fabric we have thus far created. The changes required reach deep into the core of who and what we are; it implies a social and political transformation that goes way beyond the puerile notion of a carbon footprint.
EDIT: Duh... never repsond to old threads without reading them first
I seem to be repeating myselfAgree with you there. Pointing at cars all the time is just a cop out to not have to think about far more unpopular concepts like nuclear power for developing countries or controlling the size of human population.
And goverments are guilty for this very much as they point out cars too with their taxes, instead of doing something that matters.
With so much conflicting data on global warming i've come to the conclusion the only sensible, logical, and considered way to reach an opinion is to just hold an opinion and argue about it on an internet forum.
That is actually really good one
Who would like to bet on global warming?
In 50 years from now is it warmer, colder or same as now and does UK has any sunny days even then?
I'll bet my ass that its warmer in most areas, but...its just to hard to calculate which effect the melting water has on the golf stream and on northern and middle europe.
We are on the same degree of latitude like siberia and alaska/canada.
So i wouldnt bet its hotter in england. But it will be most likely. When its hotter you will get more often excessive rain-fall over several days changing with periods which are far to dry. Yearly rainfall would be more.
That are simply proven methods in earth siences which have been proven by simply sequences in stones for warming and cooling periods in earth history.
We are on the same degree of latitude like siberia and alaska/canada.
So i wouldnt bet its hotter in england. But it will be most likely. When its hotter you will get more often excessive rain-fall over several days changing with periods which are far to dry. Yearly rainfall would be more.
That are simply proven methods in earth siences which have been proven by simply sequences in stones for warming and cooling periods in earth history.
The Great Global Warning
(143 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG