How far towards stupid can scientists get?

I bet you would be surpirsed at that one.

EXXON think tanks? Haven't you seen the BO commercials? Its not just the oil companies debunking this man caused global warming....as they say follow the money and it will lead to much more than Exxon or Shell....

Look I don't want a global warming debate per se, I don't disagree that mankind should treat it's environment better because at least we could kill ourselves by poisoning the air and water and all that but let's be serious here people, even you tree huggers have to admit that worrying about a cows burps above the other many really viable and DECENT proposals is dumb and this type of nonsense can make your whole movment look goofy. I would love to see hemp fuel discussed and many other things, and yes the oil corps spend big money keeping their grip on energy so I don't disagree that there are two extremes in this debate. What I am trying to say is let's be "REASONABLE", I have no problem discusssing reasonable solutions to problems, but bringing in stuff like this is absurd to the enth degree. I think most of you can agree with me on that at least.

Cow burps are not wiping us out and IF we stopped all burps we would still be in trouble under theirparadigm of global warming, so this is time, money and effort wasted on sillyness... IMO

OK, seriously. I can't see the problem, the study will probably cost a couple hundred thousand quid. If it works and can reduce agricultural emissions by a few percent, well cool. It's a bit less CH4, and eventually CO2. If we take the 7% GHGs from agriculture as representative, over a third is CH4, so about 2-3%. If it takes off 1%, then it's a 1% we don't have to worry about from other sources.

Will 1% make any difference, No. As mentioned earlier, if we want to stem and eventually reduce our emissions, it will take a bit more than cattle burping less CH4.

I know that, and I'm sure you do. But it's just a group of scientists hoping for a bit of the restricted funding avaliable in the UK. They probably won't even get the funding...


[edit on 14-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
But it's just a group of scientists hoping for a bit of the restricted funding avaliable in the UK. They probably won't even get the funding...

I think you nailed a HUGE point there......A very HUGE one.

Originally posted by edsinger
I think you nailed a HUGE point there......A very HUGE one.

They have jobs anyway. They won't lose them because they can't get funding for a particular project.

These guys work in crop science and genetics, I'm sure there's lots of stuff they are doing.

ABE: aye, his last published study was on pest control:

Title: Intraspecific variation in Trifolium pratense: impact on feeding and host location by Sitona lepidus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae)
Author(s): Murray PJ (Murray, P. J.), Cheung AKM (Cheung, A. K. M.), Abberton MT (Abberton, M. T.)
Source: JOURNAL OF PEST SCIENCE 80 (1): 51-57 FEB 2007
Document Type: Article
Language: English

[edit on 14-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatoninABE: aye, his last published study was on pest control:

Probably had something to do with the banning of DDT which in turn killed millions.

Lets be honest here, Global Warming is becoming an industry in itself and you can not deny that.

Originally posted by edsinger
Probably had something to do with the banning of DDT which in turn killed millions.

Lets be honest here, Global Warming is becoming an industry in itself and you can not deny that.

DDT was only ever banned for agricultural use, which was leading to the vectors evolving protection to the various pesticides. In places like India, hundreds of thousands were dying even when spending obscene amounts on ineffective pesticides.

Ed, your anti-science diatribes are pretty sad. Global warming is a scientific theory and finding, scientists study the climate. It is no more an industry than gravity is.

You could say there is innovation and business being based around action and mitigation, but that's the free market for you. Unless you'd rather ban companies from making hybrid cars, alternative energy sources, energy efficient light bulbs, etc etc.

[edit on 14-7-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by Byrd
Why is it so absurd to feed cows in a small area a lower residue diet so that they reduce the amount of methane and reduce manure?

Because they are not the ones who are destroying the environment. How would you feel being told to act differently, to "save the world" (which isn't even the truth in this case), for another species!

A few cows in one area doesn't destroy the environment. 50,000 cows in a feedlot has quite an impact. They cause pollution and smells and they themselves aren't as healthy as if they lived in smaller groups on range pastureland.

Large numbers of cows with the piles and piles of manure contaminate local water sources... and yes, the methane output is added into the air.

I think we can all agree that we'd prefer to NOT have cow poop in our water, right? Or contaminating the fish in the water.

This shows how selfish and arrogant science is right now, where they are willing to suggest such measures, rather than take the most logical and realisitc solution, which is changing the way we live!

Uhm... in case you didn't notice, that's what they're trying to do: trying to change what the feedlots feed the cows to be a lower output feed.

You can not fight against nature/balance forever. If you do, you will destroy yourself, and the environment you live in. Simple.

The ONLY solution is working in harmony with nature..

And this idea is not working in harmony with nature.

So, what idea are you proposing for high densities of cattle that would "work in harmony with nature"? (I'm not being rude, but you obviously have some sort of solution in mind, and I'm interested in what you think would work. Reducing the impact of pollutants is something that benefits us all, and this is an area where suggestions from people who know a lot about the situation is really good -- not just scientists, but ordinary folks.)

Originally posted by edsingerProbably had something to do with the banning of DDT which in turn killed millions.

DDT, in fact, was only banned for agricultural use in the US and many developed countries, though it continued in other countries. It was used for local mosquito control (including spray trucks in the street, which I remember from my childhood)) on a continuing basis.
en.wikipedia.org...

It was recommended that it NOT be used in households where you have babies and small children. Recently, it's been reapproved for household use.
www.who.int...

And, of course, it does cause cancer and other problems. If you think that people make a fuss about flouride, you should see what they have to say about spraying by government trucks.

Originally posted by Long Lance
my proposal:

eat less beef and more plants instead, would spare many natural habitats, too.

Long Lance, the same thing will happen since plants also release not only CO2 but methane also.

Last Updated: Wednesday, 11 January 2006, 23:04 GMT

Plants revealed as methane source

Scientists in Germany have discovered that ordinary plants produce significant amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas which helps trap the sun's energy in the atmosphere.

The findings, reported in the journal Nature, have been described as "startling", and may force a rethink of the role played by forests in holding back the pace of global warming.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by Long Lance
many proposals are much more dangerous than a comical request for low-flatulence cattle breeds, which btw, probably does not have much to do with the cows themselves, since it's symbiotic bacteria which generate the methane.

edit: take www.abovetopsecret.com... for example

The thing is that the only way you can cut back on plant and animal GHG is not to have so many, which means less people will be fed, which means a population reduction.

We know that there are environmentalists who even preach that we need a population reduction. They are so messed up in their minds that they believe they will save the Earth in this way...

There is no "saving the Earth from GHGs".... The Earth has had higher levels of CO2 and other GHGs, and in fact during the times when the Earth had higher levels of GHGs such as CO2, it was much greener, and yes there was life too.

There is no need for "population reduction", or to change cows for more plants and vegies, since such an exchange will have the same results....plants will release CO2 and methane.

BTW, in case people don't know if we can't eat meat we need to replace it with plants which will give us proteins, such as beans...and this means we (humans) will be emitting larger quantities of methane into the atmosphere...



[edit on 15-7-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Long Lance, the same thing will happen since plants also release not only CO2 but methane also.

i know i know, but with cattle you'll have both, plants to feed them and the cattle itself and no matter how many GHGs plants emit, their effect on atmospheric humidity is certainly far more important than a few pbb of CH4.

The thing is that the only way you can cut back on plant and animal GHG is not to have so many, which means less people will be fed, which means a population reduction.

afaik, the 'conversion ratio' between vegetable calories and meat is rather low, which means that even modest substitution by plants would quickly reduce land use. it depends how much meat is consumed in a society, if there's little to start with, you need it anyway to maintain a balanced diet.

We know that there are environmentalists who even preach that we need a population reduction. They are so messed up in their minds that they believe they will save the Earth in this way...

well, let them lead the way


GHGs aren't on my scare list anyway, i just thought that contrived, complex and, for many reasons, probably useless 'solutions' to a problem (that didn't exist in the first place) can be replaced by measures which actually save money, improve health (i doubt people would get fat on fruits and vegetables), and have the beneficial effect (the most important aspect, imho) of reduced land use.

but i guess that's too simple and not profitable enough. let alone newsworthy. GM cows with GM microbes in their bellies? heck i never wanted to be a vegetarian, but that prospect would make me reconsider.

[edit on 16.7.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
I see many of you don't like my thread title... I am sorry

Simple solution...

kill all the cows because their emmisions are to high...
kill all the fish because they are contaminated with mercury or worse'
kill all the chickens because of Avian flu that's killing us

Sooo we all become vegetarians to save the planet and eat those nice DDT soaked greeneries

Originally posted by Muaddib
Long Lance, the same thing will happen since plants also release not only CO2 but methane also.

Sorry, maybe I'm being a bit , but how do plants release CO2? I thought plants' transpiration involved taking IN CO2 from the atmosphere and out-putting oxygen. Sure, when plants die they release CO2 as they decompose, but only what they had still tied up from the atmosphere. There is no overall increase in CO2 levels because of plants. And they still release a hell of a lot les methane than cows, landfills, etc.