What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
69 Comments
- Kruse, on 05/09/2009, -2/+13Farts.
- JonTheGoose, on 05/09/2009, -0/+11Really?? I don't feel a thing when I eat chicken...
- workfaster, on 05/09/2009, -1/+10Beef farmers? I always thought they were called "ranchers" or "cattlemen".
- asgardshill, on 05/09/2009, -0/+8Just stay away from my place on Enchilada Night, and you'll be fine.
- asgardshill, on 05/09/2009, -4/+11If you honestly believe that nobody "tampered with nature" to develop and tweak the livestock from which we get our beef today, then there is literally no hope for you. Just shut up and go back to freerepublic.
- guinpen, on 05/09/2009, -0/+7In terms of the journey of our beef from birth to our stomachs, this is probably the LEAST likely to be 'tampering with nature.' They just control what the livestock eat. If I don't want to ***** blood, I don't eat taco bell burritos. Doesn't make me a mad scientist.
- GeorgeWKush, on 05/09/2009, -1/+7It depends on your geographical location.
- tnerb067, on 05/09/2009, -0/+6This is great. So many people attack our transportation habits for releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, but methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is! Finger pointers driving Priuses should really take a look at their diets as well, otherwise, they're just being hypocrites.
- drallo, on 05/09/2009, -1/+6*****, stop embarrassing yourselves truthers.
All you do is point to money and then point to the problem, like the first somehow has anything to do with the scientific validity of the other.
Educate yourselves and you won't be constantly made fun of for being retarded.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/water-vapor-confirm ... - Laminarcissus, on 05/09/2009, -1/+6Exactly. For example, I live in New York City, where we call them "grocery stores."
- drallo, on 05/09/2009, -0/+5So this is seriously your rationalization for global warming being a scam; a few scientists took the wrong career path for absolutely no reason and decided to "invent" something that has been studied for 50+ years?
Of course, it makes so much sense...not like the ridiculous notion that spewing billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere will affect it. - askantik, on 05/09/2009, -1/+6As I said on the chicken feather cloth article, I'll say again:
We COULD do this... Or we could reduce our consumption of meat a little bit (livestock cause more global warming-related pollution than all transportation-- this includes motor vehicles, planes, ships, and trains). But I guess that'd be so much harder than trying to science and technologize or way out of problems that stem from our philosophy... Problems that cannot be fixed unless we have a change of philosophy. I'm not saying that technology and science won't play a major role; instead, I'm saying that we have to realize that consuming too much is just too much. We can't keep consuming more than the earth can sustain yet somehow make it okay through science. It doesn't work like that.
But alas, no one wants to hear that. - fury420, on 05/09/2009, -1/+5twinklyJesus, it is rare for beef cows to be raised purely by grazing on grass nowadays, their diet is very much manmade, and greatly influences their digestion.
- BaphClass, on 05/10/2009, -0/+4I agree with you, this isn't a solution. However, the only people who are keen to whatever "jerk-off session" you're mentioning are the ones in your head. Anyone with half a brain can see that this isn't a total solution for reducing a source of methane emissions that were not there a hundred years ago. No, it's actually more of a short-term patch; something that can be slapped onto an open, festering wound until something else can be devised that is more effective, and economical. Just because innovations like these come along every now and then doesn't mean people will suddenly stop searching for a better way to do things.
And I really do need to point out, you're incredibly rude. It doesn't lend to whatever atmosphere of intelligence you're trying to put forward when you sound nearly indistinguishable from any slack-jawed simpleton with an opinion borne of too much liquor, and brain damage. Try and keep this in mind: Convincing people to try and see things from your side is far easier when you're not acting like a ***** troll.
Now please, tell me what is so bad about trying to reduce methane emissions to a level more similar to those of a hundred years ago? The last time I checked, having millions upon millions of cows crowded into feedlots, putting out the equivalent of entire cities' worth of methane emissions is not natural, and never was. If anything, this would lessen whatever negative impact atmospheric methane levels may or may not have. Can you give me some bulletproof piece of evidence that proves the point you're trying to make? - BaphClass, on 05/09/2009, -0/+4I wouldn't consider altering the feed used for cattle farming "tampering with nature" any more than selective breeding, a tactic employed by humans for millenia. "Tampering with nature" is what brought us to this point in history. If it wasn't for us "tampering with nature" we wouldn't have all the delicious fruits and vegetables you see in your local market, or all those nice, fat bastards in feedlots and free-range farms. Your argument is inherently weak, you oppose something blindly without actually considering the implications of a harmless procedure such as this.
I see no negative effects from reducing overall methane emissions in cattle farms. Do you? - offrdbandit, on 05/10/2009, -0/+3No it isn't.
Methane is odorless. - gustav42, on 05/09/2009, -0/+3Hear, hear! One thing that never gets discussed is the idea of reducing the number of people. If a person doesn't get born, they have a zero carbon footprint. I wonder why this is not something the environmentalist would want to talk about? Is it an unacceptable option?
- Sil369, on 05/09/2009, -0/+3i will digg this up since 4 other ppl already did for no reason
- asgardshill, on 05/09/2009, -1/+4I'll be happy to read a book. Got one you haven't colored in yet?
- dsmx, on 05/09/2009, -0/+2He went to bovine university.
- homercles337, on 05/09/2009, -0/+2Anthropomorphism. Look it up.
- sonnysavage, on 05/09/2009, -0/+2You made me laugh, and for that I digg you. "***** blood"
- t3chn0b0y, on 05/10/2009, -0/+2cut down on the taco bell...
- BrettSchu, on 05/09/2009, -0/+2There are not that many farms that harness the power. Its definitely for the better.
- NiceHat, on 05/09/2009, -0/+2It's not unfathomable if you've ever lived within fifteen miles of a dairy farm, broseph.
- GeorgeWKush, on 05/09/2009, -1/+3Simple and elegant. It's no wonder someone didn't think of this before.
- Laminarcissus, on 05/09/2009, -0/+2But a chicken eating a cow is the most suffering of all.
- DifferentAngle, on 05/09/2009, -1/+3This guy is just a troll, tnx for giving him some lolz
- inactive, on 05/09/2009, -2/+4What? WTF are you talking about? I think you're confusing me with someone else, because I have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
- phenom2k7, on 05/09/2009, -1/+2What's the equation for humans?
- inactive, on 05/09/2009, -3/+4You're flipping out over the possibility of farms altering their cattle's diet. You have some serious issues, pal.
- NiceHat, on 05/09/2009, -3/+4Methane gas is a cute euphemism for 'that ungodly ***** smell which wafts in nightly from the dairy farms and is slowly driving us all mad.'
- Kahlim, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1They just want to make sure it doesn't flood more often. Ever see a cow try to swim?
- twinklyJesus, on 05/09/2009, -4/+5What Long is saying is, someone who is not a scientist, made a movie that many climatologists don't agree with the conclusions. This movie was made a la Michael Moore's style and presented many THEORIES as FACT. Meanwhile, a lot of well-meaning people in the general populace watched it and swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker. Then they run around condemning anyone who doesn't automatically share their beliefs on the subject by calling them "truthers" "nut-jobs" "neo-cons" and any manner of dozens of other epithets.
All the while there is still not a shred of evidence, (not theories, evidence) that supports beyond a shadow of doubt, that this is
a. Man made
b. not a natural occurrence of nature
c. not the result of solar activity which has increased the temperature on other planets, too.
d. something we could correct at all. Even if we did have the technology.
Example:
In 1980 I had to take training on flourochlorocarbon gasses and their effect on the atmosphere, specifically the "ozone hole". Now, in the 1950s when the equipment was invented that allowed us to know that there was one, the hole was already there.
According to these classes, it takes 40+ years for flourocarbons to matriculate to the ozone layer and destroy it. Wide spread use of these gasses didn't start until the turn of the 20th century. It was sparsely in use until auto air-conditioning came into use in the 1950s. If what little refrigerant that was released prior to the 1950s caused 1/3 of the ozone layer to be depleted, then what was released between 1950 and 1980 would be devastating and there would be nothing to stop it. (car a/cs use an open type compressor that inherently leak.) Dupont in the 1980s sold their manufacturing equipment for R12 to The Peoples Republic of China. They were so concerned for the environment that they sold this manufacturing equipment to a country with a billion people needing refrigerators and air conditioning!
This whole green house gas deal is a scam designed to separate willing and unwilling tax payers from cash to solve a problem we don't have the technology to combat. We can't control the climate, we can't control the weather, despite what the loonie left claimed about Bush being able to send hurricanes to attach New ORleans.
It is an act of hubris and a futile gesture to think that you can stop a few thousand cows from farting. You can't stop a volcano. You can't control ants or termites which produce more methane than every other species on the planet combined.
On one hand, the liberal left "greenies" say hands off nature. No drilling in the wild, save the swamp moth, or what ever. Then, on the other hand you are supporting whacked out ideas to mess with the genetics of the natural processes of animals. Why don't they just mutate some cows that don't need to eat at all? If they don't eat, they don't *****, there, problem solved for a minute part of the ecology of this planet that doesn't amount to squat in the big scheme of things on this planet.
When we have the technology to actually terraform a planet from a barren rock into a life sustaining world, then we will be able to undertake these Herculean tasks. Until then, it's just a scam to separate fools from their money and control them into group-think that is acceptable to the powers that be. - stevelectric, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1tnerb- You a right, and human beans also emit the same gas! Have you ever wondered where politicians get their bad environmental ideas?
http://www.communati.com/steve-lee/bad-ideas - askantik, on 05/09/2009, -1/+2lol you got dugg down for asking a question no one wants to consider, much less give a real answer to.
- pookydirt, on 05/09/2009, -1/+2Al Gore is sleeping a little easier tonight...
- Sil369, on 05/09/2009, -1/+2did u marry a cow?
- idmonster, on 10/05/2009, -0/+1Questionable Beef
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn4VYghL2Eg - askantik, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1Yeah, this is great-- except we could just not eat as much meat and not spend millions on trying to technologize our way out of problems all the time. See my comment below.
- Whatasillyhat, on 05/10/2009, -1/+2How do we got about sustaining a planet of over 6.6 billion with no meat production?
Animals eat other animals, it's nature. Our methods are but a catalyst. - gustav42, on 05/09/2009, -0/+1My reply was to askantik, not twiztidsinz.
- askantik, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1Yet again something no one wants to hear. Consume less *****, make less babies... those are the two simplest solutions to most our problems, but those aren't politically correct suggestions, eh?
- Dustin00, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1Dammit, you made me hungry.
- diggimator, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1I know! people are also trying to reduce ozone in cities these days.
- chatty822, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1The cloth and wood frame over the head of the lead singer in the ---------- video reflects his fear of being gassed by methane in his sleeping chamber. Who was this patient?
- gustav42, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1To askantik: Why is this the case? Is it because the government has to legislate something in order to make everyone feel that *something* is being done (as opposed to using the bully pulpit to encourage good behavior) and therefore is hamstrung because legislating fewer babies won't fly?
- twiztidsinz, on 05/09/2009, -1/+1"Or we could reduce our consumption of meat a little bit"
Nah.. I like steak, thanks. - Wargasmic, on 05/09/2009, -1/+1Why do you love cows so much?
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is