If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mirror.co.uk)   Britons warned to eat fewer baked beans due to impact on global warming and proliferation of Dutch ovens   (mirror.co.uk) divider line 55
    More: Silly, nuclear proliferation, global warming, emission factor, impacts  
•       •       •

2237 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2014 at 8:05 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-09 08:06:57 PM
timbrooketaylor.jpg
annemargaret.jpg
 
2014-04-09 08:07:07 PM
Who are the Britons?
 
2014-04-09 08:08:38 PM
I admit it, I LOLed
 
2014-04-09 08:09:49 PM
So breathing is carbon neutral, but farting is not?
 
2014-04-09 08:10:30 PM
What if, y'know, we didn't eat as much beef?
 
2014-04-09 08:10:41 PM
Who's fault this is.
 
2014-04-09 08:11:56 PM

DesertDemonWY: So breathing is carbon neutral, but farting is not?


Well, farting does release methane. There is that.
 
2014-04-09 08:12:15 PM
To think that this was once the an empire that spanned the globe. Now they are a piddling pissant country worried about their farts.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
 
2014-04-09 08:16:44 PM
joealan.files.wordpress.com

Also, most people who eat beans on a regular basis don't get gas from them, their bodies adjust to their diet.
 
2014-04-09 08:18:34 PM
Silly indeed. If you eat a lot of beans in your general diet you don't get much gas if any at all. Your body adjusts to it just like other "gassy" foods like vegetables. In general beans are healthy.
 
2014-04-09 08:18:38 PM

DesertDemonWY: So breathing is carbon neutral, but farting is not?


Methane is a beast
 
2014-04-09 08:19:03 PM
There's never a good reason to eat less baked beans.
 
2014-04-09 08:21:07 PM

Benjimin_Dover: There's never a good reason to eat less fewer baked beans.


FTFY
 
2014-04-09 08:21:52 PM

Benjimin_Dover: There's never a good reason to eat less baked beans.


Fewer, as in "fewer, what the hell is that reek?"
 
2014-04-09 08:22:04 PM
Is the Mirror their version of the Onion?
 
2014-04-09 08:23:11 PM
Solution: http://myshreddies.com/

They are hella expensive but they work, mostly. To big or too fast and the gas will escape around the edges but in generally they work pretty well.

/Crohn's Disease and a lotta digestive issues
 
2014-04-09 08:24:34 PM

itsaidwhat: Is the Mirror their version of the Onion?


I think it's their version of the Enquirer.
 
2014-04-09 08:25:32 PM
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

/Got nothin'
 
2014-04-09 08:29:53 PM
The methane emissions of human shiat fermenting in the streets of India far exceeds Englands fart contributions.
 
2014-04-09 08:30:28 PM

lacrossestar83: What if, y'know, we didn't eat as much beef?


www.reactiongifs.us
 
2014-04-09 08:33:00 PM

iheartscotch: Who are the Britons?


We are.  We are all the Britons, and I am your king!
 
2014-04-09 08:33:04 PM
the worldwide human methane output has been calculated as accounting for just 1/5,000th of our greenhouse gas emssions

Don't they have spellcheck in the UK?
 
2014-04-09 08:35:01 PM
First time I heard of a Dutch oven was when John Waters was on Letterman, when he was on NBC. Told my small son, he thought it was hilarious. He showed my youngest son what it was, and I had to witness the ensuing brawl.
 
2014-04-09 08:36:39 PM

lacrossestar83: What if, y'know, we didn't eat as much beef?


Can't. Eating less protein from beans requires more beef.
 
2014-04-09 08:41:23 PM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
i'd say you've had enough
 
2014-04-09 08:41:54 PM
Subby, I am highly amused by your headline.
 
2014-04-09 08:42:08 PM
Geez. My car passed its emissions test today. Will I have to pass an emissions test too?

/keep your test probe away from my exhaust pipe
 
2014-04-09 09:01:10 PM
Just don't follow up with the Cleveland steamer, and you'll be fine.
 
2014-04-09 09:20:28 PM
Baked beans a off

Well, can I have span instead of the baked beans?

You mean spam, spam, spam, spam, spam...
 
2014-04-09 09:32:58 PM
From what I understand the methane production of the human gut bacteria varies from almost none to a fair bit, flammable.  In fact I think you have to carry a certain strain of bacteria to produce flammable amounts with regularity.  That also depends on what you eat and other conditions of you own personal colon colony.  Ignore the fact that humans aren't giant walking compost heaps like most ungulates.  I don't think a life time of human ass emissions would amount to what a cow does in a month.  Behind  the meat a cow is mostly stomach and gut.  We traded our larger guts and jaws when we learned to cook, prepare and better use food resources.  Our ass emissions are of little concern beyond those in the room with us.

Our current digestive system is not made for much of a raw food diet.  Despite what fad diets and movements say raw foodism isn't any different than any other diet fad.  It's mostly BS.  Fear of processed food is BS too.  Still it's a good idea to understand this stuff.  We have been drying, cooking, smashing, salting, fermenting  and what ever else we can do to "food" for far too long to look back now.  Most apes have large guts, we took the work load off our guts long ago.  Likely due to numerous methods of food processing besides fire.   Fire is an obvious one because it tends to leave the most evidence.  Although Pemmican is of North American origins there have likely been similar products made by humanity through history and possibly across species.  Fire isn't needed and like others things it can easily happen as an accident or byproduct.  Jerky is another and unlike an old fire pit both are kind of hard to track in human history.
 
2014-04-09 10:08:30 PM
Let's get this out of the way before the anti-science people start ranting about this: This statement is from a politician and not from a scientist.

Yes there are concerns about methane production and release ... but I do not believe that the population of the UK is considered a significant contributor.
 
2014-04-09 10:16:25 PM

WelldeadLink: lacrossestar83: What if, y'know, we didn't eat as much beef?

Can't. Eating less protein from beans requires more beef.


My I suggest something less fatal to the bovine population?  Boiled eggs?  Milk?  Cabbage?  Broccoli?

Just to name a few.
 
2014-04-09 10:16:41 PM

Deacon Blue: iheartscotch: Who are the Britons?

We are.  We are all the Britons, and I am your king!


I didn't vote for you.
 
2014-04-09 11:09:05 PM
Affordable entertainment. How can you go wrong?
 
2014-04-09 11:11:21 PM

ReapTheChaos: [joealan.files.wordpress.com image 280x276]

Also, most people who eat beans on a regular basis don't get gas from them, their bodies adjust to their diet.


s21.postimg.org
 
2014-04-09 11:18:15 PM
What a Dutch oven might look like:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-10 12:06:08 AM
Isn't a Dutch Oven when you fart in bed and then pull the covers over your partner's face?
 
2014-04-10 12:15:55 AM

wedun: Isn't a Dutch Oven when you fart in bed and then pull the covers over your partner's face?


You're a smart one. I've got my eye on you!
 
2014-04-10 12:51:39 AM

wedun: Isn't a Dutch Oven when you fart in bed and then pull the covers over your partner's face?


It only counts if you yell, "Dutch oven!"
 
2014-04-10 12:55:51 AM

DesertDemonWY: So breathing is carbon neutral, but farting is not?


This is a good question. Farting is still carbon neutral. No matter exactly what compound is emitted from whatever metabolic process, the carbon involved was relatively fixed from the atmosphere (unless one is in the habit of snacking on some exotic chemotroph).

However, per unit carbon, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas. So while farts are carbon neutral, they do have a larger effect in regards to the greenhouse effect.


BTW, we answered the question you asked in the other thread. Just a heads-up in case you missed it - after all, we wouldn't want to mistake your lack of response with the impression you're "denying reality" ;)
 
2014-04-10 12:56:31 AM

Damnhippyfreak: the carbon involved was relatively recently fixed from the atmosphere


Whoops. Forgot an important word there.
 
2014-04-10 01:00:45 AM
From the actual IPCC Summary for Policy-makers

"the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade)"

Global warming...it's warming so fast that even the IPCC is including NEGATIVE NUMBERS in its current rate range.

The whole global warming climastrology thing is a farking joke. They roll their own research stations, they roll their own "corrections" to the raw data, they roll their own everything from start to finish, and they STILL list negative numbers in the current rate range. Un. farking. Real.

What next, IPCC, for AR6 are you going to have it co-chaired by Kissinger and Arafat, based on their whole Nobel Peace Prize status?
 
2014-04-10 01:12:16 AM

SevenizGud: From the actual IPCC Summary for Policy-makers

"the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade)"

Global warming...it's warming so fast that even the IPCC is including NEGATIVE NUMBERS in its current rate range.

The whole global warming climastrology thing is a farking joke. They roll their own research stations, they roll their own "corrections" to the raw data, they roll their own everything from start to finish, and they STILL list negative numbers in the current rate range. Un. farking. Real.

What next, IPCC, for AR6 are you going to have it co-chaired by Kissinger and Arafat, based on their whole Nobel Peace Prize status?



Yowch. Not only are you in the habit of cherry-picking data, you're apparently also willing to do so with text. The full paragraph  that quote is taken from (pdf) reads:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and
interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to
the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends
. As one example, the rate of warming
over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller
than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}


(emphasis mine)

Even worse, you apparently have missed the implications of such a wide range. What you should be realizing is that the wide range of possible rates of change for that given period reflects how variable temperature data is over that relatively short period of time - i.e. trends are unreliable and potentially spurious over such a short time.

In other words, the quote you yourself have provided shows how the cherry-picked period of time you tend to use can be misleading.
 
2014-04-10 01:48:37 AM
Hide the hiatus
 
2014-04-10 01:57:37 AM

SevenizGud: Hide the hiatus


The only thing I see trying to hide is you ;)
 
2014-04-10 04:34:53 AM
www.timdrussell.com
 
2014-04-10 06:11:34 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Benjimin_Dover: There's never a good reason to eat less fewer baked beans.

FTFY


He was technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
 
2014-04-10 06:42:04 AM

anfrind: Deacon Blue: iheartscotch: Who are the Britons?

We are.  We are all the Britons, and I am your king!

I didn't vote for you.


You don't vote for a king
 
2014-04-10 08:57:07 AM

SevenizGud: Hide the hiatus


What exactly is being hid?? This is the crux of your incredibly brain-dead posts. Nobody is hiding anything. One thing for sure, if they were hiding anything, you would not be bright enough to find it.

Have you looked at the 1940's? How about 1955 to 1970?? Now look at the overall trend??

Do you see it now? How stupid it is to point at a short flat spot any make any claims about overall trends??

I didn't think so.

www.skepticalscience.com
 
2014-04-10 09:16:47 AM
Whenever I hear about this cattle and methane and global warming stuff, I remember that there were freakin' millions of buffalo roaming the plains until the pioneers wiped them out in the 1870's....shouldn't the drop in methane emissions have caused sudden sharp global cooling like this:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/nw04/0119Blizzards.htm
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report