Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Atlantic)   Chicken is better than beef because CLIMATE CHANGE   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: PSA, human diet, Michael Pollan, Diane Rehm, industrial agriculture, Environmental Working Group  
•       •       •

1692 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2014 at 2:19 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-07-04 12:50:58 AM  
Yep. Flatulent cows. Their methane farts are 4 times as greenhouse gaseous as carbon dioxide.
 
2014-07-04 01:07:33 AM  
according to this sheep are the real culprits, which is highly appropriate when you consider how so much of the environmental movement is driven by mindless morons who parrot whatever they hear from celebrities and leftists professors

i'm not saying climate change doesn't exist-- i think it does.  i just think that environmental hysteria-- like inflation hysteria and terrorism hysteria on the right, is over the top.  i think back to all the stuff they taught us in grade school when i was a kid in the 80's, and almost none of it has come true.  usually stuff turns out somewhat right, but never completely.

ozone layer going to destroy us?  didn't happen
AIDS is going to infect one out of ten Americans with HIV?  never even close
gasoline is gonna run out?  i just filled up today
bald eagles are all going to die?  they're thriving.  can't swing a condor without hitting one.
smog is going to destroy southern california?  hardly
 
2014-07-04 02:26:13 AM  
But if climate hasn't changed since the time of dinosaurs, how will the birds survive this disaster? It might change five degrees!
 
2014-07-04 02:27:08 AM  
Maybe, but I hate chicken.
 
2014-07-04 02:31:53 AM  
Reminds me to go brine this chicken for tomorrow
 
2014-07-04 02:32:20 AM  
Cheese creates more greenhouse gas that pork? Huh.

Also: chicken is more efficient calorie-wise than beef, too.

media.treehugger.com
 
2014-07-04 02:33:13 AM  
www.duetsblog.com
 
2014-07-04 02:36:52 AM  

nickdaisy: ozone layer going to destroy us?  didn't happen


Sure, because we banned CFCs.

bald eagles are all going to die? they're thriving. can't swing a condor without hitting one.

DDT ban. They're still listed as "Threatened" though, which is only one step up from Endangered.

If these are your examples against environmental regulations you're gonna have to dig deeper.
 
Skr
2014-07-04 02:38:51 AM  
Chicken and Turkey farms are about the fowlest smelling places that I've had the misfortune of visiting... the mink farm kinda grew on me after a while.
 
2014-07-04 02:39:06 AM  

WelldeadLink: But if climate hasn't changed since the time of dinosaurs, how will the birds survive this disaster? It might change five degrees!


Um, what?

The climate has changed several times since the dinosaurs. Look into the whole Ice Age (and mini-Ice Age) thing. Some life escaped that and filled the vast "niche" left by all the ones that didn't. If we cause another, lots of current life will die and whatever survives, given a few millenia, will fill the new niche. Nota bene: humans may not be among them. Choose accordingly.

And you might want to look up some of the ubiquitous charts of what a 5-degree global temp shift would actually do. We're not just talking about whether to hold the picnic inside or outside.
 
2014-07-04 02:42:48 AM  

nickdaisy: according to this sheep are the real culprits, which is highly appropriate when you consider how so much of the environmental movement is driven by mindless morons who parrot whatever they hear from celebrities and leftists professors

i'm not saying climate change doesn't exist-- i think it does.  i just think that environmental hysteria-- like inflation hysteria and terrorism hysteria on the right, is over the top.  i think back to all the stuff they taught us in grade school when i was a kid in the 80's, and almost none of it has come true.  usually stuff turns out somewhat right, but never completely.

ozone layer going to destroy us?  didn't happen
AIDS is going to infect one out of ten Americans with HIV?  never even close
gasoline is gonna run out?  i just filled up today
bald eagles are all going to die?  they're thriving.  can't swing a condor without hitting one.
smog is going to destroy southern california?  hardly


It was worse when I grew up in the 60's and 70's:
Ice was going to wipe out the northeast (this was really a big theory when the blizzard in upstate New York happened in 1977(?).
Whales were going to be extinct in less than five years.
The California Condor was a goner
The Bald Eagle was a goner.
Thousands of other species per year were goners, and not minor variations on a theme like the spotted hampsters or whatever but the entire species.

Therefore we were mostly gonna die in three decades from famine, pestilence and flooding. They went all biblical and shiat in their predictions.

It's why I don't trust environmentalists when they say "Trust me", this bad thing is going to happen. They haven't earned my trust any more than Chicken Little would have. They wasted any gravitas by making the worst possible dire predictions and they didn't happen, then they try to say that the science is certain. That's what they said when I was a kid. Clearly it isn't, otherwise Florida would be underwater by now because that was the prediction back in the day.

Let me be clear that I'm not a denier of climate change but the rate of change isn't anywhere close to what they said was going to happen and I simply don't trust their models because of that.

I'm still waiting for Florida to be flooded over though. That might be cool.

/sorry Florida
 
2014-07-04 02:46:53 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-07-04 02:47:06 AM  

nickdaisy: according to this sheep are the real culprits, which is highly appropriate when you consider how so much of the environmental movement is driven by mindless morons who parrot whatever they hear from celebrities and leftists professors

i'm not saying climate change doesn't exist-- i think it does.  i just think that environmental hysteria-- like inflation hysteria and terrorism hysteria on the right, is over the top.  i think back to all the stuff they taught us in grade school when i was a kid in the 80's, and almost none of it has come true.  usually stuff turns out somewhat right, but never completely.

ozone layer going to destroy us?  didn't happen
AIDS is going to infect one out of ten Americans with HIV?  never even close
gasoline is gonna run out?  i just filled up today
bald eagles are all going to die?  they're thriving.  can't swing a condor without hitting one.
smog is going to destroy southern california?  hardly


TFA notes that while sheep are far and away the worst culprits, lamb makes up a very small part of the American diet. Unlike beef. Thus the emphasis on beef.

Is there hyperbole among the environmental movement? Sure, and some Republicans think the Tea Party is a good thing. In other words, intelligent people don't allow a handful of bellowing fools to discredit a legitimate point of view.

Every example you raise is a case where environmental or health lobbying averted a loss or tragedy. You really made a lousy case for environmental irresponsibility.
 
2014-07-04 02:59:21 AM  
Does anyone here really care to the extent they're going to stop eating the foods they love because scientists have found yet another thing that will Kill us all?
Pretty sure death will Kill us all eventually, can we not enjoy deliciousness on that journey to the inevitable?
 
2014-07-04 02:59:36 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
coming to my mouth tonight. get in mah bellie
 
2014-07-04 03:03:29 AM  

Radioactive Ass: nickdaisy: according to this sheep are the real culprits, which is highly appropriate when you consider how so much of the environmental movement is driven by mindless morons who parrot whatever they hear from celebrities and leftists professors

i'm not saying climate change doesn't exist-- i think it does.  i just think that environmental hysteria-- like inflation hysteria and terrorism hysteria on the right, is over the top.  i think back to all the stuff they taught us in grade school when i was a kid in the 80's, and almost none of it has come true.  usually stuff turns out somewhat right, but never completely.

ozone layer going to destroy us?  didn't happen
AIDS is going to infect one out of ten Americans with HIV?  never even close
gasoline is gonna run out?  i just filled up today
bald eagles are all going to die?  they're thriving.  can't swing a condor without hitting one.
smog is going to destroy southern california?  hardly

It was worse when I grew up in the 60's and 70's:
Ice was going to wipe out the northeast (this was really a big theory when the blizzard in upstate New York happened in 1977(?).
Whales were going to be extinct in less than five years.
The California Condor was a goner
The Bald Eagle was a goner.
Thousands of other species per year were goners, and not minor variations on a theme like the spotted hampsters or whatever but the entire species.

Therefore we were mostly gonna die in three decades from famine, pestilence and flooding. They went all biblical and shiat in their predictions.

It's why I don't trust environmentalists when they say "Trust me", this bad thing is going to happen. They haven't earned my trust any more than Chicken Little would have. They wasted any gravitas by making the worst possible dire predictions and they didn't happen, then they try to say that the science is certain. That's what they said when I was a kid. Clearly it isn't, otherwise Florida would be underwater by now because that was the prediction bac ...



A couple of things you might want to keep in mind. First, some note needs to be made that actions were taken to remedy quite a few of your list (as well as that of the post you're responding to). For example, California Condors were down to 22 individuals and were only saved due to an intensive conservation and captive breeding program. They did not somehow come back on their own - they did because we recognized the threat and did something about it. Second, and more importantly, even if some predictions have been wrong in the past does not somehow mean that ones about climate change are somehow wrong.
 
2014-07-04 03:06:48 AM  

Skr: Chicken and Turkey farms are about the fowlest smelling places that I've had the misfortune of visiting... the mink farm kinda grew on me after a while.


pun aside...

Try assisting in the cleaning of a whale carcass. A sewage treatment plant doesn't even smell as bad as a rotting whale carcass...
 
2014-07-04 03:07:37 AM  
I just watched Man vs Food and Richman got his ass kicked by 50 wings. Pussy could only eat 36. He should just grab a razor blade and draw a bath.

/#fatspiration.
 
2014-07-04 03:16:27 AM  
I'm willing to do my part by eating beef until there is no cows left.
 
2014-07-04 03:18:24 AM  
FTA:

Even if their projection is off by a few million, that's a lot of cars.


And if even 10% of Yeti sightings are true, that's still a lot of Yetis.


It's also probably more manageable for people to substitute chicken for beef then it is to, say, change how they power their homes or how they get to work.


Bask in the intellectual superiority of your betters.
 
2014-07-04 03:19:17 AM  

nickdaisy: according to this sheep are the real culprits, which is highly appropriate when you consider how so much of the environmental movement is driven by mindless morons who parrot whatever they hear from celebrities and leftists professors

i'm not saying climate change doesn't exist-- i think it does.  i just think that environmental hysteria-- like inflation hysteria and terrorism hysteria on the right, is over the top.  i think back to all the stuff they taught us in grade school when i was a kid in the 80's, and almost none of it has come true.  usually stuff turns out somewhat right, but never completely.

ozone layer going to destroy us?  didn't happen
AIDS is going to infect one out of ten Americans with HIV?  never even close
gasoline is gonna run out?  i just filled up today
bald eagles are all going to die?  they're thriving.  can't swing a condor without hitting one.
smog is going to destroy southern california?  hardly



These are all examples of things that could have happened if steps weren't taken to prevent them, where they a little hyperbole sure but the things they claimed could very well have happened if people didn't do something to prevent them so they had to give the worst case scenario to get people to pay attention. The same thing with climate change, its not going to wipe out humanity but if we don't do something it could render vast areas of land unlivable, displace millions, and wipe out many different species as well as make life on earth that much more uncomfortable.

Also gasoline is gonna run out just not in the immediate future, I'm willing to bet that by 2050 gas powered cars will be gone and only driven as collector items.
 
Skr
2014-07-04 03:24:10 AM  

Czechzican: Skr: Chicken and Turkey farms are about the fowlest smelling places that I've had the misfortune of visiting... the mink farm kinda grew on me after a while.

pun aside...

Try assisting in the cleaning of a whale carcass. A sewage treatment plant doesn't even smell as bad as a rotting whale carcass...


My locale hasn't really lent it self to whale clean up. but I'm sure the scent  of ripe whale would leave me blubbering.
 
2014-07-04 03:26:32 AM  

Anenu: nickdaisy: according to this sheep are the real culprits, which is highly appropriate when you consider how so much of the environmental movement is driven by mindless morons who parrot whatever they hear from celebrities and leftists professors


i'm not saying climate change doesn't exist-- i think it does.  i just think that environmental hysteria-- like inflation hysteria and terrorism hysteria on the right, is over the top.  i think back to all the stuff they taught us in grade school when i was a kid in the 80's, and almost none of it has come true.  usually stuff turns out somewhat right, but never completely.


ozone layer going to destroy us?  didn't happen
AIDS is going to infect one out of ten Americans with HIV?  never even close
gasoline is gonna run out?  i just filled up today
bald eagles are all going to die?  they're thriving.  can't swing a condor without hitting one.
smog is going to destroy southern california?  hardly

These are all examples of things that could have happened if steps weren't taken to prevent them, where they a little hyperbole sure but the things they claimed could very well have happened if people didn't do something to prevent them so they had to give the worst case scenario to get people to pay attention. The same thing with climate change, its not going to wipe out humanity but if we don't do something it could render vast areas of land unlivable, displace millions, and wipe out many different species as well as make life on earth that much more uncomfortable.


Also gasoline is gonna run out just not in the immediate future, I'm willing to bet that by 2050 gas powered cars will be gone and only driven as collector items.



How much?
 
2014-07-04 03:28:15 AM  
Chicken tastes like chewy, fibrous nothing with a dash of antipathy that oh so slowly creeps down your throat and into your bowels.
 
2014-07-04 03:28:52 AM  
This chart is self-evidently wrong.  Are we supposed to believe from this chart that Lamb (not mutton or sheep) is worse than cattle?  Really?  Is that much lamb really farking up the environment, and why does it stop when it becomes an adult sheep, which isn't on the list?  Cheese is #3, is that goat cheese, cow cheese or what?  Should I get Camembert or Roqufort?  Goddamit, my protein planning is all farked up by your shiatty collumn!
 
2014-07-04 03:32:19 AM  
I've decided it's not worth bothering arguing with AGW deniers anymore. How can you have a reasonable discussion with people who think science itself is a vast liberal conspiracy and that environmentalists are just a front for communists who want to destroy capitalism via regulation? Of course that assumes the person your arguing with isn't a shill or a troll to begin with.
 
2014-07-04 03:39:07 AM  

Aquapope: This chart is self-evidently wrong.  Are we supposed to believe from this chart that Lamb (not mutton or sheep) is worse than cattle?  Really?  Is that much lamb really farking up the environment, and why does it stop when it becomes an adult sheep, which isn't on the list?  Cheese is #3, is that goat cheese, cow cheese or what?  Should I get Camembert or Roqufort?  Goddamit, my protein planning is all farked up by your shiatty collumn!


First off, simple incredulity isn't much of a rebuttal, regardless of the topic. Second, mutton isn't eaten all that much, which would explain why it isn't on the list. Third, note that the chart is per kilogram, which would explain much of the low efficiency for lamb (smaller body size means more inedible mass per unit meat in relation to other ruminants).
 
2014-07-04 03:50:32 AM  

fusillade762: I've decided it's not worth bothering arguing with AGW deniers anymore. How can you have a reasonable discussion with people who think science itself is a vast liberal conspiracy and that environmentalists are just a front for communists who want to destroy capitalism via regulation? Of course that assumes the person your arguing with isn't a shill or a troll to begin with.


I find what helps is to let go of the idea that the other person must be convinced in a rational way. You can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into and all that. You can try for it, but one also has to acknowledge that it may very well not work.  However, there are others in the thread that might be more amenable or who might learn something.

With that out of the way, I find it easy to argue. We've got the science and rationality on our side. We don't need to lie, ignore evidence, or rely on any of the myriad fallacies and mental contortions that "skeptics" have to do actively do on a regular basis in order for them to maintain their opinion. It must be mentally tiring, in sense. All we have to do is honestly represent the evidence - that's easy in comparison, IMHO.
 
2014-07-04 03:53:13 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Aquapope: This chart is self-evidently wrong.  Are we supposed to believe from this chart that Lamb (not mutton or sheep) is worse than cattle?  Really?  Is that much lamb really farking up the environment, and why does it stop when it becomes an adult sheep, which isn't on the list?  Cheese is #3, is that goat cheese, cow cheese or what?  Should I get Camembert or Roqufort?  Goddamit, my protein planning is all farked up by your shiatty collumn!

First off, simple incredulity isn't much of a rebuttal, regardless of the topic. Second, mutton isn't eaten all that much, which would explain why it isn't on the list. Third, note that the chart is per kilogram, which would explain much of the low efficiency for lamb (smaller body size means more inedible mass per unit meat in relation to other ruminants).


First off, initial incredulity is often very accurate as a way of identifying stupidity.  Second, lamb would be a subset of sheep for purposes of figuring methane production in farm animals - if lamb is high then sheep must be high as well as  there must be some sheep to produce the lambs, yet lamb isn't even listed.  In spite of what you say, though, mutton is one of the major animal proteins, as lamb or mutton.  Third, notice that on the X axis, mutton/sheep would fall somewhere above zero as they have mass and do emit CO2,yet they don't appear anywhere...so sheep aren't eaten or they aren't included in the graph...
 
2014-07-04 03:58:48 AM  

Aquapope: Damnhippyfreak: Aquapope: This chart is self-evidently wrong.  Are we supposed to believe from this chart that Lamb (not mutton or sheep) is worse than cattle?  Really?  Is that much lamb really farking up the environment, and why does it stop when it becomes an adult sheep, which isn't on the list?  Cheese is #3, is that goat cheese, cow cheese or what?  Should I get Camembert or Roqufort?  Goddamit, my protein planning is all farked up by your shiatty collumn!

First off, simple incredulity isn't much of a rebuttal, regardless of the topic. Second, mutton isn't eaten all that much, which would explain why it isn't on the list. Third, note that the chart is per kilogram, which would explain much of the low efficiency for lamb (smaller body size means more inedible mass per unit meat in relation to other ruminants).

First off, initial incredulity is often very accurate as a way of identifying stupidity.  Second, lamb would be a subset of sheep for purposes of figuring methane production in farm animals - if lamb is high then sheep must be high as well as  there must be some sheep to produce the lambs, yet lamb isn't even listed.  In spite of what you say, though, mutton is one of the major animal proteins, as lamb or mutton.  Third, notice that on the X axis, mutton/sheep would fall somewhere above zero as they have mass and do emit CO2,yet they don't appear anywhere...so sheep aren't eaten or they aren't included in the graph...


Here's another source.

static.ewg.org

Why do beef and lamb have a much higher carbon footprint than other meats?

Unlike other animals, cattle and sheep produce methane directly in their digestive process,, accounting for the majority of their greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, beef and lamb production is resource intensive, requiring more water, pesticides, fertilizer and fuel than other livestock. That translates into higher emissions per pound of edible meat. In addition, the amount of edible meat per animal is lower than for chicken or pork.

Beef and lamb generate comparable amounts of methane and require similar quantities of feed, but lamb generates more emissions per pound because it produces less edible meat in relation to live weight. Also, the life cycle analysis must account for the emissions generated in the course of maintaining mother cows and sheep over many years. All these factors contribute to higher emissions.

 
2014-07-04 04:18:25 AM  

Aquapope: Damnhippyfreak: Aquapope: This chart is self-evidently wrong. Are we supposed to believe from this chart that Lamb (not mutton or sheep) is worse than cattle? Really? Is that much lamb really farking up the environment, and why does it stop when it becomes an adult sheep, which isn't on the list? Cheese is #3, is that goat cheese, cow cheese or what? Should I get Camembert or Roqufort? Goddamit, my protein planning is all farked up by your shiatty collumn!

First off, simple incredulity isn't much of a rebuttal, regardless of the topic. Second, mutton isn't eaten all that much, which would explain why it isn't on the list. Third, note that the chart is per kilogram, which would explain much of the low efficiency for lamb (smaller body size means more inedible mass per unit meat in relation to other ruminants).

First off, initial incredulity is often very accurate as a way of identifying stupidity.


In this case, it was probably misguided. Why settle for 'often' when you can look at the evidence, even superficially, and make a much more rational and accurate assessment instead of relying on a knee-jerk response.


Aquapope: Second, lamb would be a subset of sheep for purposes of figuring methane production in farm animals - if lamb is high then sheep must be high as well as there must be some sheep to produce the lambs, yet lamb isn't even listed.


I'll assume you meant "sheep isn't even listed". In terms of metabolism, sheep, whether lamb or mutton, isn't necessarily less efficient - they're still ruminants, just like cows, after all. Again, the difference is due to the small body size of lambs. Lamb would be high in terms of greenhouse gas production because the chart is per unit weight, and since they have a smaller body size, they have more non-meat mass per unit mass meat that needs to be maintained. In case this still doesn't make sense, let's follow the link under the chart and see if they word it better. Here we go (emphasis mine):

While beef and lamb generate comparable amounts of methane and require similar quantities of feed, lamb generates more emissions per kilo in part because it produces less edible meat relative to the sheep's live weight.

Does that make more sense? My prior wording in the previous post could have been better.


Aquapope: In spite of what you say, though, mutton is one of the major animal proteins, as lamb or mutton.


I can't say I've seen much mutton out there on the shelves. I see more ostrich and bison than mutton (which also aren't included). Maybe it's more important for animal feed and other uses rather than direct human consumption, which is what the report the chart is from is concerned with.


Aquapope: Third, notice that on the X axis, mutton/sheep would fall somewhere above zero as they have mass and do emit CO2,yet they don't appear anywhere...so sheep aren't eaten or they aren't included in the graph...


Although I was tempted for a moment to argue with you about whether sheep have mass, I would most likely lose that argument. I think you're right, they aren't included in the graph.
 
2014-07-04 04:21:03 AM  
Can't we just mix some Beano into the cattle feed? No farts, no global warming, problem solved.

Or stick hoses up their asses and harvest the methane to use as an alternative fuel. Less cowfarts and less gasoline use = happy planet.

Or just mount little flamethrower igniters under their bovine buttholes. Burning methane still pollutes, but it's not as bad as letting it all go into the atmosphere. Not as effective, and a little dangerous, but wouldn't that be fun to watch as you wander past a cow pasture late at night?
 
2014-07-04 04:23:42 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Although I was tempted for a moment to argue with you about whether sheep have mass


Let's do this.

It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them has sheep. Therefore, there must be a finite number of sheep with finite mass. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average mass of sheep is zero.
 
2014-07-04 04:29:24 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: A couple of things you might want to keep in mind. First, some note needs to be made that actions were taken to remedy quite a few of your list (as well as that of the post you're responding to). For example, California Condors were down to 22 individuals and were only saved due to an intensive conservation and captive breeding program. They did not somehow come back on their own - they did because we recognized the threat and did something about it. Second, and more importantly, even if some predictions have been wrong in the past does not somehow mean that ones about climate change are somehow wrong.


I completely recognize your first point. I know that it took a lot to draw them back from the brink but that wasn't a model, that was a direct observation with obvious outcomes if nothing was done. Broken eggs means no more baby Condors and no more baby Condors ultimately means no more Condors at all. That's not a model, that's an obvious fact that any kid who has been taught the birds (heh) and the bees knows. It's a no brainer as to why and how to try and fix it.

It's the second point that I have problems with. The California Condors were the exception to the rule. Predictions based on models known to not have tracked with predictions over a few years are not good models. They just aren't and it's very hard to justify actions based upon them.

If I made a business model that predicted 1 million dollars in sales per year and I am losing money but spending like I was pulling in a million dollars then it's a failed model and I will go into bankruptcy.

If I set up a SONAR model to do ray tracing and the model puts a contact 10 miles farther out (or even worse, closer) then it's a failed model.

If I set up a Target Motion Analysis model that is so far off that a torpedo can't hit the target then it's a failed model.

I'm not saying that the job can't be done but based upon failed models coming from that community I'm going to be skeptical of any more models coming from them until they get closer to the stated outcome and it's testable. Just like you wouldn't hire a painter where his work that you've seen with your own eyes is sloppy so you aren't going to let him paint your house, the same standard applies here. It might be easier to hire him if he explains that the weather was bad but the homeowner pressed him to do it anyway which explains the paint splatters. But the people making the global warming and dire results claims haven't done that or even apologized for their mistakes. They said that the science was settled which means that there was no pressure to get it done quickly and that it's been thoroughly looked at. I don't buy it. I just don't. They have been shown to be less than trustworthy in how they come to conclusions. That's not to say that they are unredeemable, but they have a bigger hill to climb than what they had before. That's not because of any initial skepticism on my part. They own this and they are at fault for overstating the outcomes and predictions that they themselves made.
 
2014-07-04 04:31:25 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Damnhippyfreak: Although I was tempted for a moment to argue with you about whether sheep have mass

Let's do this.

It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them has sheep. Therefore, there must be a finite number of sheep with finite mass. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average mass of sheep is zero.


In an infinite number of worlds there is a world where sheep are bodiless spirits that loudly BAAAAHHH!! at people walking home alone at night and misbehaving children.
 
2014-07-04 04:33:17 AM  
Easy solution is to eliminate all sheep and bovines.  Extinction for the good of the planet.
 
2014-07-04 04:45:23 AM  
What we need is some of these, then:

api.ning.com
 
2014-07-04 04:46:12 AM  

WhoGAS: Easy solution is to eliminate all sheep and bovines.  Extinction for the good of the planet.


Something else will fill the void. Before we had cattle grazing on the plains there were millions of bison, antelope, deer, etc., in far greater quantities than there are now, grazing and farting up a virtual  methane storm. The output of methane from natural sources (including rotting vegetation) will never appreciably decrease unless we raze the entire planet of all vegetation.
 
2014-07-04 05:02:06 AM  
People who eat lots of chicken are like the Eurotrash who watch and play soccer. Quite effeminate in my opinion. You eat chicken when beef is not available and you play soccer when your not man enough to play football. Sorry but you know I'm right.
 
2014-07-04 05:12:02 AM  
Radioactive Ass: ... I don't buy it. I just don't.   ...

In other words, you just feel it in your gut?
 
2014-07-04 05:14:58 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Damnhippyfreak: A couple of things you might want to keep in mind. First, some note needs to be made that actions were taken to remedy quite a few of your list (as well as that of the post you're responding to). For example, California Condors were down to 22 individuals and were only saved due to an intensive conservation and captive breeding program. They did not somehow come back on their own - they did because we recognized the threat and did something about it. Second, and more importantly, even if some predictions have been wrong in the past does not somehow mean that ones about climate change are somehow wrong.

I completely recognize your first point. I know that it took a lot to draw them back from the brink but that wasn't a model, that was a direct observation with obvious outcomes if nothing was done. Broken eggs means no more baby Condors and no more baby Condors ultimately means no more Condors at all. That's not a model, that's an obvious fact that any kid who has been taught the birds (heh) and the bees knows. It's a no brainer as to why and how to try and fix it.

It's the second point that I have problems with. The California Condors were the exception to the rule.


I'll address your later points in a second but note that I was talking about predictions that are completely unrelated to climate change, as you listed in your previous post. Predictions about California Condors, for example, says almost nothing about predictions about climate change, and the accuracy of one does not affect the other.


Radioactive Ass: Predictions based on models known to not have tracked with predictions over a few years are not good models. They just aren't and it's very hard to justify actions based upon them.

If I made a business model that predicted 1 million dollars in sales per year and I am losing money but spending like I was pulling in a million dollars then it's a failed model and I will go into bankruptcy.

If I set up a SONAR model to do ray tracing and the model puts a contact 10 miles farther out (or even worse, closer) then it's a failed model.

If I set up a Target Motion Analysis model that is so far off that a torpedo can't hit the target then it's a failed model.

I'm not saying that the job can't be done but based upon failed models coming from that community I'm going to be skeptical of any more models coming from them until they get closer to the stated outcome and it's testable. Just like you wouldn't hire a painter where his work that you've seen with your own eyes is sloppy so you aren't going to let him paint your house, the same standard applies here. It might be easier to hire him if he explains that the weather was bad but the homeowner pressed him to do it anyway which explains the paint splatters. But the people making the global warming and dire results claims haven't done that or even apologized for their mistakes. They said that the science was settled which means that there was no pressure to get it done quickly and that it's been thoroughly looked at. I don't buy it. I just don't. They have been shown to be less than trustworthy in how they come to conclusions. That's not to say that they are unredeemable, but they have a bigger hill to climb than what they had before. That's not because of any initial skepticism on my part. They own this and they are at fault for overstating the outcomes and predictions that they themselves made.



What you should be made aware of is that the contention that models are somehow wrong isn't all that valid. In short, the variability in temperature is high enough that short-term trends do not accurately represent and are not mutually exclusive with the longer-term current warming trend. Let me explain this a bit. You might have seen this graphic in these threads:


www.skepticalscience.com

This illustrates this principle quite readily. With the high amount of short-term variability inherent in temperature data from the myriad of processes at work, if you consider a short period of time, you will have a much greater chance of primarily capturing this short-term variability. As in the graphic, these short-term trends are not mutually exclusive with and do not disprove the existence of the longer-term trend. In this way, short-term deviations from a predicted value do not necessarily mean that a longer-term projection is not true.

Another issue is that models provide predictions that represent a range, something that is often ignored.  This is an example from the recent IPCC AR5 WGI report:


img.fark.net

Note how each projection has a range associated with it. While I think it's safe to say that current global temperatures are tracking on the lower bit of that range, they still aren't outside of it.
 
2014-07-04 05:16:59 AM  

rjkline: People who eat lots of chicken are like the Eurotrash who watch and play soccer. Quite effeminate in my opinion. You eat chicken when beef is not available and you play soccer when your not man enough to play football American armoured wankerball. Sorry but you know I'm right like the part where the guy puts his hands on the other guy's balls from behind.

 
2014-07-04 05:17:38 AM  

gadian: Damnhippyfreak: Damnhippyfreak: Although I was tempted for a moment to argue with you about whether sheep have mass

Let's do this.

It is known that there is an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them has sheep. Therefore, there must be a finite number of sheep with finite mass. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average mass of sheep is zero.

In an infinite number of worlds there is a world where sheep are bodiless spirits that loudly BAAAAHHH!! at people walking home alone at night and misbehaving children.


Any sheep you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
 
2014-07-04 05:22:14 AM  

Bonobo62: Can't we just mix some Beano into the cattle feed? No farts, no global warming, problem solved.

Or stick hoses up their asses and harvest the methane to use as an alternative fuel. Less cowfarts and less gasoline use = happy planet.

Or just mount little flamethrower igniters under their bovine buttholes. Burning methane still pollutes, but it's not as bad as letting it all go into the atmosphere. Not as effective, and a little dangerous, but wouldn't that be fun to watch as you wander past a cow pasture late at night?


Made me think of this.

static.rogerebert.com
static.rogerebert.com

...and just because:

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-04 05:26:41 AM  

fusillade762: I've decided it's not worth bothering arguing with AGW deniers anymore. How can you have a reasonable discussion with people who think science itself is a vast liberal conspiracy and that environmentalists are just a front for communists who want to destroy capitalism via regulation? Of course that assumes the person your arguing with isn't a shill or a troll to begin with.


shut the fark up about the plan, blabby mcblads Alot
 
2014-07-04 05:39:42 AM  

Road Rash: WhoGAS: Easy solution is to eliminate all sheep and bovines.  Extinction for the good of the planet.

Something else will fill the void. Before we had cattle grazing on the plains there were millions of bison, antelope, deer, etc., in far greater quantities than there are now, grazing and farting up a virtual  methane storm. The output of methane from natural sources (including rotting vegetation) will never appreciably decrease unless we raze the entire planet of all vegetation.


And ants, and termites, and beetles. Not the Beatles band (although they are getting old, the ones left anyway, and old people get a bit gassy so maybe...).

Methane is a naturally occurring gas as far as our planet is concerned and has been for longer than we as a species have been around and the creepy crawlies started hitting land. As is CO2, oxygen (man, how much damage has that one caused considering that every single fire ever has added to global pollution and O2 has been a major factor in every one of them?) and a bunch of other gasses that our planet "Farts" out. Deal with it, we aren't headed towards a global "Dutch oven" from animal, vegetation (including algae) or insect farts. Those things have been around since life first started here with huge algae beds and haven't stopped since then.

This is what I meant about dire predictions that aren't testable until a few decades (or more) have passed and then the "Models" change their dire predictions to new ones that will take another few decades to measure outcomes to predictions yet again. It's why I don't buy them on their face. They have lost viability through their own exaggerated claims that have rarely come through in their outcomes. Science is supposed to be conservative in it's estimates. It's always better to be less wrong than more wrong where science is concerned. That's the process.

Science isn't a rush to judgement, it's a slow process where every single step is verified before you take the next step because if the last step was wrong then every step that follows is also wrong because you are going to be off track. It's not unlike moving a lot of high explosives. You prepare, you review what you are going to do and make sure everyone knows what that is, then you look at what you're going to move to make sure that it's in the expected condition, then you look at where you're going to move it through. Then, if everything is within preset parameters, you move it. Skip any of those steps and it's an incorrect move and the BOOM is your fault as would be the faulty science.

Chicken Little was listened to at first and when the sky actually fell nobody listened because they got tired of hearing her clucking over every perceived threat no matter how small. The Boy Who Called Wolf had the same problem. That's the corner that the people who made dire predictions in decades past are in and the people who have followed have inherited that distrust. Less and less people believe them. I don't know why they made those claims, I can guess that it's a personality flaw not unlike being an attention whore but I can't say that with any certainty. What I can say is that they were dead wrong in their predictions of the outcome in the time frame that they gave and that is testable.
 
2014-07-04 05:43:01 AM  

nickdaisy: according to this sheep are the real culprits, which is highly appropriate when you consider how so much of the environmental movement is driven by mindless morons who parrot whatever they hear from celebrities and leftists professors

i'm not saying climate change doesn't exist-- i think it does.  i just think that environmental hysteria-- like inflation hysteria and terrorism hysteria on the right, is over the top.  i think back to all the stuff they taught us in grade school when i was a kid in the 80's, and almost none of it has come true.  usually stuff turns out somewhat right, but never completely.

ozone layer going to destroy us?  didn't happen
AIDS is going to infect one out of ten Americans with HIV?  never even close
gasoline is gonna run out?  i just filled up today
bald eagles are all going to die?  they're thriving.  can't swing a condor without hitting one.
smog is going to destroy southern california?  hardly


Scientists showed the reason the ozone layer was being depleted was halogenated hydrocarbons. After a great deal of effort, most manufacturing processes using them and coolants were banned.

Scientists showed infection by a previously unknown virus, HIV, was the cause of AIDS. Scientists then developed tests to identify HIV infected individuals before they had AIDS symptoms. The disease still spreads horribly in Africa. In countries where HIV testing is readily available, not so much.

Scientists showed smog was almost entirely due to auto exhaust. Catalytic converters were required and smog decreased as expected.

None of these benefits came from mindless morons. That doesn't stop some from thinking otherwise.
 
2014-07-04 05:48:13 AM  
There are issues with increasing consumption of chickens.

For one, bird flu is a significant threat to humans.  It is the most plausible source of the next pandemic.

Two, birds carry salmonella and campylobacter, which according to the CDC are responsible for half of the hospitalizations due to food poisoning in the US, and over a third of the deaths.

Three, chickens achieve their lower carbon footprint in part through unsafe farming practices, such as densely packing the chickens in an unnatural environment.

Four, according to the USDA we produce 11.6 million kg of beef a year, which according to TFA would generate 27 kg of CO2e each so 313.2 million kg of CO2e, and yet according to the EPA the US produces 6.5 million kg of CO2e total.  Someone's numbers are way off, and I bet it's not the Feds.
 
2014-07-04 05:59:04 AM  

SomeAmerican: There are issues with increasing consumption of chickens.

For one, bird flu is a significant threat to humans.  It is the most plausible source of the next pandemic.

Two, birds carry salmonella and campylobacter, which according to the CDC are responsible for half of the hospitalizations due to food poisoning in the US, and over a third of the deaths.

Three, chickens achieve their lower carbon footprint in part through unsafe farming practices, such as densely packing the chickens in an unnatural environment.

Four, according to the USDA we produce 11.6 million kg of beef a year, which according to TFA would generate 27 kg of CO2e each so 313.2 million kg of CO2e, and yet according to the EPA the US produces 6.5 million kg of CO2e total.  Someone's numbers are way off, and I bet it's not the Feds.


Ack!  On point 4, I misread the EPA.  Their units are in millions of metric tons, not metric tons, so we produce 6,500,000 million kg of CO2e total.  So the reverse is true, instead of the value of switching to chicken being overstated, its underwhelming.... a 0.005% reduction.
 
2014-07-04 06:41:22 AM  

ghare: Radioactive Ass: ... I don't buy it. I just don't.   ...

In other words, you just feel it in your gut?


Sure I do, backed by facts. It was a widely promulgated "Fact" in the late 70's that we were headed for a new ice age, News stories and even novels (I was an avid reader and a news junkie as a teenager and there were plenty of venues exploring that possible outcome) were saying that glaciers were coming. It wasn't a one off prediction. It was treated as the next calamity in both news and fiction. It wasn't exactly a secret.

Then that claim was backed off from when reality wasn't matching claims. Then there was a bit of quiet for whatever reason, if I was into conspiracy theories I'd say that it was to give time for people to forget the first claim but that's not me, I'd say that they were re-evaluating what they saw and trying to make more sense out of it, you know, the scientific method.

Then they went into global warming instead of a new ice age. I bought into that, it's a complex system that is by definition hard to put together and is hard to analyze. I didn't envy them that job but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But those people also had bad outcomes in their predictions that didn't materialize. Now we have two testable outcomes that have failed coming from the same group of people.

That stops being just a "Gut" feeling and more like they are not as good as they claim that they are. Let me ask you a question, if your car mechanic fails twice to fix your car for what is essentially the same fuel injection problem do you think that it's a "Gut" feeling that he might be a bad mechanic or might you think that he is just not really a good mechanic to start off with? That's where I'm at.

This isn't some sports team trying to mind fark the other side by saying that they are going to win. This is science. This is where proof is just as important, if not more important, than the experiment where the experiments parameters are out of your own control. If your predicted outcome and how it tracks with your predicted outcome isn't even close to the same then it's hard to claim that the science is settled. I can understand saying that it's closer to being settled because your outcome is closer than your last one predicted but flat out settled is not a valid claim. Settled means that you can make accurate predictions of most, if not all, outcomes. Science, real science, doesn't claim settled until all aspects are solved and testable

That's why I reject the claim that the "Science is settled". It's just not. The science of basic chemistry, which is much less chaotic, still isn't 100% settled (although it's closer using CERN). How can anyone say that something as new as climate studies in such a chaotic environment make such a claim with a straight face?

The science right now boils down to a best guess. That's far from settled. That's closer to flipping a coin three times and then picking the side ahead of time that came up two out of three times. Not science, just odds and just a guess. It may even be an educated guess because you know that you have a slightly weighted coin, but it's still just a guess.
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report