Actually, there is so much utter stupidity in this letter to the Bennington Banner that I was hard pressed to pick a title. I was seriously considering going with “How Do Climate Realists Fight Against This Much Stupidity?”, because, not to single out the letter writer, but this is the kind of idiocy being taught in the liberal education system, on liberal TV news, in liberal newspapers and mags, etc
A review of 12,000 papers on climate change, in the May 15th issue of “Environmental Research Letters”, found that 97 percent of scientists attribute climate change to human activities. Although we’re unlikely to reverse climate change, we can mitigate its effects by reducing our driving, energy use, and meat consumption.
That “study” continues to be destroyed more and more. Here’s more, where scientists whose papers were put in the I’m A Believer category are saying “whoa, hold on there, Sparky”. It breaks down to 97% of 32.1% of papers who take a position, meaning that 68% too no position/were Climate Realists. Of those 97% over 50% took a position that Man had less than a 50% effect on the climate. I’d be in that class, if you remember my stance. Anyhow
Yes, meat consumption. A 2006 U.N. report estimated that meat consumption accounts for 18 percent of man-made greenhouse gases. A 2009 article in the respected World Watch magazine suggested that it may be closer to 50 percent.
That would actually be mostly Methane, not CO2.
Carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, is generated by burning forests to create animal pastures and by combustion of fossil fuels to confine, feed, transport, and slaughter animals. The much more damaging methane and nitrous oxide are discharged from digestive tracts of cattle and from animal waste cesspools, respectively.
At least he sort of got it right in terms of output, yet, CO2 is not the principal greenhouse gas, even if one read it as being from meat production. Methane is a considerably more potent GHG, on the order of 25-60% more powerful than CO2. NO2 is also more powerful than CO2 (though both have lower atmospheric concentrations). That said, I suspect that the writer was saying that CO2 was the main GHG in the atmosphere, which those who haven’t been indoctrinated know is water vapor. CO2 is just below 400ppm at Mauna Kea observatory. Water vapor is on the order of 1,000-40,000 ppm, depending on the area of the globe (would be less at the poles versus the tropics).
The writer goes on to recommend not eating meat, instead going with soy based lunch meats, veggie burgers, and all sorts of other, well, crap, then offers up the website www.livevegan.org. How do you fight against people who are so indoctrinated and un-scientific? “Climate change” is obviously a political issue, not scientific, and the Believers live in their own little worlds.
More: as VolDog points out in the comments, it’s a chain letter. I’ve found it here. And here. And here. And all over the place, going as far back as May 20th.
Just goes to further prove the points I make about Warmists being brain dead, indoctrinated, and this being a political issue.
This same letter showed up in yesterday’s local Knoxville paper – it’s a chain letter of sorts
So, you mean john.
So, eating nuts, fish, and chicken causes humans to kill the atmosphere with atmosphere gases? Sorry, but I don’t recall excessive methane releases after eating pecans and Tilapia.
Also, when I fry up some burgers, slather on a few strips of bacon, brush on some mayo, pile on some lettuce and pickles, and squish it between two pieces of bread, I don’t think I’m more methane-y than had I eaten a salad. Actually, eating a salad tends to make me excrete more than eating pork.
Granted, I could be breathing out more CO2 than normal due to the anticipation of gorging on tasty cow, chicken, pig flesh.