UN predicts disaster in...

[USincognito]

You can have the last word on the subject. I'm out.

 

[Robban]

Do you think that American cows are the only ones who release flatulence? American Bison, axiomatically, only lived in North America. Cows, however, live worldwide and their flatulence (as well as the other greenhouse emissions livestock agriculture produces) go into global atmosphere. That's why the comparison is valid.



There are different numbers.
Defenders of Wildlife is where I got 20-30 million
Basic Facts About Bison
Fish and Wildlife Service says 30-60 million
Timeline
Nature Conservency says 30 million.

Let's go with higher number of 47 million. That still means there are 30 times as many cattle in the world today than there were American Bison.

Haha, what kind of cows live world wide,
the earth is 71% ocean.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How would you know?
Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

Deliberate hysteria intended to foster panic and knee jerk reactions that will worsen the problem. Proper animal agriculture is part of the solution to climate change. We shouldn't have to depend on TED talks for this information.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I see a lot of deniers who "know" the U.N. is wrong, but they cite a single report or a statement someone has made rather than the actual data. Your response was posted less than 2 minutes after I put up that link telling me you hardly had time to read it, much less digest the data and refute it if you could.

Sorry, but "hurr durr, duh un ers rong" isn't going to cut it in this case.

I read it. The UN is wrong, generally speaking.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

ROFLOLOLOL!!!

They've got the converter on the wrong end of the cow.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Blind post. *When* would these dire things happen "if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."

Like a huge ship heading toward an accident, one could say the ship is going to crash if we don't reverse the engines by 3 o'clock. That doesn't mean the crash happens at 3 o'clock.

But that's the way Americans think.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We probably should have. But if human activity can change the climate, human activity can change the climate. We can still affect the future. The question is not about "how are we gonna pay for it?" but what we want to pay for. Rebuilding Miami after a Katrina-level event kills hundreds of people and destroys much of the city, or policies aimed at mitigating the frequency and severity of such future events.

I don't believe we will do anything meaningful to reverse climate change. We don't do anything meaningful to address other serious problems, why the fuss over climate change.

We are actually pleading for more food for overweight people.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are making zero sense. Do you think that livestock methane emissions are cited as the single cause of climate change? Do you even understand what methane is? If you have zero education on the subject, why not listen and learn instead of making fun of people who happen to be more educated on the matter?

Mocking it is no worse than the cynical attitude of the experts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We don't have to raise so many cattle, for one. Also, minimizing natural gas leaks is another way.

We actually need more cattle to improve the climate.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

P

I suggest getting your information on climate change from scientists, not politicians. Even better would be looking at the data.

Science looks at the data and sees problems. Sadly they don't offer many good solutions. They leave that up to the politicians.

Do you have some other cause for the warming other than human activity? Do you think that scientists are too stupid to look at all the factors involved and eliminate natural causes before concluding it's anthropogenic? Do you have some support for the gradual rise of atmospheric CO2 from 320ppm to 405ppm over the last 60 years not having anything to do with human activity?

There is little to indicate that the problem is manmade, in that a reasonable person would see the solution at about the same time he or she sees the problem.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I found different stats. In america there are 90 million cattle, not 1.4 billion as you claim (that is a world population stat, not american). And there were 60 to 90 million buffalo in the US.

The destruction of the buffalo and subsequently the prairie turf by plowing is one of the saddest chapters in American history, and we have never recovered from it.

 

[W2L]

The destruction of the buffalo and subsequently the prairie turf by plowing is one of the saddest chapters in American history, and we have never recovered from it.

I agree.

 

[USincognito]

Haha, what kind of cows live world wide,
the earth is 71% ocean.

I'm going to chalk this up to not being a native English speaker. In this context, "world-wide" means "all the cattle on planet earth".

 

[FireDragon76]

We actually need more cattle to improve the climate.

I don't see how that could improve the climate. Cows eat grain made from fossil fuels and turn it into methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

 

[Robban]

I'm going to chalk this up to not being a native English speaker. In this context, "world-wide" means "all the cattle on planet earth".

It is not so like every inch of land above sea level there is a cow.

There are 7 billion plus human beings too,
plus all other landlife.

There is a side that forecast global cooling,
new ice age will be upon us 2020, it will happen in a few hours and will last for about 350 years.

Where they get it from is anyones guess.

It is just one big con, raise less cattle and we will be fine,

No,
act justly and fairly, seek peace not war,
when man casts aside all weapons

Then we will recieve blessings as in Deuteronomy 7:13


Yes, even offspring of your cattle will be blessed.

 

[USincognito]

It is not so like every inch of land above sea level there is a cow.

There are 7 billion plus human beings too,
plus all other landlife.

This thread continues to be one of the most frustrating I've ever participated in on CF where simple, straight forward English isn't being comprehended. Let me try a few dictionary definitions to help you out.
Definition of WORLDWIDE
>> worldwide
world·wide | \ ˈwərl(d)-ˈwīd \
Definition of worldwide
: extended throughout or involving the entire world

Definition of worldwide (Entry 2 of 2)
: throughout the world

Examples of worldwide in a Sentence
News of the attack attracted worldwide attention.

Recent Examples on the Web: Adjective
Oei, a competitive Irish Step dancer, who has placed as high as fifth in worldwidecompetitions, also won preliminary awards for talent and lifestyle and fitness in swimsuit on June 8.— Steve Smith, Courant Community, "Hebron's Oei Wins Miss Connecticut Crown," 19 June 2018
Assisting them are the Department of Justice, with its own worldwide system of secret agents, and the post office department, whose inspectors exercise constant vigilance to keep the mails closed to the smuggler.— Popular Mechanics Editors, Popular Mechanics, "Rewind: What Guarding Uncle Sam's Borders Was Like in 1925," 11 Feb. 2019[/quote]

Also
the definition of worldwide
and
worldwide - Wiktionary
and
WORLDWIDE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
and from Google Translate
Kor lever dock över hela världen och deras flatulens (liksom de andra växthusgasutsläppen från boskap producerar) går in i en global atmosfär.

There is a side that forecast global cooling,
new ice age will be upon us 2020, it will happen in a few hours and will last for about 350 years.

You appear to be getting your information from the movie 2012. You might try listening to actual scientists instead.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't see how that could improve the climate. Cows eat grain made from fossil fuels and turn it into methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

Increasing permanent pasture and grassland will help the environment (even improve the weather). Animal manures improve the fertility of the land if properly managed. Healthier land = healthier animals and plants = healthier people. Win/win/win.

 

[FireDragon76]

Increasing permanent pasture and grassland will help the environment (even improve the weather). Animal manures improve the fertility of the land if properly managed. Healthier land = healthier animals and plants = healthier people. Win/win/win.

But that's not representative of how much of the US actually farms beef. The reality is that people want cheap beef and farmers provide bulk by feeding cattle grains, which in many cases can even result in the beef having a higher grade by the USDA.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But that's not representative of how much of the US actually farms beef. The reality is that people want cheap beef and farmers provide bulk by feeding cattle grains, which in many cases can even result in the beef having a higher grade by the USDA.

Lots of things must change if we are to save ourselves.

 

[FireDragon76]

Lots of things must change if we are to save ourselves.

I think its cheaper and more straightforward just to eat less beef. Restoring pastures doesn't require raising cattle, there are plenty of indigenous animals to do that.