Remember me
▼ Content

Both sides of the argument


Both sides of the argument26-11-2014 04:03
carl901
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Hi guys,

Im a design student, and I have chosen a brief which deals with the issue of climate change and global warming.

After watching 'An Inconvenient Truth' — I cannot help to feel, that we as humans, have had some what of an impact on this earth. However, in saying this, I feel as though it is important to get both sides of the argument.

It would be great if everyone could post their views and opinions on these highly debated topics.

Thanks

Edited on 26-11-2014 04:04
26-11-2014 13:00
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Oh boy...

Both sides have posted reams and reams of material on the internet, here and elsewhere. There is NOTHING that anyone would have to tell you that isn't already posted.

If you wish to see the mainstream science position - the position of those who believe the primary cause of the warming of the last 150 has been human activity, go to [url]www.ipcc.ch[/ur] and read the Summary for Policy Makers. It is not too technical and it is not too long. If you'd like something a little more blog-like, try www.skepticalscience.com

As for the other side of the argument, the two most popular sites are probably www.wuwt.com (Anthony Watts, "Watts Up With That") and www.ca.org (Stephen McIntyre's Climate Audit).

Others may have other recommendations.
27-11-2014 02:36
carl901
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Awesome, thanks for the help
27-11-2014 13:28
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I don't count URLs as that much help.

I'd like to point out that viewing this issue as if it had two sides, equal in almost any regard, is a mistake. The mainstream science view is coherent, well-informed and supported by mountains of evidence. The denier side is fractured, fragmentary, often uninformed and has essentially no evidence. An effort to be fair and give venue to both sides of the issue here is precisely like being fair and giving venue to both sides of issues like the shape of the planet, Young Earth Creationism or whether disease is caused by antigens or demons sent by an unhappy god.
09-02-2015 17:54
campy
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
Abraham3 wrote:
I don't count URLs as that much help.

I'd like to point out that viewing this issue as if it had two sides, equal in almost any regard, is a mistake. The mainstream science view is coherent, well-informed and supported by mountains of evidence. The denier side is fractured, fragmentary, often uninformed and has essentially no evidence. An effort to be fair and give venue to both sides of the issue here is precisely like being fair and giving venue to both sides of issues like the shape of the planet, Young Earth Creationism or whether disease is caused by antigens or demons sent by an unhappy god.


Does the mountain of evidence tell us what the optimum temperature of the earth should be? If so what is it and if not why not?
10-02-2015 01:19
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Not really. That was not the purpose of the research. There is no definition of "optimum" or perhaps there are too many. Optimum for plant growth, optimum for animal growth, optimum for infrastructure sustainability, optimum for power generation, etc, etc, etc. Any temperature that is within the range of temperatures under which human civilization and, in particular, that civilization's modern infrastructure came into existence would be good. The problem now is NOT that temperatures are increasing. It is that they are increasing faster than we will be able to cope with.
11-02-2015 17:35
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
Hearing both sides of the argument is okay. However, I would have to agree that there is more than enough scientific investigations that support there is a problem and abnormality with regards to the current status of the earth's temperature and climate.
12-02-2015 08:29
Cornelius
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
Hi Carl901,

Yep......would have to agree with you there on that humans have had somewhat of an impact on the Earth.

If you like the information presented in 'An Inconvenient Truth', can I suggest to you another investigative style documentary, called Cowspiracy.

The guy that made that, had watched 'An Inconvenient Truth' and straight away put all the suggestions into action. However it just didn't seem to be the full answer.

So he began investigating himself.

A really well put together piece of work that offers really great investigation work and uncovers so much about the Global Warming issue that no one wants to touch. Even Greenpeace refused 3 times, invitations of an interview.
His funding was withdrawn by someone that was funding it part the way through because of US government laws that protect the damaging behaviour that humans are partaking in and had to choose was he prepare to go to jail for long time, or expose what the truth was that is going on that is being protected.

I like the way he kept following the problem to it's end, so it gives you no doubt.
Backed up with tonnes of scientific research.


So if that interests you to want to find the deeper truth check it out.
Look it up on line.

Earthlings is also another good one.
12-02-2015 13:44
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Peersonally, I prefer AR5 at www.ipcc.ch as an excelllent source of scientific information on the issue.

Cowspiracy is available at http://www.cowspiracy.com/ for a fee of $9.95.

Earthlings is available, for free, at Earthlings.com

Both films concern the treatment of animals. May I remind you, Cornelius, that the topic of this forum is the climate. I fully support better treatment of animals, including those many of us eat, but that issue is not the topic of this forum. There are numerous forums on the web whose topic IS the humane treatment of animals. This material would be better placed there.
12-02-2015 16:19
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
Good sources mentioned right there. By the way guys, if you have time try to visit this fairly new collaborative site erissolver.com. I was able to communicate with the founder and was able to get a good view as to the aim of the project. To gather collective ideas and information in tackling today's problems such as climate change and global warming. What I found unique about it is that the users can contribute their knowledge and expertise regarding the known issues in a tree-like methodology (not just the normal forum/thread like discussions we are used to). After that, intelligence gathered shall be assessed and hopefully be used for greater good. There are quite a number of algorithms and data analytics available that can be utilized in processing the data (I know coz' I work in a company that specializes in big data and analytics which can be tapped in order to solve common problems nowadays, although it is still in primitive stage).
13-02-2015 11:30
Cornelius
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
Hi Abaraham3 and carl901,


Abraham3 said that both films concern the treatment of animals.
This is incorrect.

I have watched both of those films and yes, Earthlings is all to do with what happens behind the scenes of the practices that humans use animals for in a variety of way. Seeing this is quite disturbing, and what we as humans are responsible for....but fail in feeling any responsibility.

But the film 'Cowspiracy', (which I would suggest that Abraham3 has not actually watched before commenting on or completely missed the point of the production) was the guy going out to discover what was the leading cause in global warming after he did all the things suggested in 'An Inconvenient Truth', and felt it just wasn't doing anything of any real impact.
He had no real idea what it could be and spent an whole bunch of time researching many different things. When he started finding all this scientific evidence that was there, but no one had put together, he went around asking the big players....why?
Anyway, its kind of like a follow up to 'An Inconvenient Truth' but deeper and more thorough. It could be called 'The Most Inconvenient Truth' , especially to those who claim to love the environment.


Abraham3,
Checked out the site that you mentioned, but it looks to be info of what we already know. It's what we don't yet know that is killing the environment.

And there's no need to remind me that the topic of this forum is the Climate. I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that it is a 'debate' forum...so I feel I'm free to enter into the climate issue with a different opinion that hasn't been explored and not know about.
And the issue is 'directly' related to the Climate.

You said that you " fully support better treatment of animals, including those many of us eat".
Bit of a conundrum that!
This is where your concept of love is twisted. You do NOT kill something that you LOVE or care about. Killing is not a better treatment than allowing something to live.
When you drive a knife into an animal and see it's eyes, it isn't the look of some better treatment it's receiving.

It would be more honest if you were to state it how it is: "that those of us who eat meat aren't terribly concerned how the meat gets to my table, as long as it gets there. And in fact we don't want to know or see how that happens even if it involves global warming".
Nothing wrong with being honest how you really feel. And how you really feel is demonstrated by your actions. But don't try and put a fluffy façade over it.

Many people say that illogical statement.....just to make themselves feel better.....not the animal.

The better treatment is to allow it to have it's life.
13-02-2015 13:25
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I you would like us to hear the message of 'Cowspiracy', I suggest you give us the Reader's Digest version. I lack the discretionary funds, the spare time and the faith in your judgement to spend ten of my hard earned dollars and over 90 minutes of my time on a film that, from all appearances, has no bearing on the topic of this forum.

I also suggest that unless you are actually willing to discuss climate change, you take your message elsewhere. Urging the readership here to spend their money on something you could have provided gratis constitutes commercialism; a behavior banned on every discussion forum I'v ever visited.
17-02-2015 14:10
Cornelius
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
Hi Abraham3,

I actually feel it would be quite impossible for you to hear any message really, while you are already so opposed to the subject matter.....even though the subject matter is squarely and fully focussed on Climate Change.....which you claim to be interested in. So you are either open to all things on the subject, or you are selective to what you only feel comfortable to know?
I don't know how you can make any valid judgements on something from 'appearances'...as you say.... as opposed to having the actual experience.
That's not how I would determine the content of something.
And all of your assumptions about the 'Cowspiracy' film are way off as you would find in viewing it. If you love science, the environment, and truth, and the way to find it, you would actually be attracted to this film.
This is how I came across it. And was happy to spend $10, seeing as the environment to me is priceless.


If you were more honest with yourself Abraham3.....your greatest issue that blocks you is, that you are addicted to eating meat....and very close minded.
And this information is emotionally challenging to you in that regard.
And even if all the scientific evidence in the world (which is chock full of it in the film)could be presented to you that animal agriculture IS the main cause of Global Warming, it's going to come down to a choice between beliefs that you have behind your addiction and your TRUE feelings in regard to solving Global Warming. You will choose the one that is the strongest within you.

I wish you luck.

The climate problem will not go away with your head in the sand though....deep as you may like to bury it. Ignorance never solved any problems.....only courage to face fears and being humble to the truth can.
So I can see your fear in this, and wanting me to go away.


This is what I liked about the film.....is that the guy that made it has a great love for the planet and was not just happy to sit around talking about it but, got off his butt to go and find out more and then more and more. He was a meat eater by the way and never gave any thought to it before he wanted to find out what was the cause of global warming. But as he investigated more in what were the most sustainable ways to farm and eat meat, he was shocked at how much things were being covered up even to the highest levels about the effects on the environment all the methods he investigated in. He knew that his love for the environment was more important than his own issues with what he was discovering and was coming to terms with what he was finding out as he went. What I like about that, is that he put TRUTH as more important than his own FEARS. Even when he had been advised to stop because of the threat to spending his future in jail (cause crazy laws in the US protect the truth from NOT being disclosed) he made the choice for the good of the planet, not himself. And that is someone with good ethics.





I am not a bad person despite how you may feel about me.
I am interested only in assisting people where I can in their enquiries and questions and offering what I can in solutions for the reasons why we choose to damage this planet and offer what I have not only learned, but tested and gained personal experience from rather than opinions. I have a love for truth, for humanity and for all life forms on this planet that essentially support our own human life.
I can't help it if you feel challenged by information that you are totally dismissive of without investigation.....yet like to come across that you are interested in the environment, and global warming issues, while being opposed to new information point blank, have no desire to find truth, and have no real regard for animal life or desire to understand their role in the environment as if they are not an important part of the issue.
This issue of what you like to present yourself to be to others rather than demonstrate yourself to be by your actions is blocking you to growth on the Climate Change issue as well as personal growth and is going to have to be something that you will have to come to terms with by yourself.



So I can't give you a 'Readers Digest' version (cause I have no idea what you are asking) that you ask for and you don't seem to really want to know anyway......but for the sake of others who may, I'm willing to spend my time to give something, which is worth more than $10 of my time, but only cause I would want others to see the truth backed up by science.....that many people who are financially invested in people not seeing and always happy to offer what can help the most.

I would never do it justice but I'll just give you some direct quotes from some of the people in the film.
By the way, the film is a progression of the guy in his search for sustainability for the planet. He interviews a wide cross-section of people. Some just have no answers to his questions because they have never considered them before.
Some are really honest and concerned. Some try to justify themselves. And some have had the research know for a long time....but not done anything with it.....mainly due to fear of what would happen to them.
Anything I write will not give it the full picture.

So........I'll just give you a bit of a range of what different people said.

Dr. Kirk R.Smith
Professor of Global Environmental Health
University of California, Berkley.

"If you reduce the amount of methane emissions, the level in the atmosphere goes down fairly quickly, and within decades, as opposed to C02, if you reduce the emissions (of C02) into the atmosphere, you don't really see a signal in the atmosphere for a hundred years or so."
"....need to fix methane over C02 because you get a response right away."


By the way ....Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 and has a global warming power 86 times that of CO2. Cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day.


Dr. Richard Oppenlander.
Environmental Researcher
Author: Comfortably Unaware

"Without using any gas or oil or fuel ever again, from this day forward, we would still exceed our maximum carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 565 gigatons, by the year 2030. Without the electricity/energy sector even factored into the equation, all simply by raising and eating livestock."




Former Greenpeace USA Board of Directors
Will Anderson
Greenpeace Alaska Founder.

"Environment organisations like other organisations are not telling you the truth about what the world needs from us as a species. It's so frustrating when the information is right before their eyes, it is documented and peer reviewed papers and journals, it's there for everybody to see but the environmental organisations are refusing to act. Nowhere do you find in their policies and nowhere do you find in the Greenpeace mission that diet isn't important. That Animal agriculture is the problem. They are refusing like other environmental organisations to look at the issue. The environmental community is failing us and they're failing the eco-systems."


Someone else also brought up this issue and suggested that the Environmental organisations are not willing to bring up the issue because they have a financial investment in not doing so because they are funded by donations. They feel that they will lose that financial input because many of their donations come from humans that want to eat meat.
So they are merely a façade of pretending to look after the environment.



Ann Notthoff
Natural Resources Defence Council
Californian Advocacy Director.

"The majority of antibiotics in the US are administered to healthy livestock"


Suggesting that while we give these to healthy livestock in a precautionary way so they wont get sick and sickness spreading, we make this choice over humans in 3rd world countries and other areas that actually die from sicknesses where something as simple as anti-biotics could have saved their life over an insurance measure for a healthy livestock.



Howard Lyman
Former Cattle Rancher of 45 years.
Once the largest cattle family in the state on Montana.

....talking about the US Food Disparagement Laws.....what it basically says that, it was against the law to say something you know to be false about a perishable commodity......when he spoke out about the law being unconstitutional on Oprah in 1996.

" I didn't say anything on the Oprah show I thought to be false; I went there and told the truth. Now it took 5 years and hundreds of dollars to end up extricating myself from the suits from the cattle industry.

But if I was to go on the Oprah show today, say exactly the same thing, that I said back then, I would be guilty. And for me when they were talking about the food disparagement law, it was a fact of whether I told the truth or not. You can go today and tell the truth, and you will be guilty. Because if you cause a disruption in the profits in the animal industry, you're guilty under the Patriot Act."

Film maker asks:" Do you think there should be any concern of us making this documentary?"

Howard Lyman responds: "Of course! If you don't realise right now that you are putting your head on the chopping block, you know, you better take that camera and throw it away."


Interesting how easy it is to change a law that the truth could still squeeze through and then have to create a new one so the truth can be hidden watertight. Interesting also that to be patriotic, you have to hide the truth.

Facts popup all through the production as he becomes aware of the information.... like:

Population: 1812....1 billion
1912....1.5 billion
now......7 billion

7 billion people, yet there are 70 billion farm animals raised by humans.

While the human population drinks: 5.2 Gal. water/day
and eats: 21 Billion bls. food/day

Worlds 1.5 billion cows alone drinks: 45 billion gal./day
and eats:135 billion bls./day
Kip Andersson
Film maker
"This isn't so much a human population issue, it's a humans eating animals population issue.
Environment organisations not addressing this is like health organisations trying to stop lung cancer without addressing cigarette smoking."



Dr. Will Tuttle
Environmental and Ethics Author

"50% of the worldwide grains and legumes grown today, we are feeding to animals.
We are growing enough food in the world now to support 12-15 million people. We only have 7 billion people. We have a billion people starving every single day, worldwide."



Dr. Richard Oppenlander

"82% of the world's starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals, in the livestock systems, that are then killed and eaten by more well off individuals in developed countries such as USA, UK and Europe."



Howard Lyman

"the fact of it is we could feed every human being on the planet today an adequate diet, if we did no more than taking the feed that we are feeding into the animals and turn it into food for humans. And so somebody trying to justify GMO's, that's like trying to give a drowning man a drink of water."



Dr. Richard Oppenlander

"You can produce 15X more protein from plant based sources than meat on a given area of land. Whether that land is a fertile area or very depleted."


Howard Lyman
"You can't be an environmentalist and eat animal products....period! Kid yourself if you want, if you want to feed your addiction....so be it. But don't call yourself an environmentalist."


Dr. Richard Oppenlander


"Renewable energy infrastructure, such as building solar and wind generators all over our country to reduce climate change, is a pretty good idea, but it's projected to take at least 20 years and at least 18 trillion dollars. It's important to realise that we don't have that long enough time frame. We might only have only a 3 or 4 year time frame. So we don't have 20 years and we don't have 18 trillion dollars to develop these so another solution to climate change is that we could stop eating animals. It could be done today. It doesn't have to take 20 years. And it certainly doesn't have to cost 18 trillion dollars, ......because it costs nothing."



Howard Lyman


"Do you realise 75% of Americans believe themselves to be environmentalists. You don't think we couldn't solve this problem in a heartbeat. I'll tell you what; all we would need is for the environmentalists to live what they profess. And we'd be on a new course in the world.


Personal experience of the whole picture is better than anything that I have just given.
I have not come close to giving the mountains of info justice.
On the Cowspiracy web-site.......if you are interested in all of the facts, there is a tab that brings all of them up that were on the movie.

Cheers.
17-02-2015 15:14
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Cornelius said
I actually feel it would be quite impossible for you to hear any message really, while you are already so opposed to the subject matter


Personal attack

Cornelius said
.....even though the subject matter is squarely and fully focussed on Climate Change.


Eliminating bovine populations will make a tiny dent in methane supplies. It will not curtail CO2 emission and it will not stop deforestation.

Cornelius said
....which you claim to be interested in.


Personal attack

Cornelius said
So you are either open to all things on the subject, or you are selective to what you only feel comfortable to know?


I haven't the slightest problem with you wanting to discuss vegetarianism, just not here. It is not the topic of this forum. I have no problem with you discussing the impact of bovine flatulence on the climate here but your comments have wandered far afield from that. And, this constitutes another personal attack on your part.

Cornelius said
I don't know how you can make any valid judgements on something from 'appearances'...as you say.... as opposed to having the actual experience.


I am not going to spend ten dollars and 94 minutes of my time on your recommendations. If you want us to know the information contained in the film, and you believe it relevant to a discussion of climate change, give it to us. Do not ask us to spend money. If you continue, I will make a complaint to the management of this forum that you are indulging in commercial activities.

Cornelius said
That's not how I would determine the content of something.


That's how you and every other human on this planet make judgments every day of your lives. If you want us to know the information, give it to us.

Cornelius said
And all of your assumptions about the 'Cowspiracy' film are way off as you would find in viewing it.


As we would also find out were you to simply tell us about it.

Cornelius said
If you love science, the environment, and truth, and the way to find it, you would actually be attracted to this film.


I do value science, the environment and truth which is why I believe you are conducting commercial activity and are, so far, completely off topic.

Cornelius said
This is how I came across it. And was happy to spend $10, seeing as the environment to me is priceless.


How did you know the film concerned the environment? It appears you had access to information about the film that you seem to be unwilling to share with us. Why are you so reticent to give us a simple synopsis? And would you have spent that ten dollars were it the money required to feed your family or buy medicine for your sick children? I HOPE the answer to those questions is no.

Cornelius said
If you were more honest with yourself Abraham3.


Personal attack

Cornelius said
....your greatest issue that blocks you is, that you are addicted to eating meat....and very close minded.


Personal attack. You haven't the faintest idea what I eat.

Cornelius said
And this information is emotionally challenging to you in that regard.


Personal attack

Cornelius said
And even if all the scientific evidence in the world (which is chock full of it in the film)


Then you should have no problem providing us links to studies published in peer reviewed science journals supporting that contention.

Cornelius said
could be presented to you that animal agriculture IS the main cause of Global Warming


"IF" it "COULD" be presented to me? Are you saying that it cannot? If so, why do you believe it to be the case?

Cornelius said
it's going to come down to a choice between beliefs that you have behind your addiction and your TRUE feelings in regard to solving Global Warming. You will choose the one that is the strongest within you.


Personal attack

My beliefs regarding AGW and climate change are based on a very strong majority of scientific evidence, not on my "feelings" and not due to any "addiction".
[/quote]

Cornelius said
I wish you luck.


I wish you a good education in basic science.

Cornelius said
The climate problem will not go away with your head in the sand though.


Of course not.

Cornelius said
...deep as you may like to bury it.


Personal atttack

Cornelius said
Ignorance never solved any problems.....only courage to face fears and being humble to the truth can.


Do give us a break from your overly solemn moralizing

Cornelius said
So I can see your fear in this


Personal attack

Cornelius said
and wanting me to go away.


I would prefer you stayed and discuss climate change but that possibility seems to get slimmer by the moment.

I have to get to work. I will try to get back to the rest of your post this evening. I'm on travel in the cold northeast and there's not much else to do while sitting in this hotel room.
17-02-2015 17:27
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
Yeah, let's go back to discussing climate change rather than personal rhetorics. Its better to have healthy discussion and brainstorming rather than senseless arguments.
18-02-2015 02:32
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Cornelius said
This is what I liked about the film.....is that the guy that made it has a great love for the planet and was not just happy to sit around talking about it but, got off his butt to go and find out more and then more and more.


What was his background? Was this man a scientist? Was he familiar with the scientific method? When he began this quest for knowledge, did he know enough chemistry, physics, biology animal husbandry, human nutrition, etc, that he was capable of coming to correct and proper conclusions from the information he gleaned? Did he attempt to get it published in a peer reviewed journal? If so, did he succeed and if not, what reasons were given?

Cornelius said
He was a meat eater by the way and never gave any thought to it before he wanted to find out what was the cause of global warming.


Can you explain why he didn't accept the conclusions of the IPCC and the vast majority of all climate scientists?

Cornelius said
But as he investigated more in what were the most sustainable ways to farm and eat meat, he was shocked at how much things were being covered up even to the highest levels about the effects on the environment all the methods he investigated in.


What was being covered up and by what high levels?

Cornelius said
He knew that his love for the environment was more important than his own issues with what he was discovering and was coming to terms with what he was finding out as he went. What I like about that, is that he put TRUTH as more important than his own FEARS.


Of what was he afraid?

Cornelius said
Even when he had been advised to stop because of the threat to spending his future in jail (cause crazy laws in the US protect the truth from NOT being disclosed) he made the choice for the good of the planet, not himself. And that is someone with good ethics.


For what would he have been put in jail for the rest of his life?

Cornelius said
I am not a bad person despite how you may feel about me.


I don't think you're a bad person and I never said any such thing. I believe your behavior here is not what it should be but that means diddly-squat to your character.

Cornelius said
I am interested only in assisting people where I can in their enquiries and questions and offering what I can in solutions for the reasons why we choose to damage this planet and offer what I have not only learned, but tested and gained personal experience from rather than opinions.


I also hope to assist people: the human race. I will answer any enquiries I receive if I am able, but the main purpose behind my participation on this forum and others like it, is to convince people that the IPCC's conclusions are correct and that all nations need to reduce their carbon outputs dramatically and soon. The majority of my effort is arguing with deniers: people convinced that CO2 does not cause temperatures to increase or that human activity is not the source of our increasing CO2 levels or that something else is driving up tempeatures and CO2 is simply climbing in response as it has always done before. They often claim that climate scientists are lying to the public to keep the grant money rolling in; that climate scientists get rich from research grants and that liberals and/or the government want to push a global warming hoax in order to increase their power over the lives of their citizens.

You are a denier with a new approach - at least in my experience. I have heard people rail against the environmental damage of farms, but not against meat production specifically.

Cornelius said
I have a love for truth, for humanity and for all life forms on this planet that essentially support our own human life.


Do you love mosquitoes buzzing in your ear? How about the parasite making your guts churn? How about the HIV particle or the Ebola particle or the MRSA bacteria killing your friends and relatives? The lion, tiger, bear or shark bent on killing you for HIS dinner? Do you love all of them? Are they supporting our life on this planet? Life is a competition for resources. It always has been and it always will.

Cornelius said
I can't help it if you feel challenged by information that you are totally dismissive of without investigation.....yet like to come across that you are interested in the environment, and global warming issues, while being opposed to new information point blank, have no desire to find truth, and have no real regard for animal life or desire to understand their role in the environment as if they are not an important part of the issue.


Personal attack

Cornelius said
This issue of what you like to present yourself to be to others rather than demonstrate yourself to be by your actions is blocking you to growth on the Climate Change issue as well as personal growth and is going to have to be something that you will have to come to terms with by yourself.


Personal attack

Cornelius said
So I can't give you a 'Readers Digest' version (cause I have no idea what you are asking) that you ask for and you don't seem to really want to know anyway.


Are you saying you don't know what I mean by "Reader's Digest version"?

Cornelius said
.....but for the sake of others who may, I'm willing to spend my time to give something, which is worth more than $10 of my time


You have already posted several discourses longer than any other posts at this site. And pardon me for an unfavorable opinion, but I found they said virtually nothing. I cannot believe you are concerned about the amount of time it would take you give us a synopsis of this film.

Cornelius said
but only cause I would want others to see the truth backed up by science.....that many people who are financially invested in people not seeing and always happy to offer what can help the most.


That was not the easiest sentence to decipher, but if you are "always happy to offer what can help the most", why did you just express reticence at giving us a synopsis of your movie?

Cornelius said
I would never do it justice but I'll just give you some direct quotes from some of the people in the film.


Why would you never do it justice? Did you not understand the film? Can you not remember it clearly enough?

Cornelius said
By the way, the film is a progression of the guy in his search for sustainability for the planet. He interviews a wide cross-section of people. Some just have no answers to his questions because they have never considered them before.


This is more like it. What are his questions and can you tell us for which ones he was unable to find answers?

Cornelius said
Some are really honest and concerned. Some try to justify themselves.


Why do they feel a need to justify themselves? Is he attacking them or criticizing their actions? If so, in what way - for what actions or choices or behaviors?

Cornelius said
And some have had the research know for a long time....but not done anything with it.


What research? What findings? Did they attempt to get it published?

Cornelius said
....mainly due to fear of what would happen to them.


What did they fear would happen to them?

Cornelius said
Anything I write will not give it the full picture.


I'm not asking for the entire verbatim opus and detailed descriptions of every scene. What you've said helps. We will always have more questions, but you have increased our knowledge with this.

Cornelius said
So........I'll just give you a bit of a range of what different people said.


These are people that the hero interviewed, right? These statements come from the movie, yes?

Cornelius said
Dr. Kirk R.Smith
Professor of Global Environmental Health
University of California, Berkley.

"If you reduce the amount of methane emissions, the level in the atmosphere goes down fairly quickly, and within decades, as opposed to C02, if you reduce the emissions (of C02) into the atmosphere, you don't really see a signal in the atmosphere for a hundred years or so."
"....need to fix methane over C02 because you get a response right away."

By the way ....Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 and has a global warming power 86 times that of CO2. Cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day.



I am familiar with basic atmospheric chemistry. It is correct that methane levels in the atmosphere would decline rapidly if production were cut. What that actually means is that a cubic meter of methane will NOT trap as much solar energy as a cubic meter of CO2, despite having a broader absorption spectra, because the CO2 will be in the atmosphere, trapping IR, thousands of times longer than will the methane.

That's enough for me. I have a cold and have taken some Nyquil and will be sacking out.

I agree that a significant amount of atmospheric methane - a greenhouse gas - comes from the ruminants we breed. You claim that to be the sole or primary cause of global warming, yet you've said absolutely nothing about CO2.

Do you have some plan, some scheme, for convincing billions of people to stop eating meat? I really don't think your love lectures are going to do the trick.

Do you know why omnivores like to eat meat? Because it contains enormously more fat than does any plant source. When eating is a survival issue - when you spend most of every day acquiring the food you need to live, finding, killing and eating another animal is an enormous bonus. It is why we all crave high calorie foods.

Nighty-night.

PS: if these are quotations from the film, may I ask where you got them from?
Edited on 18-02-2015 02:36
18-02-2015 14:30
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Some good, objective information on natural and anthropogenic sources of atmospheric methane.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-4-1.html
18-02-2015 14:46
Cornelius
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
The climate issue requires all input into it to be considered. And if it is Anthropogenic, as it unmistakably is, I still don't hear any discussion on what it is that humans are doing. Just mountains of talk about the effect of the action. But not THE main contributing action. This is THE thing that I am interested in....... Human activity...... and then why and what causes humans to take that action. The science involved with humans.
So I'm not a denier as you suggested, my focus is in finding the cause of Global Warming which is human caused....and taking the next step and finding out the human problem. Science had found the effect, that we have all heard for years. I'm wanting to move onto the cause of the problem. But I feel many baulk at this investigation, because it will have to be self-investigative, and most people are afraid to find out what feelings are within them. And it's more comfortable to talk just about physical science, rather than hitting the real issue.....the Anthropogenic one.


You have complained about the length of information in my post, so in regards to the mountain of facts that come with the movie, so I would still suggest as I did before, that you look it up on the web http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/.
as it is far easier to read that this simple text below.
And I have no interest in any commercial interests in any information. I just have interest in the information in what ever form it is delivered. And if it has value, logic, love for the environment and humanity, tested and backed up by science and experience, I share it.

If it had have been me.....I would have given that movie to the world for free.

I can't answer any of your questions about the film makers ('hero' as you call him) personal life....I do not know him....or what he ended up doing with the information. And really what can you do when the so called 'Patriot Law" in his country, opposes any talk on the issue without risking jail time. But his investigations began as most peoples would. He got on the computer to find out what he could about the subject at hand.....and found the scientific information and was amazed at what he was discovering and that if he could find the info out there so easy....why was no one else putting it together.
You asked something about his nature.....and he is very pleasant to all people he encountered and respected their views.

I wont write more for now cause the info below takes up a huge space....but yes, the quotes came from the movie....and that's where I got them from.


Incidentally, my post was originally for a response to Carl901, who found an interest in a movie (An Inconvenient Truth) that generated interest in the issues with global warming and the human activity involved. I could see that this method had been a benefit for him before, so I offered the same to him with Cowspiracy.

I have to say that you blow me away with how you feel about the environment.
In your words you have so much contempt for it. And it seems very little understanding about how living systems work and how important that they are for life to exist on this planet. I would suggest some investigation into this area. Having this contemptuous feeling would make it very easy to destroy the environment. Anthropogenic style.

"Life is a competition for resources".....you say. WOW. Is that how you see life?
Nature makes the resources that we humans take like it's our given right with little understanding how to ensure they will be supported to always be available. That very attitude is one of the major causes of the trouble that we are in. What is the activity that you do that gives back to nature to allow the resources to be renewed and be available for the next generation??????
This is an example of one of the qualities of love....that 'Love Gives'. But people just take.....while nature gives. People are the problem. The lack of love and education is the problem. And that will need to change....or there will be no change to the Global Warming issue. Arrogance and selfishness is one of the biggest parts of the anthropogenic problem.


By the way.....what you seem to label as personal attacks are simply observations of facts about things you express (or lack of it, when making statements) about a subject that you offer up........ such as your above feelings on the environment. With feelings like this....how can you also have a love for it, care about it? It's impossible.

Your justification for being an omnivore is quite comical. You describe it as if you are a cave man having to spend all day hunting for your food. That you need to get your dose of animal fat as you say.....isn't that a know health issue to look out for?
So thanks for the laugh.


Good try for a justification though.
But if I've spent years as a vegan (not a vegetarian as you keep mentioning some things about vegetarianism) doing 10 hour days of manual demanding labour, who then goes to the gym 5 times a week, and grows muscle mass and tone, hasn't been to the doctor for any sickness related issues for over....can't even remember.....five years lets say, not taken any medication for over 7 years including asprin, I'd have to say that you'll have to try a better justification than to say you need the calories and fat.
There's nothing like finding out the truth about a subject than gaining personal experience of it....despite what the experts tell us......and then tell us something different 2 years later.

Take care my friend.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Global Warming

Water

The Oceans

World Population

Wildlife

The Rainforest



Director's Note:

The science and research done on the true impacts of animal agriculture is always growing. The statistics used in the film were based on the information below.

We will continually update this list with further resources as they become available.

Although there may be fluctuations in numbers from year to year and from researcher to researcher, the fact remains that animal agriculture, as a whole, requires tremendous amounts of resources and is a leader in environmental degradation.



Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all transportation combined. [i]

Fao.org. Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment.

http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

Transportation is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily involve fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation.

Environmental Protection Agency. "Global Emissions."

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

Goodland, R Anhang, J. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?"

WorldWatch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294

Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2.

"Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions." Science Magazine.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only

Methane has a global warming power 86 times that of CO2.

NASA. "Methane: Its Role as a Greenhouse Gas." Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/education/pdfs/podest_ghg.pdf

IPCC. "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis." Working Group I.

Please note the following PDF is very large and may take a while to load:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

Livestock is responsible for 65% of all emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas 296x more destructive than carbon dioxide and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.

"Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options." Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) water use ranges from 70-140 billion gallons annually.

"Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources." EPA Office of Research and Development. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/HFStudyPlanDraft_SAB_020711.pdf

Animal agriculture use ranges from 34-76 trillion gallons of water annually. [ii]

Pimentel, David, et al. "Water Resources: Agricultural And Environmental Issues." BioScience 54, no. 10 (2004): 909-18.

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/10/909.full

Barber, N.L., "Summary of estimated water use in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3098."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3098/

Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of US water consumption.

"USDA ERS – Irrigation & Water Use." United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2013.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/irrigation-water-use/background.aspx

Growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of water in the US.

Jacobson, Michael F. "More and Cleaner Water." In Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could save Your Health and the Environment.
Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.

http://www.cspinet.org/EatingGreen/pdf/arguments4.pdf

One hamburger requires 660 gallons of water to produce – the equivalent of 2 months' worth of showers. [iii]

Catanese, Christina. "Virtual Water, Real Impacts." Greenversations: Official Blog of the U.S. EPA. 2012.

http://blog.epa.gov/healthywaters/2012/03/virtual-water-real-impacts-world-water-day-2012/

"50 Ways to Save Your River." Friends of the River.

http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/site/PageServer?pagename=50ways

2,500 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of beef.

Robbins, John. "2,500 Gallons, All Wet?" EarthSave

http://www.earthsave.org/environment/water.htm

Meateater's Guide to Climate Change & Health." Environmental Working Group.

http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/interactive-graphic/water/

"Water Footprint Assessment." University of Twente, the Netherlands.

http://www.waterfootprint.org

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print

477 gallons of water are required to produce 1 pound of eggs; 900 gallons of water are needed for cheese.

"Meateater's Guide to Climate Change & Health." Environmental Working Group.

http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/interactive-graphic/water/

1,000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk.

"Water trivia facts." United States Environmental Protection Agency.

http://water.epa.gov/learn/kids/drinkingwater/water_trivia_facts.cfm#_edn11

5% of water consumed in the US is by private homes.
55% of water consumed in the US is for animal agriculture.

Jacobson, Michael F. "More and Cleaner Water." In Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could save Your Health and the Environment. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.

http://www.cspinet.org/EatingGreen/pdf/arguments4.pdf

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

The meat and dairy industries combined use nearly 1/3 (29%) of all the fresh water in the world today.

"Freshwater Abuse and Loss: Where Is It All Going?" Forks Over Knives.

http://www.forksoverknives.com/freshwater-abuse-and-loss-where-is-it-all-go

Livestock covers 45% of the earth's total land.

Thornton, Phillip, Mario Herrero, and Polly Ericksen. "Livestock and Climate Change." Livestock Exchange, no. 3 (2011).

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/10601/IssueBrief3.pdf

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution [iv], and habitat destruction.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

"What's the Problem?" United States Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html

"Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options." Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

"Fire Up the Grill for a Mouthwatering Red, White, and Green July 4th." Worldwatch Institute.

http://www.worldwatch.org/fire-grill-mouthwatering-red-white-and-green-july-4th

Oppenlander, Richard A. "Biodiversity and Food Choice: A Clarification." Comfortably Unaware. 2012

http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/biodiversity-and-food-choice-a-clarification/

"Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research and Development. 2004.

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=901V0100.txt

Every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the US.
This doesn't include the animals raised outside of USDA jurisdiction or in backyards, or the billions of fish raised in aquaculture settings in the US. [v]

"What's the Problem?" United States Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html

"How To Manage Manure." Healthy Landscapes.

http://www.uri.edu/ce/healthylandscapes/livestock/how_manure_overall.htm

335 million tons of "dry matter" is produced annually by livestock in the US.

"FY-2005 Annual Report Manure and Byproduct Utilization National Program 206."
USDA Agricultural Research Service. 2008.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?np_code=206&docid=13337

A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people. [vi]

"Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research and Development. 2004.

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=901V0100.txt

3/4 of the world's fisheries are exploited.

"Overfishing: A Threat to Marine Biodiversity." UN News Center.

http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyid=800

"General Situation of World Fish Stocks." United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/1000505/en/stocks.pdf

90 million tons of fish are pulled from our oceans each year. [vii]

"World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture." UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2012.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e01.pdf

For every 1 pound of fish caught, an average of 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill. [viii]

"Discards and Bycatch in Shrimp Trawl Fisheries."
UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO).

http://www.fao.org/docrep/W6602E/w6602E09.htm

As many as 40% (63 billion pounds) of fish caught globally every year are discarded.

Goldenberg, Suzanne. "America's Nine Most Wasteful Fisheries Named." The Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/20/americas-nine-most-wasteful-fisheries-named

Scientists estimate as many as 650,000 whales, dolphins and seals are killed every year by fishing vessels.

Goldenberg, Suzanne. "America's Nine Most Wasteful Fisheries Named." The Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/20/americas-nine-most-wasteful-fisheries-named

100 million tons of fish are caught annually.

Montaigne, fen. "Still waters: The global fish crisis." National Geographic.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/global-fish-crisis-article/

Fish catch peaks at 85 million tons.

"World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture." UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2012.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e01.pdf

Animal agriculture is responsible for 91% of Amazon destruction.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Margulis, Sergio. Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Rainforest. Washington: World Bank Publications, 2003.

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/15060

1-2 acres of rainforest are cleared every second.

"Avoiding Unsustainable Rainforest Wood." Rainforest Relief.

http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What_to_Avoid_and_Alternatives/Rainforest_Wood.html

Facts about the rainforest.

http://www.savetherainforest.org/savetherainforest_007.htm

Rainforest facts.

http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

The leading causes of rainforest destruction are livestock and feedcrops.

"Livestock impacts on the environment." Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (fao). 2006.

http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

110 plant, animal and insect species are lost every day due to rainforest destruction.

"Rainforest statistics and facts." Save the amazon.

http://www.savetheamazon.org/rainforeststats.htm

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

26 million rainforest acres have been cleared for palm oil production. [ix]

"Indonesia: palm oil expansion unaffected by forest moratorium." USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 2013.

http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2013/06/indonesia/

136 million rainforest acres cleared for animal agriculture.

"AMAZON DESTRUCTION." MONGA BAY.

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.html

1,100 activists have been killed in Brazil in the past 20 years. [x]

Batty, David. "Brazilian faces retrial over murder of environmental activist nun in Amazon." The Guardian. 2009.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/08/brazilian-murder-dorothy-stang

Cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day. [xi]

Ross, Philip. "Cow farts have 'larger greenhouse gas impact' than previously thought; methane pushes climate change." International Business Times. 2013.

http://www.ibtimes.com/cow-farts-have-larger-greenhouse-gas-impact-previously-thought-methane-pushes-climate-change-1487502

130 times more animal waste than human waste is produced in the US – 1.4 billion tons from the meat industry annually. 5 tons of animal waste is produced for every person. [xii]

Animal agriculture: waste management practices. United States General Accounting Office.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99205.pdf

2-5 acres of land are used per cow.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work.

Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

The average American consumes 209 pounds of meat per year.

Haney, Shaun. "How much do we eat?" Real agriculture. 2012. (276 lbs)

http://www.realagriculture.com/2012/05/how-much-meat-do-we-eat/

"US meat, poultry production & consumption" American Meat Institute. 2009. (233.9 lbs)

http://www.meatami.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/48781

Bernard, Neal. "Do we eat too much?" Huffington Post. (200 lbs)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-barnard-md/american-diet-do-we-eat-too-much_b_805980.html

Nearly half of the contiguous US is devoted to animal agriculture. [xiii]
30% of the Earth's entire land surface is used by the livestock sector.

Versterby, Marlow; Krupa, Kenneth. "Major uses of land in the United States." Updated 2012. USDA Economic Research Service.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb-statistical-bulletin/sb-973.aspx#.VAoXcl7E8dt

"Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns."

UN News Centre, 2006.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772

1/3 of the planet is desertified, with livestock as the leading driver.

"UN launches international year of deserts and desertification."

UN news centre, 2006.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=17076#.VAodM17E8ds

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

World population in 1812: 1 billion; 1912: 1.5 billion; 2012: 7 billion.

"Human numbers through time." Nova science programming.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/worldbalance/numb-nf.html

70 billion farmed animals are reared annually worldwide. More than 6 million animals are killed for food every hour.

A well-fed world. factory farms.

http://www.awfw.org/factory-farms/

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Throughout the world, humans drink 5.2 billion gallons of water and eat 21 billion pounds of food each day.

Based on rough averages of 0.75 gallons of water and 3 lbs of food per day.

Worldwide, cows drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day.

Based on rough average of 30 gallons of water and 90 lbs of feed per day.

Land required to feed 1 person for 1 year:
Vegan: 1/6th acre
Vegetarian: 3x as much as a vegan
Meat Eater: 18x as much as a vegan

"Our food our future." Earthsave.

http://www.earthsave.org/pdf/ofof2006.pdf

1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food.
1.5 acres can produce 375 pounds of meat.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

A person who follows a vegan diet PRODUCES 50% less carbon dioxide, 1/11th oil, 1/13th water, and 1/18th land compared to a meat-eater for their food.

CO2: "Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK." Climactic change, 2014.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1/fulltext.html

Oil, water: "Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment."
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

Land: "Our food our future." Earthsave.

http://www.earthsave.org/pdf/ofof2006.pdf

Each day, a person who eats a vegan diet saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 sq ft of forested land, 20 lbs CO2 equivalent, and one animal's life. [xiv]

"Water Footprint Assessment." University of Twente, the Netherlands.

http://www.waterfootprint.org

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won't Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

"Measuring the daily destruction of the world's rainforests." Scientific American, 2009.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-daily-destruction/

"Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK." Climactic change, 2014.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1/fulltext.html

"Meat eater's guide to climate change and health." The Environmental Working Group.

http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf

Alan Savory TED Talk (included because we reference it in the film, not because we endorse his claims):









Comprehensive Dissection:

http://freefromharm.org/agriculture-environment/saving-the-world-with-livestock-the-allan-savory-approach-examined/



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Additional notes:

[i] NOTE: In 2013 the UN-FAO lowered livestock's GHG emissions to 14.5%.

There are many other factors to consider in terms of level of concern we should have regarding the role of food choice in climate change, global depletion in general, and certain applicable time lines as represented (or misrepresented) by the United Nations or any other governing or research institution. In particular:
1.does not represent the entire life cycle analysis (LCA) or supply chain of livestock products, notably omitting carbon dioxide production in respiration (on average 4.8 tons CO2 e/year/cow, 2.3 CO2 e/year/pig, etc.), provides no consideration for increased indirect radiative effects of methane on atmospheric aerosols and particulate capture related to smog (Shindell et al. 2009), and manages land use changes (LUC) with admitted "uncertainty" and under-counting/reporting
2.ultimately defers to a separate category for reporting of greenhouse gas emissions related to "deforestation" (20% of global GHG emissions per UN-REDD), of which livestock and feed crops play a significant role, needing to be added to direct emissions (80% of Amazonian rainforest deforestation and degradation, and destruction of Cerrado savanna since 1970 has been due to expansion for cattle, with another 10% loss due to planting crops to feed them and other livestock)
3.the global warming potential (GWP) for methane used in this report was from IPCC 2007, which was 21 at 100 years. However, the GWP of methane is actually 86 GWP at 20 years
4.the report gave no consideration to carbon sequestration potential lost on land now used for livestock and feed production, which should have been considered as emissions (45% of the land mass on Earth now used by livestock and crops to feed them–International Livestock Research Institute)
5.Consideration should be given to the fact that the lead authors have potential bias in this report; Pierre Gerber is the Livestock Policy Officer of the FAO and Henning Steinfeld is Chief, Livestock Information of the Livestock Sector Policy Branch of the FAO. There is little doubt why obvious omissions were therefore seen in their conclusions presented: "The global livestock sector is faced with a three-fold challenge: increasing production to meet demand, adapting to a changing and increasingly variable economic and natural environment and, lastly, improving its environmental performance."

This FAO report failed to represent urgency in regard to climate change and reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, performed no analysis of alternatives, and failed to present risks versus benefits of raising livestock on a global scale.
1.there was no consideration of the effects of raising livestock on continued warming, acidification, deoxygenation and therefore diminished climate regulatory mechanisms of our oceans or time lines related to potential detrimental effects on the oxygen-nitrogen-carbon dioxide cycling capacities.
2.the report gave no account for anthropogenic greenhouse gases generated by agricultural systems related to extraction or raising and eating fish–fuel, refrigeration, packaging, processing, transportation, etc. for both wild caught operations as well as those pertaining to aquaculture/aquaponics/aeroponics, which would thereby provide a more accurate and complete agricultural portrait related to our food choices making it easier for policy makers and consumers to interpret the data and findings
3.there is no discussion, in an overview sense, to provide clarity regarding the component this happens to represent in livestock's role, or food choice for that matter, in our current state of un-sustainability and the interrelated issues we face–freshwater scarcity, collapse of sea life oceanic ecosystems, unprecedented extinctions and loss of biodiversity, food security and agricultural land use inefficiencies, implications in human health and disease, rising health care costs and loss of productivity, economic risk factors, questions of social justice and implications regarding future generations, etc. (many of these issues are irreversible in our lifetime)–all part of the task of basic but thorough environmental scientific assessment, perhaps beyond the scope of livestock researchers/proponents for this one report, but the critical connection and relevance are vital should have been mentioned, nevertheless.It is quite clear by this report, which presents a filtered and quite limited view of the role of livestock in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and global depletion, that our team should focus our attention on whythere is suppression of information, lack of clarity, or elucidation of facts by our leaders related to the overarching problem of animal based agriculture as a component of food choice–and then how to swiftly correct this. Global governmental institutions such as the United Nations and its FAO should examine all the facts and present them accordingly as they interrelate. Then, they should be able to call for the frank elimination (or comprehensive "replacement") of imminent threats to our survival such as food choices and agricultural systems that are disease promoting, ecologically unsustainable, and which condone massive unnecessary slaughtering–rather than calling for their perpetuation.

[ii] Although there are Cornell studies citing the water consumption of the US livestock industry at over 66 trillion gallons every year, we decided to go with a much more conservative figure of 34 trillion gallons based off the 2005 USGS figures putting the US total consumptive water use at 76 trillion gallons annually (non-consumptive is for thermoelectric and hydroelectric use that is typically returned directly back to its source immediately). The USDA says that agriculture is responsible for 80-90 percent of US water consumption and growing the feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of that water, bringing the total water consumption of the livestock industry to 34 trillion gallons.

[iii] 1/4 lbs burger = 2 months showering: based on taking a 4-minute daily shower with a 2.5 gpm shower head.

[iv] "A typical five-acre hog waste lagoon releases 15-30 tons of ammonia into the air annually. Approximately half of the ammonia rises as a gas and generally falls to forests, fields, or open water within 50 miles, either in rain or fog. The rest is transformed into dry particles that travel up to 250 miles.

Ammonia is the most potent form of nitrogen that triggers algae blooms and causes fish kills in coastal waters. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality estimates that hog factories constitute the largest source of airborne ammonia in North Carolina, more than cattle, chickens, and turkeys combined. In 1995, Hans Paerl, a marine ecologist from the University of North Carolina, reported that airborne ammonia had risen 25% each year since 1991 in Morehead City, 90 miles downwind of the hog belt."

[v] -Dairy Cows, 120lbs of waste per day,x 9 million cows.

-Cattle, 63lbs of waste per day, x 90 million cattle.

-Pigs, 14lbs. of waste per day, x 67 million pigs.

-Sheep/Goats. 5lbs of waste per day, x 9 million sheep/goats.

-Poultry, .25lbs of waste per day, x 10 billion birds.

Dairy cows and cattle-1.08 billion pounds per day (from 9 million dairy cows, 120 pounds waste per cow per day) + 5.67 billion pounds per day (90 million cattle, 63 pounds waste per one cattle per day) = 6.75 billion pounds per day waste or 2.464 trillion pounds waste per year (manure+urine)

** 3.745 trillion pounds waste per year

[vi] Enough waste to cover, etc: based on 1 pound of waste per 1 square foot of land

"Animal farms produce as much manure as small and medium sized cities. A farm with 2500 dairy cattle is similar in waste load to a city of 411,000 people."

On a 1000-pound live weight basis, each of these animals produces more waste than a human. A CAFO with 1000 animal units of turkeys produces a waste load comparable to a city of 87,700 people. A dairy CAFO with 1000 animal units is equivalent to a city of 164,500 people. The important difference lies in the fact that human waste is treated before discharge into the environment, but animal waste is either not treated at all or minimally treated by virtue of the storage methods used before disposal." http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=901V0100.txt

[vii] Additionally – Oppenlander says 1-2 trillion fish extracted (inc. "bycatch,") from our oceans each year ("by fishing methods such as trawling, purse seine, long lines, explosives, and other techniques that are damaging ecosystems") http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/biodiversity-and-food-choice-a-clarification/

[viii] The figures for by-kill rates can be as high as 20lbs of untargeted species trapped for every pound of targeted animals killed.

[ix] "The USDA currently forecasts 2013/14 palm oil production...total area devoted to oil palm plantings is estimated at a record 10.8 million hectares." [26.7 million acres]

[x] "[Dorothy Stang's] death prompted Amazon activists – more than 1,000 of whom have been murdered in the last 20 years – to demand Brazil's government crack down on the illegal seizure and clearance of the rainforest to graze cattle, raise soy crops, and harvest timber."

"More than 1,100 activists, small farmers, judges, priests and other rural workers have been killed in land disputes in the last two decades."

[xi] A single cow can produce between 66-132 gallons of methane a day. The average US vehicle gas tank can hold about 16 gallons of gas.

[xii] "The US meat industry produced some 1.4 billion tons of waste in 1997— five tons of animal waste for every US citizen. (USDA)"http://www.worldwatch.org/fire-grill-mouthwatering-red-white-and-green-july-4th

[xiii] Grassland & pasture = 26%; cropland = 20%.

25% of all privately held acres in the US is used for grazing livestock. Harvested specifically for livestock feed: 35 million hectares of all corn in the US (36%) + 31.1 million hectares of all soybeans grown in the US (72%) + 24.4 million hectares of hay (nearly all hay production). http://www.cast-science.org/file.cfm/media/products/digitalproducts/CAST_WaterLand_Issues_IP_50_final_w_6AC28B58B3918.pdf

[xiv] The average person in the U.S. uses 405,000 gallons of freshwater per year (combination of the subfractions which comprise 206 pounds of meat per year– divided between 46 pounds of pig, 58 pounds of cow, 102 pounds of chicken and turkey in addition to 248 eggs and 616 pounds of dairy products), which equates to saving 1,100 gallons of water each day.

– 45lbs of grain saved per day: Grain: multiply ounces of each meat consumed daily per person by the feed conversion factor for each animal.

– It is estimated that 80,000 acres of rainforest are cleared each day with an additional 80,000 degraded, with 70-91% of that degradation for the livestock industry.

– CO2 based of feed conversion ratios and the average US meat consumption of 209lbs per year, per person.

Beef is at 22-27 kg CO2 Eq per kg produced/consumed X 2.5 ounces/day=1.75 kg or 3.85 pounds

Cheese/milk is 13.5 kg per kg product X 2 pounds/day=12.15 kg or 12.5 pounds

Pork is 12 kg per kg product X 2 ounces/day=.68 kg or 1.5 pounds

Combination chicken and turkey is 7 kg per kg product X 4.48 ounces/day= .89 kg or 1.96 pounds minimally (using only chicken)

{turkey, for instance, is 11 kg per kg product}

Eggs are at 5 kg per kg product X 2/3 egg per day= (50 g/egg) .55 pounds

— which equals 20.36 pounds of CO2 Eq saved per day.
18-02-2015 16:22
Cornelius
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
Hi Abraham3,

Thanks for the link you sent about methane.

It was the same report that they used in the movie ironically.

Still.....it was interesting to read.

Cheers.
19-02-2015 00:47
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Don't ever try to tell us that you can't be bothered or don't have the time to post something. How many people do you think are going to read that post? You've got three guesses and the first two don't count.

And if that's all cut-n-paste, I strongly recommend you start posting links.
Edited on 19-02-2015 00:48
19-02-2015 02:53
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
What a really long reply right there by you Cornelius.
19-02-2015 03:02
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Conelius said:
The climate issue requires all input into it to be considered. And if it is Anthropogenic, as it unmistakably is, I still don't hear any discussion on what it is that humans are doing.


What the F are you talking about?!?!? What humans are doing - what has been the concern since well before the IPCC was formed - is that human GHG emissions (CO2 and CH4 if you must) and deforestation have enhanced the greenhouse effect. You act as if you never heard a single word on the topic till you watched your cow movie.

Conelius said:
Just mountains of talk about the effect of the action. But not THE main contributing action. This is THE thing that I am interested in....... Human activity...... and then why and what causes humans to take that action. The science involved with humans.


If you are being honest here, it is an incredible admission of ignorance. I don't think I could find a third grader that couldn't tell us global warming was primarily due to human CO2 emissions.

Humans emit GHG because they like electricity and powered transport. They don't do it because the hate the environment or don't love it sufficiently. The world around uses cars and trucks and trains and jets and uses electricity to do a thousand things - like type on this computer and the one you're using as well. It is fairly easy to reduce most people's carbon footprint, but the further you push it, the further you get from the functional center of society. If you've chosen to ride a bike rather than drive a car, you've done well for us all. But if that makes you late for work or if you arrive drenched because it rained, you're not served well and you may find its a strategy you just cannot yet live with. The same goes in even greater degree for eliminating your consumption of electricity.

Conelius said:
So I'm not a denier as you suggested, my focus is in finding the cause of Global Warming which is human caused....and taking the next step and finding out the human problem.


Your statements make no sense and you've contradicted yourself repeatedly now. I do hope that's not intentional. You say you need to find the cause of global warming then say it is caused by humans. What is that supposed to mean? Have you ever looked at ANYTHING from the IPCC?

Several times now, you've claimed that raising livestock is THE cause of global warming. You completely ignored CO2 emissions and, despite having posted pages and pages of material, have yet to so much as utter the term. Why IS that? Here is the breakdown of anthropogenic radiative forcing factors from AR4 (the IPCC's fourth Assessment Report)



Conelius said:
Science had found the effect, that we have all heard for years. I'm wanting to move onto the cause of the problem. But I feel many baulk at this investigation, because it will have to be self-investigative, and most people are afraid to find out what feelings are within them. And it's more comfortable to talk just about physical science, rather than hitting the real issue.....the Anthropogenic one.


If you think you're making sense here, you are incorrect.

Conelius said:
You have complained about the length of information in my post


And as your latest post shows; little good it has done me

Conelius said:
so in regards to the mountain of facts that come with the movie, so I would still suggest as I did before, that you look it up on the web http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/.

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/ Putting "URL" into brackets before and after the address would have made that a clickable link. The closing bracket should contain "/URL"


I have done so. With regard to the climate, the website contained no information of which I was not already aware. I realize methane is a greenhouse gas and meat from animals is a very wasteful manner to get ones protein. I said as much in my first reply to you, but you seem to have missed it.

Conelius said:
as it is far easier to read that this simple text below. And I have no interest in any commercial interests in any information. I just have interest in the information in what ever form it is delivered.


Good.

Conelius said:
And if it has value, logic, love for the environment and humanity, tested and backed up by science and experience, I share it.


Good. But that has not been your consistent position hereto now.

Conelius said:
If it had have been me.....I would have given that movie to the world for free.


I'm sure you would.

Conelius said:
I can't answer any of your questions about the film makers ('hero' as you call him) personal life....I do not know him....or what he ended up doing with the information.


It's quite easy to look him up. The film was written, directed and produced by Kip Anderson and Keegan Kuhn. Here they are:



As to what their qualifications might be to make scientific or even statistical judgements on these issues, that information is not easy to locate. At least I could not find it. I am not expert but I see a number flaws in their statistics.

1) Virtually NO livestock consume water fit for humans
2) Water fed to livestock gets returned to the water table almost immediately
3) Animal waste is a valuable source of nitrogen and organic fertilizer.

Conelius said:
And really what can you do when the so called 'Patriot Law" in his country, opposes any talk on the issue without risking jail time.


I would welcome - for completely different reasons - the immediate repeal of the Patriot Law.

Conelius said:
But his investigations began as most peoples would. He got on the computer to find out what he could about the subject at hand.....and found the scientific information and was amazed at what he was discovering and that if he could find the info out there so easy....why was no one else putting it together.


The mistake here is the assumption, both yours, and apparently, his, that "no one else was putting it together".

Conelius said:
I have to say that you blow me away with how you feel about the environment.
In your words you have so much contempt for it. And it seems very little understanding about how living systems work and how important that they are for life to exist on this planet. I would suggest some investigation into this area. Having this contemptuous feeling would make it very easy to destroy the environment. Anthropogenic style.


I have to say that you blow me away with your poor reading and analytical skills.

Conelius said:
"Life is a competition for resources".....you say. WOW. Is that how you see life?


I see you've never passed a biology class.

Conelius said:
Nature makes the resources that we humans take like it's our given right with little understanding how to ensure they will be supported to always be available.


Nature makes the resources? Where? In a little workshop in the woods?

Conelius said:
That very attitude is one of the major causes of the trouble that we are in. What is the activity that you do that gives back to nature to allow the resources to be renewed and be available for the next generation??????


I have been strenuously advocating alternative energy and transportation technology for many years now. You?

Conelius said:
This is an example of one of the qualities of love....that 'Love Gives'. But people just take.....while nature gives. People are the problem. The lack of love and education is the problem. And that will need to change....or there will be no change to the Global Warming issue. Arrogance and selfishness is one of the biggest parts of the anthropogenic problem.


And your cure is... what?

Conelius said:
By the way.....what you seem to label as personal attacks are simply observations of facts about things you express (or lack of it, when making statements) about a subject that you offer up........ such as your above feelings on the environment. With feelings like this....how can you also have a love for it, care about it? It's impossible.


What I labeled as personal attacks were personal attacks.

Conelius said:
Your justification for being an omnivore is quite comical.


I never said I was an omnivore.

Conelius said:
You describe it as if you are a cave man having to spend all day hunting for your food. That you need to get your dose of animal fat as you say.....isn't that a know health issue to look out for?
So thanks for the laugh.


I was speaking of our ancestors - the cavemen if you like - and all the animals of the Earth, who struggle each and every day to feed themselves. Developing under those conditions for orders of magnitude longer than we've been an agrarian society is what has left us with a nearly insatiable craving for fats. What I said was completely correct. Ask any expert you like.

Conelius said:
Good try for a justification though.


Poor try for a gotcha

Conelius said:
But if I've spent years as a vegan (not a vegetarian as you keep mentioning some things about vegetarianism) doing 10 hour days of manual demanding labour, who then goes to the gym 5 times a week, and grows muscle mass and tone, hasn't been to the doctor for any sickness related issues for over....can't even remember.....five years lets say, not taken any medication for over 7 years including asprin, I'd have to say that you'll have to try a better justification than to say you need the calories and fat.


I never said any such thing. You need to work on your reading comprehension. You seem to keep seeing what you'd like to see vice what is actually on the page in front of you.

Conelius said:
There's nothing like finding out the truth about a subject than gaining personal experience of it....despite what the experts tell us......and then tell us something different 2 years later.


If you knew the truth before gaining your personal experience, the personal experience was a waste. No one here has any idea who told you what differently, two years apart, or why we should care.


Conelius said:
Take care my friend.



I am perfectly willing to debate you in a civil manner, but given the number of personal attacks you've made against me, it would be a mistake were you to actually count me among your friends.
Edited on 19-02-2015 03:11
22-02-2015 02:54
DesertphileProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)
When someone writes about "both sides" of observed reality, they mean they want to have their false beliefs recognized as valid but they refuse to produce evidence supporting their "both sides." In science there is only one side: the best arguments, supported by the bet evidence. Regarding human-caused climate change there is no "both sides:" there i the one side (which all the experts agree upon), and there are a nearly limitless number of false beliefs.
25-02-2015 01:27
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
There are still unknowns in the universe. Global warming is not one of them, and obviously reality only has one side (in a non-relatavistic frame off reference), but there are still points out there in the domain of human knowledge with multiple possibilities attached.
25-02-2015 02:00
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
This one side of science being referred to does not depend on the best argument whatsoever. It actually depends on what is scientifically sound, adhering to the known laws and principles (at least in the reality that we know of) we know and abide to as of the moment. It is not even an assurance that, its the real explanation, mechanism or something..its just that what we know of to be at least look and feel as what it is supported by repeatable evidences of course.




Join the debate Both sides of the argument:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Trump's UN nominee Kelly Craft says she believes 'both sides' of climate change science1503-03-2019 23:09
Maxime Bernier believes in climate change, but defends argument that CO2 is just 'food for plants'124-02-2019 18:59
Global Warming Argument Simplified7813-12-2018 00:30
The Argument for AGW6415-01-2018 23:52
CO2 is but one factor in the climate change argument1013-06-2017 05:23
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact