Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by zeuzzz » Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:26 am

We're often given the impression that a lot of the environmental issues we face in terms of climate change and global warming are out of our hands. All us little people can do is recycle more, cycle or walk instead of drive, maybe start petitions, and hope that major corporations and governments have it all under control and have prioritized the health of the planetary ecosystem above economic self serving growth arguments. Also that pigs might fly.

People arguing that global warming is a serious issue should not be taken seriously unless they are vegetarians; because this is an actual conscious choice we can make to stifle the ongoing relentless march of corporate greed that is poisoning the atmosphere we breathe and cutting the ground from beneath our own feet. Stealing the future from our children, ya-di-da-da, etc.

Lets look at some of these facts (for those who prefer text to info-graphics read these here)

Image

Here's a few more:
Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.

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

Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions. [.i]

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


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

Environmental Protection Agency. “Global Emissions.”

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.

Animal Feed Science and Technology “comment to editor” Goodland, Anhang.

Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.

“Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.” Science Magazine.

Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame.

“Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.” Science Magazine.

Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of 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.

[...]

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

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

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

(NOTE. The amount of water used to produce 1lb. of beef vary greatly from 442 - 8000 gallons. We choose to use in the film the widely cited conservative number of 2500 gallons per pound of US beef from Dr. George Borgstrom, Chairman of Food Science and Human Nutrition Dept of College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, "Impacts on Demand for and Quality of land and Water." )

Oxford Journals. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues"

The World's Water. "Water Content of Things"

Journal of Animal Science. "Estimation of the water requirement for beef production in the United States."

Robbins, John. “2,500 Gallons, All Wet?” EarthSave

Meateater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.” Environmental Working Group.

“Water Footprint Assessment.” University of Twente, the Netherlands.

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


And it goes on and on ...

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

Has anyone fact checked all the facts in the documentary? It makes compelling watching but I'm always skeptical of documentaries. The list above however is pretty long and from a cursory read seems to cite trustworthy sources.
Last edited by zeuzzz on Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by zeuzzz » Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:35 am

You can watch a very low quality version of it here: Cowspiracy. It's won many awards. Don't let the youtube context put you off. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/

One of the things that I never knew before that interested me is the cosy relationship organizations like greenpeace and other major environmental charities/groups have with the animal agriculture industry. They pretty much flat out refuse to address the issue in any public capacity, as it's an emotive PR nightmare.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:02 pm

simple minded BS, if not intentional FUD to take several complicated issues and present them as single issue "if-then" false dichotomies.

Doesn't matter what the subject is.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Paul Anthony » Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:19 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:simple minded BS, if not intentional FUD to take several complicated issues and present them as single issue "if-then" false dichotomies.

Doesn't matter what the subject is.

That's an apt description of your many posts about climate change. You refuse to accept that there may be other contributing causes than CO2.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Jim Steele » Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:31 pm

Climate change alarmists who use any form of fossil fueled transportation, consume any fossil fueled produced goods, or who fart and breathe out CO2 should not be taken seriously!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by zeuzzz » Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:01 am

JIm Steele wrote:Climate change alarmists who use any form of fossil fueled transportation, consume any fossil fueled produced goods, or who fart and breathe out CO2 should not be taken seriously!
Fossil fuels are the least of our worries. Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions (fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation) whereas 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.

And that's just the CO2, we are not even going into the methane emissions, which is far worse in terms of the greenhouse effect.

You should be more worried about that than the usual things we associate with global warming.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5337
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by ElectricMonk » Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:57 am

Stop breathing already - you are producing CO2!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:32 am

Paul Anthony wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:simple minded BS, if not intentional FUD to take several complicated issues and present them as single issue "if-then" false dichotomies.

Doesn't matter what the subject is.

That's an apt description of your many posts about climate change. You refuse to accept that there may be other contributing causes than CO2.
Sad, sad Paulie. Head so far up your ass...you deserve NO respect.

Prove me wrong: copy and paste where I refused or even hinted at negating other contributing causes.

.....................and you can't........... because you live in a dream world where dog whistles and bumperstickers take the place of thinking or remembering anything clearly. All you have in your world is the stimulus to howl.

Silly Hooman.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Paul Anthony » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:56 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Prove me wrong: copy and paste where I refused or even hinted at negating other contributing causes.

.....................and you can't........... because you live in a dream world where dog whistles and bumperstickers take the place of thinking or remembering anything clearly. All you have in your world is the stimulus to howl.

Silly Hooman.
It would be unfair to this forum for me to copy and paste every damn one of your posts on the subject. :evil:
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:15 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:It would be unfair to this forum for me to copy and paste every damn one of your posts on the subject. :evil:
Thank you Paul! The idiocy of the original posts were offensive enough.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:36 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Prove me wrong: copy and paste where I refused or even hinted at negating other contributing causes.

.....................and you can't........... because you live in a dream world where dog whistles and bumperstickers take the place of thinking or remembering anything clearly. All you have in your world is the stimulus to howl.

Silly Hooman.
It would be unfair to this forum for me to copy and paste every damn one of your posts on the subject. :evil:
You just continue to show the weakness of your simple right wing bumper sticker mentality. You were challenged to produce ONE example of something that you post as the basis for your opinion. You come back with................. pure BS==most likely an intentional lie, but its hard to tell with stupid. No apology. No recognition. No learning. ...................... and you do this all the time. Made up Straw Man Arguments, because you have NONE of your own. Just plain stupid.

Your partner in obfuscation Jim Steele shows you a better way. Still defective, but better. Lose yourself in irrelevant unlinked charts from your covert websites. You aren't that twisted though.

So Paulie: do you see your error? You are so ill informed you think you can score points when you spout non-sense and then you double down by avoiding responsibility for doing so.

co2 on its own is going to destroy human civilization. Huge population crash from various scenarios BUT the overriding concern that is becoming less avoidable every year is the cascade effect of other green house gases. THE ULTIMATE RELEASE OF METHAN GAS is what is going to wipe out 99.99 of all life on earth. You see Paulie......... if you knew just the basics, you would never accuse any AGW advocate of thinking only co2 was relevant. You'd try to fool them by posting that Gaia and corals keep surface ocean water co2 within limits. A very narrow deflection..... not outright buffoonery.

I can't decide which of you two is worse. Sadly..... it doesn't matter.

Here's the rub: anyone knowledgeable about AGW knows that co2 is NOT THE ONLY ISSUE.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Paul Anthony » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:54 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Here's the rub: anyone knowledgeable about AGW knows that co2 is NOT THE ONLY ISSUE.
Then why do you keep expounding on it?
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:57 pm

Because its the first step.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by zeuzzz » Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:55 pm

Can we try to keep on topic please? ie, the effects of animal agriculture on the greenhouse effect, climate change and global warming.

As the leading contributor to not just rising CO2 levels globally, but also the primary source of a multitude of other climate change major variables, I', amazed we don't hear more about it. The media fuss is nearly always about solar panels, electric cars, transport, etc.

Well no, the best way to slow down AGW is a simple change in peoples diets. Why is this not talked about more often? Why don't agriculture industries have just as bad an image as Oil and Gas companies?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Because its the first step.
CO2 is the first step to what? Other stronger greenhouse gasses? How can it be a first step? I'm not following. Admittedly it's been a while since I looked into this area.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5586
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Monster » Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:27 am

According to a TED talk I saw, transport ships produce more pollution than all the cars on Earth.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:27 pm

zzzzzz: First step towards what? ///// You have it exactly: the release of other green house gases....methane from clathrates being the life on earth ending substance of final impact.

from wiki: also called methane hydrate, hydromethane, methane ice, fire ice, natural gas hydrate, or gas hydrate, is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.

Ice melts when warm enough and that is what is going to happen as co2 warms the earth and oceans. Co2 pollution/excess/concentrations are the first step to release of methane gas.

On your issue of animal co2 and methane production........I'm just guessing but I suspect on the whole that such processes are "carbon neutral" and while worth evaluating are eventually of little import. Even so...there are studies and experiments on reducing those gases from such sources by genetic modification of the animals and their food stocks.

The issue is BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS. THAT is what is going to kill us all..... with the event horizon growing by the mere passage of time but accelerating by increased burning of fossil fuels and complex feedback loops becoming better understood most of which point to greater warming.

Lots of issue are unknown or disputed but a few have been set down in concrete: burning fossil fuels is going to wipe life on earth out................and we deny it mostly because of FUD from the Fossil Burhing Industry wanting short term profits...and they have paid off the Republican Party to achieve these ends.

I am still hoping to be amazed at what science can do once society agrees co2 pollution is an issue that must be addressed. A moon shot for Green Energy might just squeak us by. All the charitable organizations currently spending their money on ANYTHING else is a waste of effort if not even counter productive.

I think the issue will be undeniable in the next 50 years... but also probably too late to stop by that time.

Fingers: crossed.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:04 pm

Yup yup yup We all gonna die!

The funny thing is clathrates respomd to pressure. Rising seas add pressure minimizing potential release. The low sea levels during the last ice age would have released more methane as sea level dropped by 400 feet. Yet miraculously life flourished!

Why do silly alarmists always embrace "embrace end of the world scenarios"?

Image Rumor has it Boobo wears this lapel button.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:19 pm

JS: as always, with multiple factors at play, you cling to the ones that don't make any difference. Sucks to be you.

I embrace the concern for AGW because it is a life on earth ending scenario that is playing out right now according to the OVERWHELMING consensus of qualified scientists. I do have one other and that is the common sense of having a highly developed and ready to go asteroid avoidance system. We have the tech...but evidently its not really being applied?

Humans. We have an interest in protecting Mother Earth from total destruction. Its sad you don't see yourself on the rationale side of this issue.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Paul Anthony » Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:32 pm

President Obama has been very vocal about climate change. Yesterday, he said he would work with private companies to ensure we send people to Mars by 2030. (He said this while boarding his jumbo jet which he uses to fly all over Earth). I wonder, what is the carbon footprint of a space launch? ;)
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:33 pm

Yup yup yup. We all gonna die

Adelie penguins double population.

Humpback whale rapid population growth has them removed from endangered specie list
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ecies-list

Sucks to be a paranoid stupid dooms dayer.

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:59 pm

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:38 pm

JSL: you continue defending your Science Denial by dwelling on completely irrelevant issues. to your latest above: how many penguins and whales will there be with co2 concentrations of 800ppm and ocean temps up 10 degrees?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:54 pm

If one has to simplistically base their extrapolations on the current trend of CO2, then penguins and whales should double again. But you ignore all the complexities. There are so many other factors that affect life other than CO2.

Sucks to be a paranoid stupid dooms dayer

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:37 pm

Ha, ha......what is the mechanism between co2 concentrations and penguin and whale populations? ///// Oh....fuggit...I know you are using hyperbole to deflect from what is obvious. But you joke when you have no answer when continuing to DENY SCIENCE.

The only simplistic single variable correlation posting going on in this forum is your own.

The GREAT MAJORITY of qualified climate scientists are getting more and more strident regarding the looming threat of co2. Hotest year on record is 2016 with 2017 to be hotter. 16 months in a row of record breaking heat. MORE co2 being pumped into the atmosphere.

Sucks to be you.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:15 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hotest year on record is 2016 with 2017 to be hotter. 16 months in a row of record breaking heat. MORE co2 being pumped into the atmosphere.
Must be the reason wildlife like penguins and whales are doing better than ever.

Sucks to be a paranoid stupid dooms dayer
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:30 pm

Yep.....why not be closer to the point and say that human population has never been higher? Because you know, whatever is happening right now for any number of species certainly negates any trend whatsoever that is occuring with every other species. Hint: we are currently in the beginning of a mass extinction event. Perhaps mostly due to habit loss...but the huge crash will be AGW.

Stay tuned if you don't DENY SCIENCE.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Paul Anthony » Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:06 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Yep.....why not be closer to the point and say that human population has never been higher? Because you know, whatever is happening right now for any number of species certainly negates any trend whatsoever that is occuring with every other species. Hint: we are currently in the beginning of a mass extinction event. Perhaps mostly due to habit loss...but the huge crash will be AGW.

Stay tuned if you don't DENY SCIENCE.
I'm kinda looking forward to the mass distinction of climate change fanatics. Can you tell me precisely when you nut-cases will cease to exist?
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:24 pm

You see different estimates based on different assumptions. My gut feeling given "exact" dates are not often (I can't recall any) given: about 200 years from now.... but always.... could easily happen much sooner. I can easily see the headline: "Massive methane release across Russia spells end of life on Earth in 10 years." //// Unless of course 5 or 6 nukes exploded in the Sahara Desert would immediately counteract such releases.

It will be debated.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by zeuzzz » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:58 am

JIm Steele wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hotest year on record is 2016 with 2017 to be hotter. 16 months in a row of record breaking heat. MORE co2 being pumped into the atmosphere.
Must be the reason wildlife like penguins and whales are doing better than ever.
Change in climate will benefit many species. Not sure if it's the fluffy cuddly ones though. So i'm not sure how well it can be marketed. However this will be cancelled out by desertification around the equatorial regions overall, we are entering the anthropocene.

I'm far more concerned about general pollution (mainly from agriculture) than global warming.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:22 pm

That benefit, and your concern for general pollution, will end for ALL if co2/AGW is not ended very very soon, and by now unless some kind of reverse technology is applied. Your priorities.......are ill founded.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by zeuzzz » Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:That benefit, and your concern for general pollution, will end for ALL if co2/AGW is not ended very very soon, and by now unless some kind of reverse technology is applied. Your priorities.......are ill founded.
Most CO2 comes from animal agriculture, being 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. So my priorities are right where they should be*.

* It's just the actual *being* a vegetarian I've yet to master :) I never buy meat products personally but I would not go hungry round someone elses house if they had cooked some.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:41 pm

Ha, ha..........51% you say? Just over the mark???? My spidey sense says you are making up your statistics. Got a link??? I would...but it "sounds like" a lie....so I'll put the burden on you. Along with "animal agriculture"...I assume you do know that animals are not grown in a feed lot? Also, animal pollution is generally brought up in the context of methane production as for most purposes co2 respiration is thought of as carbon neutral. its not...given the fossil fuels to get the product to market and so forth...but in the main.

Nice try........but no credibility without the link.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Hex
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1136
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:26 pm
Custom Title: mi malam ciuj el vi
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Hex » Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:52 pm

Sounds more like "I'm holier than thou" argument than anything else. Or, small minds searching for anything to discredit facts. Two extremes each not worth bothering with.

I eat meat, I understand the environmental impact, the less healthy aspect of red meat and the costs of producing meat and meat by products. I am also concerned about the climate and what we are doing to it. Even with all that understanding I just can't bring myself to quit the habit and move towards a more vegetarian diet. I do not have any good arguments as to my refusal beyond I'm just a weak person when it comes to this area. That is as honest as I can be but it doesn't stop me from trying to be better in other aspects of how I live my life.

When you throw out nuance and fully embrace black and white thinking, you end you only hurting yourself.
Spoiler:
  TOYNBEE IDEA
IN KUBRICK'S 2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER
 


User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Paul Anthony » Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:12 pm

I am a vegetarian.

I also switched from incandescent bulbs to CFL's years before it became an environmental war cry (because it saves money). Now, I'm gradually replacing them with LED's because disposing of used CFL's is another environmental hazard.

But I'm not an environmentalist, because I don't tell other people how to live.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:48 am

Are you saying you are a vegetarian? If so.... whats the difference?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by zeuzzz » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:22 am

Paul Anthony wrote:I am a vegetarian.
I also switched from incandescent bulbs to CFL's years before it became an environmental war cry (because it saves money). Now, I'm gradually replacing them with LED's because disposing of used CFL's is another environmental hazard.

But I'm not an environmentalist, because I don't tell other people how to live.

You are not an environmental(ist) because you oppose all kinds of precautionary wording. People that change their diet get more respect from me.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14586
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by JO 753 » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:35 am

How about envirementalists who own carnivorous pets?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:59 am

JO 753 wrote:How about envirementalists who own carnivorous pets?
Obviously they are enablers..... co-dependent .... or in the closet. Cetainly NOT true believers.... no matter how sick they get.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by Paul Anthony » Fri Nov 04, 2016 1:22 am

JO 753 wrote:How about envirementalists who own carnivorous pets?
I have two cats.

My answer to your question is similar to my explanation for wearing leather boots, belts and jackets. As long as the majority insist on eating meat, there will be parts left over after the animals are slaughtered that people won't eat. My cats and I are using up the stuff that would just go to waste.

You're welcome. ;)
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Environmentalists who are not vegetarian should not be taken seriously

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 04, 2016 1:44 am

OK..........OK...........Ok: I forgot "Hypocritical Apologist."
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?