Hmm? Beef is one of the most energy intensive animal proteins we eat, but its also really popular. Its intensive on water too. How would regulations make the raising of beef more efficient?
You can't legislate them to stop farting methane. And I doubt housing an entire stock of cattle indoors and filtering the air is energy efficient. What are these regulations you speak of that if only we'd put pen to paper magically beef is not as energy and water intensive as it is?
All contrarian trolling aside the real solution here would be to breed/genetically engineer cows that don't produce as much methane and require less water and outlaw environmentally destructive farming/ranching practices, all of which are accomplishable goals. Or just cut out the middle man and figure out how to grow steaks in a tank which would also be more ethical in an animal suffering sense. It would probably would be hard to get them to taste anything like a grass fed steak, though.
What is natural and responsible levels? I eat 3 steaks a day, is that too much?We shouldn't have to quit eating beef. We very much can work on eating beef at natural, responsible levels, however. That is the real issue.
Show some leadership. Learn about the issues. stop fighting for empty talking points.
So if we're going to boil the oceans, at least you'll make a fat corpse while doing it.
You guys don't really believe in this crap is what I'm getting from your total lack of leadership and sacrifice.
I maybe eat it once a week or so. I shy away mostly for health reasons, not at all about climate. You tow a lot? My truck gets around 17MPG average.
What is natural and responsible levels? I eat 3 steaks a day, is that too much?
The thing about this thread is that people need to eat.
People don't need to not carpool. People don't need to have coal burning power plants. People don't need to applaud China and India for extreme pollution. People don't need to buy massive pickup trucks to take their kids to soccer practice. People don't need 2 refrigerators in their home. People don't need to use incandescent lightbulbs. People don't need to burn garbage.
etc.
You are comparing a very broad point to much more narrow ones.
You could easily have said people don't need to eat beef.
Similarly, you avoided writing things like people don't need cars, people don't need energy,people don't need light, etc.
So if we're going to boil the oceans, at least you'll make a fat corpse while doing it.
You guys don't really believe in this crap is what I'm getting from your total lack of leadership and sacrifice.
what's your point?
I don't think you're a person who has any standing to call science 'crap', and the idea that you think a purposeless personal sacrifice is some sort of statement of 'belief' is...well... extremely stupid.
There are millions or billions of people who share a belief that greenhouses gases are contributing to dangerous levels of global warming. Assuming those people are rational, it wouldn't be a purposeless personal sacrifice, it would be a personal contribution to a meaningful collection of sacrifices.
Ask the earth, does it need people?
Hmm.... global warming suggests that the answer is NO!
That source doesnt claim inaction is a rational and morally justifiable response to the collective action problem.
What is more important, taking action to save the environment or attempting to insure the burden is equitable distributed among every single person in the world?
You proposed greenhouse gas tax. Well, if only some countries enact such a law that is a collective action problem. Therefore, under your rationale, the U.S. should reject your proposed solution absent a global treaty among all countries in existence with sufficient measures to have 100% certainty that none of them will cheat and become free riders.
Alternatively, you could recognize two wrongs don't make a right. Taking personal action that will contribute to a collective good does not prohibit you from continuing to lobby for a more comprehensive solution. Further, refusing to take such action is not beneficial in your efforts to lobby for a comprehensive solution.
Strangely enough, studies like this can draw shitloads of funding. Now, a lot of times you have to make arguments that seem more relevant to things like humans, diseases like cancer or whatnot, to get attention. But it is almost never not-true when doing so, because that is how basic science works. Rather, you would opt to defund Nasa because you'd rather not understand why they would want to build a camp on a volcanic island; just write it off as some expensive camping trip and government waste.
You're pulling from the book of Sarah Palin: "Let's not fund all those folks studying fruit flies in...Paris France!" (from the 2008 election run)
what that little cuntburger doesn't realize is that these models, the tiny drosophila, form the basis of modern genetics--and metric shittons of relevant funding goes in to applicable studies of all sorts of subjects that laymen looking to make an uniformed detractory talking point simply refuse to understand.
Don't do that. It makes you look stupid.
It is not as if climate scientists with government funding have no-one to answer to. They aren't "winning" funding by competing with an agenda. They are funded because they are competing with their own data and, yes, other climate scientists trying to scrape out a piece of that same pie. It is funny that you righteous deniars make any number of unfounded excuses towards the cynicism of how funding works and never come close to understanding it. They compete with each other, so it very much is in their best interest, in a way, to discredit a good number of their colleagues. But that is difficult when the data doesn't square with that agenda. Not only that, it is not as if the government is scrutinizing the validity of the data. That is for the scientific community, which determines relevance outside the scope of funding. the NIH, et al determine funding based on the validity of methods and relevance of the subject.
This argument that "It is in the scientists' best interest to prove global warming because of money" does not reflect reality. Yet, at the same time, every one of you deniers that cries foul over scientific malfeasance for the volumes of valid research scrutinized annually will turn instantly, and completely without fail, to the 1 or 2 studies released by the fucking coal industry that denies every known piece of data. The fucking energy industry that, if nothing else, has every fucking reason to deny everything possible about climate change.
And this never bothers you. Not once.
It would be funny if you guys weren't so maddeningly obstinate and actually managed to put some ignorant hillbillies that slept through 9th grade Chem class in a position to actually wreck necessary progress in science.
Excuse me, but I was not rejecting AGW theory. I was rejecting much of the so-called "science" and social movements which attach themselves to it to ride the wave, much like the eventually-debunked "Vaccines cause Autism!" report and all of the follow-on articles and "research" the anti-vaxxers continued promoting.
I still firmly believe that AGW is possible but that much of the "consensus" can't be trusted for those same "everybody on board!" reasons. Attempting to shame someone for not calling it conclusive in the face of consensus is failing to acknowledge the potential of a bandwagon consensus and behaving in exactly the way a bandwagon consensus requires to form.
You do that, and ignorant people will flip their shit. Just look at the latest beef with AquaBounty's recently approved farm salmon.genetically engineer cows
Strangely enough, studies like this can draw shitloads of funding. Now, a lot of times you have to make arguments that seem more relevant to things like humans, diseases like cancer or whatnot, to get attention. But it is almost never not-true when doing so, because that is how basic science works. Rather, you would opt to defund Nasa because you'd rather not understand why they would want to build a camp on a volcanic island; just write it off as some expensive camping trip and government waste.
You're pulling from the book of Sarah Palin: "Let's not fund all those folks studying fruit flies in...Paris France!" (from the 2008 election run)
what that little cuntburger doesn't realize is that these models, the tiny drosophila, form the basis of modern genetics--and metric shittons of relevant funding goes in to applicable studies of all sorts of subjects that laymen looking to make an uniformed detractory talking point simply refuse to understand.
Don't do that. It makes you look stupid.
How do you not see that the anti-vax movement is analogous to the climate deniers rather than the consensus? The anti-vax movement was never mainstream or a majority. It was always a minority clinging to dubious "science." For a relatively smart person you can be really fucking dumb sometimes.