cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

smile BOY

stufffit.jpg

Senior Contributor

Re: Canuck said I was wrong

 

Oh geeesus

 

If we let ALL the water out of the dam, that means the water would have flowed anyway.

 

ARE you that pignorant ???

 

Veteran Advisor

Re: Bendover?


@NewAgJudge wrote:

stufffit.jpg


.                                     ¿Selfie?

Senior Advisor

Re: Bendover?


@Milligan Hay - Iowa d:^) wrote:

@NewAgJudge wrote:

stufffit.jpg


.                                     ¿Selfie?


When he eats that he creates more man made global warming then he does by driving to the store to pick it up. Acording to the man made global warming thumper science.

Advisor

Re: Canuck said I was wrong

Senior Contributor

Re: Canuck said I was wrong


@r3020 wrote:


snip-

Our appetite for meat is a major driver of climate change. Reducing global meat consumption will be critical to keeping global warming below the ‘danger level’ of two degrees Celsius. The livestock sector accounts for 15 per cent of global emissions, equivalent to exhaust emissions from all the vehicles in the world. - See more at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/changing-climate-changing-diets#sthash.Vw6RAyqF.dpuf


So if the  livestock sector is repsonsible for 15% of global emissions and agriculture in total (and livestock is only a portion of that) is responsible for 15% of emissions in the US then that shows just how many greenhouse emissions are produced by vehicals etc in the US.

 

Amd you will note that neither of those numbers allow for what natural occuring animals produced before man reduced their numbers, like the buffalo in North America, elephants and giraffes in Africa etc.

 

How about reducing the number of humans and see how that would help just by reducing human farts.

Senior Contributor

Re: Canuck said I was wrong

Never been to the Bahamas Millie.

 

Is it a nice place to go?

 

And we use renewable fuels to heat our house as well as our water.

Senior Contributor

Re: Canuck said I was wrong


@wehav wrote:

Say, if we're releasing the carbon that has been sequestered doesn't that mean it was previously free in the atmosphere?  So things are just returning to what could be normal for another time?


In a way you are correct but then you have to realize that humans did not live in that other time and climate so it seems like a bad choice to change back to that time and remove humans from the earth again since that was the normal then.

Senior Advisor

Re: Canuck said I was wrong


@Canuck_2 wrote:

@r3020 wrote:


snip-

Our appetite for meat is a major driver of climate change. Reducing global meat consumption will be critical to keeping global warming below the ‘danger level’ of two degrees Celsius. The livestock sector accounts for 15 per cent of global emissions, equivalent to exhaust emissions from all the vehicles in the world. - See more at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/changing-climate-changing-diets#sthash.Vw6RAyqF.dpuf


So if the  livestock sector is repsonsible for 15% of global emissions and agriculture in total (and livestock is only a portion of that) is responsible for 15% of emissions in the US then that shows just how many greenhouse emissions are produced by vehicals etc in the US.

 

Amd you will note that neither of those numbers allow for what natural occuring animals produced before man reduced their numbers, like the buffalo in North America, elephants and giraffes in Africa etc.

 

How about reducing the number of humans and see how that would help just by reducing human farts.


 Meat eaters are responsible for more man made global warming than all of the automobiles in the entire world.

Senior Contributor

Re: Canuck said I was wrong


r3020 wrote:

 Meat eaters are responsible for more man made global warming than all of the automobiles in the entire world.


You are sure of that?

Only meat eaters?

What about milk drinkers, egg eaters, horse riders, circus goers?

 

You are 'interpreting' number to suit your belief again