And you thought the single bigest contributor to global warming was mankind
December 12th, 2006 | by Craig R. Harmon |and the single greatest threat to the global climate was George W. Bush. Think again!
Steak, anyone?
Maybe the vegans hold the solution to global warming.
Plus, if the UN says it’s so, well, there’s no use arguing that it ain’t.
So go ahead. Buy an SUV. You know you want to. Just give up eating meat to compensate.
Al Gore will thank you for it.
UPDATE: This, again, from the UN: if cows are a bigger problem than humans, the problems caused by humans isn’t as bad as you think it is either.
On the other hand, I guess that humans are the cause of the cow contributed problems. If we’d all switch to kuskus, rice and beans, we’d pretty much have this climate change thing licked.
Um, let me amend that. Take it easy on the beans because methane is twenty times the greenhouse gas that CO2 is. Eat too many beans and it’ll be the cattle problem all over again.
Okay, I’m being facetious here, ever so slightly.
Who’d've thought that the corrective to Al Gore’s hysterics would come from the UN? I may have to rethink my whole estimate of the organization.
Okay, you caught me in some more faceting.
9 Responses to “And you thought the single bigest contributor to global warming was mankind”
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
You’re not really manapp99, are you?
He and I have been annoying each other over this in an earlier thread. The same arguments I made there apply here as you’re using the exact same sources. Did some sort of memo go round?
By Jersey McJones on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
I’ll tell you what’s going to be the next big problem - methane, which is worse than CO2 in terms of greenhousing, released from the melting permafrosts all around the artic circle. This is going to be a disaster.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
No memo. I may have found the sources via the same source as Manapp99 did, The Corner at National Review Online. I found them interesting. I posted on them. I haven’t yet seen your other thread and my arguments, if they can be called that, are my own. They aren’t necessarily original to me in the sense that I am the first to advance them. On the other hand, I arrived at them through my own cogitation as opposed to reading and co-opting someone else’s cogitations.
I would have thought that, coming from and being approved by the UN, they would be bullet-proof from criticism. After all, if you can’t believe the UN on something like global climate change, who can you believe? ;^)
By Jersey McJones on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Craig, I don’t think anyone argues what you are saying. Methane and such are up 20 times more damaging per ton to the atmosphere then CO2. But the amount of CO2 released is very high. So the numbers are close. Read this month’s Discover or do a little research on SCIAM.
This is also why I’ve been railing against the “magic bullet” of biofuel. The amount of energy required to rpoduce it, and the amount of carbon and methane that would be released growing the “bio” part, negate totally the gains that biofuel would lend. And not only that, but water would be sucked up and released into the atmospshere (carrying even more carbon), forests would be mowed down (less carbon absorption), and food prices would rise (more starvation).
I don;t know why people keep riding on this stupid idea!
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
When you say, “I don’t think anyone argues what you are saying[,]” I need a bit more detail. Some of what I say is tongue in cheek and little of it, if any of it at all, is to be taken as serious argument. I’m just playing around here so it is entirely possible that no one argues what I’m saying, including me, but what, specifically, of what I’ve said, you are objecting to.
On biofuel, I think that you’re right about it but its point is not that it is cleaner or more efficient but that it is sustainable, replaceable and could reduce our dependence upon oil produced by terrorist-supporting nations while sticking it to the oil industry. I admit that I don’t know much about biofuels and I have no particular opinion on it.
By christopher Radulich on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
So the arguement here is that since methane is worse than CO2 we should forget about CO2. Murder is worse than robbery so I guess we should ignore robberies.
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Christopher,
There is well neigh no argument anywhere to be found in this post. I was playing around here. If you cannot detect the lighthearted tone, given that I have twice used forms of the word ‘facetious’ in the actual post, then, well, gee, I don’t know what to say. Get out to some comedy clubs. Laugh a little. Have some fun.
Or not…up to you.
By Chris on Dec 13, 2006 | Reply
Ok, I quesss I’m to literal
By Craig R. Harmon on Dec 13, 2006 | Reply
Truth be told. I sometimes have that problem myself. No problemo. Have a good one!