GOP: the party of stupid

[AUisAll 2]

Here's some more evidence that ya'll can come out from under your beds.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63328?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.U4RzP8G0hqU.twitter

Once these folks find out that the world really isn't flat and that Climate Change is 'bought science' they will disappear and move on to the next hoax.

[AUDub 11,784]

Here's some more evidence...

I think you need to bone up on your diction.

[AUisAll 2]

Here's some more evidence...

I think you need to bone up on your diction.

Thank you. For what it's worth I'm an AU graduate but....... That's usually the type response I get from people who don't like the message. And if your one of the ones 'under your bed'---sorry.

[autigeremt 7,133]

GOP is against Science

Democrats are against MATH

I guess we now know why both supported Common Core.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.co...warming-crisis/

It's a survey of professional geologists and geological engineers in Alberta. The center of the Canadian oil industry. Not researchers. Not surprisingly, they take a pretty dim view of climate change.

That dont madder. They is scientist aint they?

LOL!

Would you go see an endocrinologist if you had a broken leg?

You done got schooled about globul warmin so you wanna talk about oblammacare?

Speaking of being"schooled" about global warming, do you not find it the least bit odd that Columbia University is using a $5.7 million dollar federal grant making phony calls about global warming? I think it is not only another profligate waste of tax payer money but is borderline criminal to use tax payer revenues to fund the progressive propaganda machine.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/27/columbia-university-is-spending-millions-of-tax-dollars-on-fake-climate-change-death-voicemails/

[Barkchevious 84]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.co...warming-crisis/

If they go against the agenda, they are no longer scientists, they are deniers.

Don't present him with facts his head will explode.

First,Forbes is a right-wing political rag, not a scientific journal.

To that point, I bet none of you bothered to read the publication this Forbes "disinformation" piece referenced. Right?

Read the subject publication then come back and let me know if you really want to argue the findings.

Homer, you seem like a guy in the know regarding global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, etc. What are your thoughts on cow farts? Is it settled science? Are there other organisms out there farting away, unknowingly causing typhoons somewhere?

This is a legitimate question. Tell us about cows. Farting cows.

[telling tiger 156]

If there is a forum on the planet that can provide insight into bovine gas release and/or bovine field deposits, this is the place.

[AUDub 11,784]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.co...warming-crisis/

If they go against the agenda, they are no longer scientists, they are deniers.

Don't present him with facts his head will explode.

First,Forbes is a right-wing political rag, not a scientific journal.

To that point, I bet none of you bothered to read the publication this Forbes "disinformation" piece referenced. Right?

Read the subject publication then come back and let me know if you really want to argue the findings.

Homer, you seem like a guy in the know regarding global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, etc. What are your thoughts on cow farts? Is it settled science? Are there other organisms out there farting away, unknowingly causing typhoons somewhere?

This is a legitimate question. Tell us about cows. Farting cows.

Interestingly enough, we've had a topic on this in the past.

[AUDub 11,784]

If there is a forum on the planet that can provide insight into bovine gas release and/or bovine field deposits, this is the place.

[homersapien 12,172]

If there is a forum on the planet that can provide insight into bovine gas release and/or bovine field deposits, this is the place.

Well, after all, it is an Auburn forum.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

We have already solved this problem. Beano in cattle feed. No more bovine gas.

[homersapien 12,172]

Ooops! "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis" http://www.forbes.co...warming-crisis/

If they go against the agenda, they are no longer scientists, they are deniers.

Don't present him with facts his head will explode.

First,Forbes is a right-wing political rag, not a scientific journal.

To that point, I bet none of you bothered to read the publication this Forbes "disinformation" piece referenced. Right?

Read the subject publication then come back and let me know if you really want to argue the findings.

Homer, you seem like a guy in the know regarding global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, etc. What are your thoughts on cow farts? Is it settled science? Are there other organisms out there farting away, unknowingly causing typhoons somewhere?

This is a legitimate question. Tell us about cows. Farting cows.

But to answer your question, the gas that bovines emit are derived from organic carbon sources which are already part of the natural cycle. So they aren't really adding carbon to the cycle in a long term sense.

Our problem is in releasing the "sequestered" carbon from past epochs. It's estimated there is more than five times the amount of carbon in the form of petroleum and coal needed to effect radical global climate change, so using it up before switching to alternative energy sources is highly problematic.

So I wouldn't sweat the cow farts.

Does that help?

[autigeremt 7,133]

But to answer your question, the gas that bovines emit are derived from organic carbon sources which are already part of the natural cycle. So they aren't really adding carbon to the cycle in a long term sense.

Auburn researchers would disagree with you. In fact, they see methane as one of the leading indicators for greenhouse gas emissions in North America.

[AUisAll 2]

LOL. After reading the title of this thread I had to laugh again at the irony. 'GOP: the party of stupid' The GOP doesn't believe in the hoax of Global warming so we're 'stupid'. You can't make this stuff up. Liberalism is no doubt a sign of Mental illness at best and insanity at worst and them falling for the GW scam is just more evidence.

[AUDub 11,784]

But to answer your question, the gas that bovines emit are derived from organic carbon sources which are already part of the natural cycle. So they aren't really adding carbon to the cycle in a long term sense.

Auburn researchers would disagree with you. In fact, they see methane as one of the leading indicators for greenhouse gas emissions in North America.

Beat me to it. I was just about to bring this up.

Here's the link I posted in the other thread. The problem isn't the carbon. It's the methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. It's the result of industrial farming techniques like feeding with fast growing low nutrient ryegrass.

[autigeremt 7,133]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

[quietfan 233]

But to answer your question, the gas that bovines emit are derived from organic carbon sources which are already part of the natural cycle. So they aren't really adding carbon to the cycle in a long term sense.

Auburn researchers would disagree with you. In fact, they see methane as one of the leading indicators for greenhouse gas emissions in North America.

Beat me to it. I was just about to bring this up.

Here's the link I posted in the other thread. The problem isn't the carbon. It's the methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. It's the result of industrial farming techniques like feeding with fast growing low nutrient ryegrass.

Yeah, cows produce methane. And as carbon molecules go, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

But that doesn't let humans off the hook. Yes, bovine-produced gas is recycling atmospheric carbon rather than pumping vast quantities of buried carbon into the atmosphere like fossil fuel consumption. But as you point out, modern agricultural methods contribute to the problem. Mono-culture growing of grass and grains (for cattle feed) does not trap carbon in the soil to be eventually buried, the way natural vegetation and forests do. And modern agricultural methods are heavily petroleum dependent for both fuel and petrochemicals, or as some have described: "just a machine for converting petroleum into food and profits."

Historically, beef only became the dominant animal protein in our diets with the exploitation of the great American grasslands. Prior to that, pigs, sheep, fowl, and seafood were much more common in diets worldwide. Yes, some native groups--the Plains Indians, natives of the African grasslands, etc.--subsided largely on ruminants, but they did not significantly change the ecology of their homelands in the process (at least not since the post-ice age extinctions of mammoths, mastodons, and other mega-fauna, to which overhunting may have contributed). For that matter, meat in general did not make up such a large proportion of human diet before the American beef industry (unless you go back to paleolithic days). The vast empty mid-continental grasslands after the near extinction of the bison, combined with industrial technology (railroads, refrigeration, etc.), produced our American addiction to beef. And we exported that addiction to much of the modern world.

That being said, and even though the direct consumption of vegetable protein might more efficiently feed more people than processing said protein through animals as some vegetarians suggest, I'm not ready to give up my beef. But I don't feel a need to destroy the planet so I can eat it every day or regularly exploit the lazy convenience of a fast food drive-in window. And I don't blame or begrudge the small family farmer/rancher for simply trying to make a living.

As for the original topic of climate change:

For those who see global warming as a liberal hoax unsupported by science, I acknowledge your viewpoint and respect your right to it even if I disagree. I'm not even terribly offended to be called stupid or brainwashed, as that is mere opinion. However, I am for now firmly convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence shows global warming is occurring NOW, threatens our way of life, and humans are a major cause. Also, as a scientist, I am open to the idea that future evidence that could change my opinion, but I have not seen it to date.

( ...just wanted let you to know, so you can decide for yourself if your current arguments are a waste of energy on me. Otherwise, enjoy the debate. )

[homersapien 12,172]

But to answer your question, the gas that bovines emit are derived from organic carbon sources which are already part of the natural cycle. So they aren't really adding carbon to the cycle in a long term sense.

Auburn researchers would disagree with you. In fact, they see methane as one of the leading indicators for greenhouse gas emissions in North America.

Good point. I was considering the carbon cycle without factoring in the qualitative difference of methane.

But the underlying problem still relates to releasing sequestered carbon from oil, gas and coal.

But while methane has a larger quantitative effect than CO2, it will makes up a relatively small percent of total greenhouse gases emitted due to human activity - about 9%. And most of that is derived from waste management practices.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

[AUDub 11,784]

But to answer your question, the gas that bovines emit are derived from organic carbon sources which are already part of the natural cycle. So they aren't really adding carbon to the cycle in a long term sense.

Auburn researchers would disagree with you. In fact, they see methane as one of the leading indicators for greenhouse gas emissions in North America.

Beat me to it. I was just about to bring this up.

Here's the link I posted in the other thread. The problem isn't the carbon. It's the methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. It's the result of industrial farming techniques like feeding with fast growing low nutrient ryegrass.

Yeah, cows produce methane. And as carbon molecules go, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

But that doesn't let humans off the hook. Yes, bovine-produced gas is recycling atmospheric carbon rather than pumping vast quantities of buried carbon into the atmosphere like fossil fuel consumption. But as you point out, modern agricultural methods contribute to the problem. Mono-culture growing of grass and grains (for cattle feed) does not trap carbon in the soil to be eventually buried, the way natural vegetation and forests do. And modern agricultural methods are heavily petroleum dependent for both fuel and petrochemicals, or as some have described: "just a machine for converting petroleum into food and profits."

Historically, beef only became the dominant animal protein in our diets with the exploitation of the great American grasslands. Prior to that, pigs, sheep, fowl, and seafood were much more common in diets worldwide. Yes, some native groups--the Plains Indians, natives of the African grasslands, etc.--subsided largely on ruminants, but they did not significantly change the ecology of their homelands in the process (at least not since the post-ice age extinctions of mammoths, mastodons, and other mega-fauna, to which overhunting may have contributed). For that matter, meat in general did not make up such a large proportion of human diet before the American beef industry (unless you go back to paleolithic days). The vast empty mid-continental grasslands after the near extinction of the bison, combined with industrial technology (railroads, refrigeration, etc.), produced our American addiction to beef. And we exported that addiction to much of the modern world.

That being said, and even though the direct consumption of vegetable protein might more efficiently feed more people than processing said protein through animals as some vegetarians suggest, I'm not ready to give up my beef. But I don't feel a need to destroy the planet so I can eat it every day or regularly exploit the lazy convenience of a fast food drive-in window. And I don't blame or begrudge the small family farmer/rancher for simply trying to make a living.

As for the original topic of climate change:

For those who see global warming as a liberal hoax unsupported by science, I acknowledge your viewpoint and respect your right to it even if I disagree. I'm not even terribly offended to be called stupid or brainwashed, as that is mere opinion. However, I am for now firmly convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence shows global warming is occurring NOW, threatens our way of life, and humans are a major cause. Also, as a scientist, I am open to the idea that future evidence that could change my opinion, but I have not seen it to date.

( ...just wanted let you to know, so you can decide for yourself if your current arguments are a waste of energy on me. Otherwise, enjoy the debate. )

Thank you for expounding. I didn't mean to imply that it let humans off the hook. Only that CO₂ produced in comparison to the methane produced in cow flatus is negligible.

I hope Barkchevious has enjoyed this little lesson on farting cows.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

Especially not if you're an auto enthusiast. Fun things happen when ethanol meets a turbo and direct injection.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Biogenic methane and nitrous oxide contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States than anything else. Carbon based fossil fuels do emit other things that can be addressed through improved exhaust systems but the big ticket item for greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial farming techniques.

With that in mind, is ethanol a really bad idea?

Especially not if you're an auto enthusiast. Fun things happen when ethanol meets a turbo and direct injection.

I can't find the link, but ethanol is (the or a?) leading contributor in engine fuel leaks.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Hey Homer, if this thread has done anything, it's dispelled the OP title. Well, at least as far as this forum usergroup goes. We have some rocket fart scientist up in here.

[AUDub 11,784]

Hey Homer, if this thread has done anything, it's dispelled the OP title. Well, at least as far as this forum usergroup goes. We have some rocket fart scientist up in here.

You're acting as if it's a reductio ad absurdum.

It's not.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

Hey Homer, if this thread has done anything, it's dispelled the OP title. Well, at least as far as this forum usergroup goes. We have some rocket fart scientist up in here.

You're acting as if it's a reductio ad absurdum.

It's not.

Not at all. It was simply a tip of the hat to the knowledge base.