Global Warming Hoax:

[93legendti]

Oops, they did it again.
In this week's edition of "we were misled":


http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=CNBP_024369&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=b4c27832-e950-44a5-8f93-f22db3e5c27a

Eating less meat and dairy products won’t have major impact on global warming

SAN FRANCISCO, March 22, 2010 — Cutting back on consumption of meat and dairy products will not have a major impact in combating global warming — despite repeated claims that link diets rich in animal products to production of greenhouse gases. That’s the conclusion of a report presented here today at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.

Air quality expert Frank Mitloehner, Ph.D., who made the presentation, said that giving cows and pigs a bum rap is not only scientifically inaccurate, but also distracts society from embracing effective solutions to global climate change. He noted that the notion is becoming deeply rooted in efforts to curb global warming, citing campaigns for “meatless Mondays” and a European campaign, called "Less Meat = Less Heat," launched late last year.


"We certainly can reduce our greenhouse-gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk,” said Mitloehner, who is with the University of California-Davis. "Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries."

The focus of confronting climate change, he said, should be on smarter farming, not less farming. "The developed world should focus on increasing efficient meat production in developing countries where growing populations need more nutritious food. In developing countries, we should adopt more efficient, Western-style farming practices to make more food with less greenhouse gas production,” Mitloehner said.

Developed countries should reduce use of oil and coal for electricity, heating and vehicle fuels. Transportation creates an estimated 26 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., whereas raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about 3 percent, he said.

Mitloehner says confusion over meat and milk's role in climate change stems from a small section printed in the executive summary of a 2006 United Nations report, "Livestock's Long Shadow." It read: "The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). This is a higher share than transport."

Mitloehner says there is no doubt that livestock are major producers of methane, one of the greenhouse gases. But he faults the methodology of "Livestock's Long Shadow," contending that numbers for the livestock sector were calculated differently from transportation. In the report, the livestock emissions included gases produced by growing animal feed; animals' digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods. But the transportation analysis factored in only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving and not all other transport lifecycle related factors.
"This lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said.

[Kirk007]

HOLY COW BATMAN!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes we the misled believers in the cult of climate change are all shaking in our shoes that if we don't control the methane from all those cows and pigs then the fight against climate change is lost (although factory farms do pose tremendous health problems is many other ways Adam - think big piles of crap sliding into waterways and significant emissions of dangerous as in public health danger air emissions).

And some American Chemical Society conference with an air quality expert from a state Ag school - yeah there's a credible climatologist. This is what you call a HOAX? More like scientific dispute at best, self interest more likely.

Whining about apple and orange life cycle comparisons? Here's one problem: we have three on-going lawsuits to force the oil and gas industry to document emissions from even the production cycle and guess what - they're not leaping at the opportunity to come clean!! Can you believe it? How are we to have credible science with such industry stonewalling. I mean, it is kinda hard to do life cycle analysis when the producers won't give up the data. Does that mean we shouldn't do life cycle analysis of industries where we can?

And by the way - any guess how much energy, water, land etc is used to produce a pound of beef? Any idea how inefficient and quite impossible to feed the world a protein heavy diet like we enjoy? Perhaps the good Doctor should address that issue as well before suggesting that the answer to world hunger is more beef and pork (nothing against beef and pork - I enjoy both).

Yep this piece changes everything. Oops, no it doesn't! The good researcher admits that "there is no doubt that livestock are major producers of methane, one of the greenhouse gases." ANd fyi - it is a much more harmful GHG that CO2.

[johnnymossville]

The climate change kooks would be much better off if they didn't cook the books, but hey I guess ya gotta believe in something.

We all wish for the world to never change for future generations for eternity, but that's not gonna happen and the earth will be spinning happily long after man is gone.

[JeffS]

"air quality expert" my ass...

Air quality of a feedlot maybe. http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Mitloehner/


----

It's amazing that some blurb written by a nobody can get so much airplay on the net. I know why agwired and foodproductdesign are pimping him, but why here?

[avalonracing]

Let's not forget the huge subsidies that artificially depresses price of meat. You all bitch about paying for other people's healthcare. Suck it up. I'm paying to keep meat cheap and I haven't had any in 13 years.

[93legendti]

It looks like the global warming gravy train could come grinding to a halt.
Stay tuned for next week's revelation.

[jblande]

Let's not forget the huge subsidies that artificially depresses price of meat. You all bitch about paying for other people's healthcare. Suck it up. I'm paying to keep meat cheap and I haven't had any in 13 years.

AMEN

[Kirk007]

...but that's not gonna happen and the earth will be spinning happily long after man is gone.

Hey we agree on something!

Peace,

Evolutionary believing/embracing climate change kook

[Kirk007]

It looks like the global warming gravy train could come grinding to a halt.
Stay tuned for next week's revelation.

Ah come on that's not fair! How about a preview? Do you have the smoking gun that Jim Hansen and his fellow NASA scientists are aliens? I was sure we buried that one really deep.

[93legendti]

Kirk, I was hoping to see you admit that the global warming movement has a problem with cooking the books and deliberately misleading people about global warming.

[Nil Else]

What's wrong with NOT defecating into the only drinking well in town?

Yes we have folks trying to convince everyone to continue dumping crap into the well sayin bit of sheot doesn't hurt anything....

[Kirk007]

Kirk, I was hoping to see you admit that the global warming movement has a problem with cooking the books and deliberately misleading people about global warming.

It's not a movement.

In a sea of information there will always be a few dead fish. That doesn't mean the sea itself is dead.

People are deliberately misleading people about global warming and have been doing so for a good twenty years. Follow the money and the vested interests -- the real money not Al but Exxon et al. The best disinformation and political apparatus money can buy.

[OtayBW]

It looks like the global warming gravy train could come grinding to a halt.
Stay tuned for next week's revelation.
Sure thing. If any gravy train is coming to a halt, looks like your boy will be getting off at the first stop.

To fund this innovative work, Mitloehner has secured $2.1 million in research grants as Principal Investigator and another $300,000 as co-P.I. from agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the California State Water Resources Board, the California Energy Commission, and the California Air Resources Board.
Yep - if the argument disagrees with your viewpoint, it's 'junk science' perpetrated by a bunch of biased researchers; if it agrees with your viewpoint, then it's an important piece of work demonstrating that we have all been deliberately misled. Hello pot....
Talk to me when you can reliably review the actual science, not the 'revelations' you scrounge up on the web. :banana:

[William]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cs-vancouversun/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00/00/34/80/35/globalwarming.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0TTXDM86AJ1CB68A7 P02&Expires=1269413471&Signature=xj4FtDhNkGUQMjGhLMaEXPr%2fH5o%3d

[93legendti]

...People are deliberately misleading people about global warming and have been doing so for a good twenty years...
I'm glad we both agree that the claims of global warming have been severly damaged by the recent disclosures of deliberate misrepresentations.

[Wilkinson4]

Caption should be I vill eat you... That picture was proven a hoax. I guess it was the tip of the iceberg as far as hoaxes go:)

mIKE

[Kirk007]

I'm glad we both agree that the claims of global warming have been severly damaged by the recent disclosures of deliberate misrepresentations.

Hah. Take a trip to the South Seas, perhaps Kiribati or Tuvalu or how about going to Dhaka in Bangledesh and see if the locals think its all a hoax. It's easy to sit in the good ole U.S. of A. and be cynical (unless you are a native Alaskan and the permafrost under your village is melting).

[Louis]

Folks didn't worry too much about millions of people around the world living in the most abject poverty, not to say starvation. Why should they feel any different if the water levels somewhere on the other side of the earth are rising a few inches or very subtle changes in weather are occurring? Personally, I think that sort of behavior is normal.

Until the problem hits you in the face like a 2x4 it's much easier to not deal with it.

[William]

Caption should be I vill eat you... That picture was proven a hoax. I guess it was the tip of the iceberg as far as hoaxes go:)

mIKE

http://thehui.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/global-warming.jpg

[Kirk007]

Folks didn't worry too much about millions of people around the world living in the most abject poverty, not to say starvation. Why should they feel any different if the water levels somewhere on the other side of the earth are rising a few inches or very subtle changes in weather are occurring? Personally, I think that sort of behavior is normal.

Until the problem hits you in the face like a 2x4 it's much easier to not deal with it.

Indeed. And that's the problem. Some problems are "local" and can be ignored and probably "should be" from an evolutionary/tribal standpoint. But this problem is not local, its just not as apparent here as there. Same can be said about many of our current dilemmas whether nuclear proliferation, food availability, pandemics, the economy.... The world has changed. Have we? Will we?

[Nil Else]

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=jellyfish+problem+for+fishmens&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Rueda Tropical]

Yes, global warming is a hoax, evolution is a hoax and science is over-rated. Those librul scientists are all just trying to keep the gravy train going.

But don't worry pretty soon the right will turn our schools into madrassas where the bible can replace all those history and science books where they teach all those "theories". And we can teach the truth that dinosaurs and people co-existed, that god never made a gay baby and that there is no such thing as global warming.

Of course nations that actually believe in science will kick our ass economically as they develop technologies and industries to meet the challenges that Exxon and Rush tell us don't exist. But no worries the rapture is coming any day now.

[mschol17]

Hopefully everyone will eventually learn to stop feeding the troll...

[rugbysecondrow]

Yes, global warming is a hoax, evolution is a hoax and science is over-rated. Those librul scientists are all just trying to keep the gravy train going.

But don't worry pretty soon the right will turn our schools into madrassas where the bible can replace all those history and science books where they teach all those "theories". And we can teach the truth that dinosaurs and people co-existed, that god never made a gay baby and that there is no such thing as global warming.

Of course nations that actually believe in science will kick our ass economically as they develop technologies and industries to meet the challenges that Exxon and Rush tell us don't exist. But no worries the rapture is coming any day now.

You can do better than this. :rolleyes:

Making the leap from Global Warming to Evoltion to Homosexuality to Rush to the rapture...you really wanted to hit them all.

Is this stream of consciousness or were you just putting a bunch of issues togther in the hope that a point would rise from them?

[William]

Yes, global warming is a hoax, evolution is a hoax and science is over-rated. Those librul scientists are all just trying to keep the gravy train going.

But don't worry pretty soon the right will turn our schools into madrassas where the bible can replace all those history and science books where they teach all those "theories". And we can teach the truth that dinosaurs and people co-existed, that god never made a gay baby and that there is no such thing as global warming.

Of course nations that actually believe in science will kick our ass economically as they develop technologies and industries to meet the challenges that Exxon and Rush tell us don't exist. But no worries the rapture is coming any day now.


Watch it! You're walking that line of being denounced as a "freethinker".

We all know we can't have our children learning to think critically. No no, we need to dumb down America. Remember, "the less you know, the more you believe." We don't need people thinking that Scientific methods are a good way to study phenomenon. :no:

Key Info

* The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
* The steps of the scientific method are to:
o Ask a Question
o Do Background Research
o Construct a Hypothesis
o Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
o Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
o Communicate Your Results
* It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.


Overview of the Scientific Method

The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Scientists use the scientific method to search for cause and effect relationships in nature. In other words, they design an experiment so that changes to one item cause something else to vary in a predictable way.

Just as it does for a professional scientist, the scientific method will help you to focus your science fair project question, construct a hypothesis, design, execute, and evaluate your experiment.


Steps of the Scientific Method Detailed Help for Each Step

Ask a Question:
The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?

And, in order for the scientific method to answer the question it must be about something that you can measure, preferably with a number.

Do Background Research:
Rather than starting from scratch in putting together a plan for answering your question, you want to be a savvy scientist using library and Internet research to help you find the best way to do things and insure that you don't repeat mistakes from the past.

Construct a Hypothesis:
A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work:
"If _____[I do this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen."

You must state your hypothesis in a way that you can easily measure, and of course, your hypothesis should be constructed in a way to help you answer your original question.

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment:
Your experiment tests whether your hypothesis is true or false. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. You conduct a fair test by making sure that you change only one factor at a time while keeping all other conditions the same.

You should also repeat your experiments several times to make sure that the first results weren't just an accident.

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion:
Once your experiment is complete, you collect your measurements and analyze them to see if your hypothesis is true or false.

Scientists often find that their hypothesis was false, and in such cases they will construct a new hypothesis starting the entire process of the scientific method over again. Even if they find that their hypothesis was true, they may want to test it again in a new way.

Communicate Your Results:
To complete your project you will need to communicate your results to others in a final report and/or a display board. Professional scientists do almost exactly the same thing by publishing their final report in a scientific journal or by presenting their results on a poster at a scientific meeting.

Even though we show the scientific method as a series of steps, keep in mind that new information or thinking might cause a scientist to back up and repeat steps at any point during the process. A process like the scientific method that involves such backing up and repeating is called an iterative process.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/overview_scientific_method2.gif


Don't think critically and ask your own questions. No, the "Party" liner notes are all you need to hear.....believe me. :rolleyes:



William

[goonster]

Air quality expert Frank Mitloehner, Ph.D., who made the presentation, said that giving cows and pigs a bum rap is not only scientifically inaccurate, but also distracts society from embracing effective solutions to global climate change.
Only 93legendti can read this article, and conclude that a scientist advocating for more effective actions to reduce global warming somehow supports the notion that global warming is a hoax.

[jblande]

Only 93legendti can read this article, and conclude that a scientist advocating for more effective actions to reduce global warming somehow supports the notion that global warming is a hoax.

+1

As near as I can tell, he wants to draw attention to his research by claiming that the statistics were improperly measured, not that they rest on false premises. This is a significant difference, as the OP seems to have failed to notice.

[Kirk007]

Hopefully everyone will eventually learn to stop feeding the troll...
Hey, Trolls need love too :rolleyes:

[William]

Hey, Trolls need love too :rolleyes:

;) :)

[1happygirl]

how it really works

[93legendti]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7440664/Government-rebuked-over-global-warming-nursery-rhyme-adverts.html

Government rebuked over global warming nursery rhyme adverts
Two nursery rhyme adverts commissioned by the Government to raise awareness of climate change have been banned for overstating the risks.

By Matthew Moore
Published: 9:25AM GMT 14 Mar 2010


The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the adverts – which were based on the children's poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub – made exaggerated claims about the threat to Britain from global warming.

In definitely asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought the adverts went beyond mainstream scientific consensus, the watchdog said.

The two posters created on behalf of the Department of Energy and Climate Change juxtaposed adapted extracts from the nursery rhymes with prose warnings about the dangers of global warning.

One began: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.” Beneath was written: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”

The second advert read: "Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub — a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.” It was captioned: “Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense. If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.”...

[1happygirl]

hahahahaha

[William]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36020131/ns/us_news-environment/

Rising seas settle fight over isle
India, Bangladesh each claimed New Moore Islands in, and coastlines around, the Bay of Bengal have seen rising seas eat away at land. These trees are submerged in the bay's Sundarban delta.

updated 2:52 p.m. ET, Wed., March. 24, 2010

NEW DELHI - For nearly 30 years, India and Bangladesh have argued over control of a tiny rock island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have resolved the dispute for them: the island's gone.

New Moore Island in the Sunderbans has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols, he said.

"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.

Scientists at the School of Oceanographic Studies at the university have noted an alarming increase in the rate at which sea levels have risen over the past decade in the Bay of Bengal.

Until 2000, the bay's sea levels rose about 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) a year, and erosion and mangrove destruction were also other contributing factors reshaping the bay.

But over the last decade sea levels in the bay have been rising about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) annually, he said.

Another nearby island, Lohachara, was submerged in 1996, forcing its inhabitants to move to the mainland, while almost half the land of Ghoramara Island was underwater, he said. At least 10 other islands in the area were at risk as well, Hazra said.

"We will have ever larger numbers of people displaced from the Sunderbans as more island areas come under water," he said.

Bangladesh, a low-lying delta nation of 150 million people, is one of the countries worst-affected by global warming. Officials estimate 18 percent of Bangladesh's coastal area will be underwater and 20 million people will be displaced if sea levels rise 1 meter (3.3 feet) by 2050 as projected by some climate models.

India and Bangladesh both claimed the empty New Moore Island, which was about 2 miles long, 1.5 miles wide and never stuck out more than six feet above water. Bangladesh referred to the island as South Talpatti.

There were no permanent structures on New Moore, but India sent some paramilitary soldiers to its rocky shores in 1981 to hoist its national flag.

The demarcation of the maritime boundary — and who controls the remaining islands — remains an open issue between the two South Asian neighbors, despite the disappearance of New Moore, said an official in India's foreign ministry, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on international disputes.

[whforrest]

here in the bay area (SF) we have certain mandated days where you are not allowed to burn wood in your fire place. (some how the brainiacs have a formula to decide this)

last thanksgiving and christmas day happened to be spare the air days. (keep in mind hardly no cars on the road)

enforcement on this can fine you. so if you own a house in walnut creek and light your fire wood you can get fined living in your $650,000 house.

it doesn't get any better than this.

[93legendti]

here in the bay area (SF) we have certain mandated days where you are not allowed to burn wood in your fire place. (some how the brainiacs have a formula to decide this)

last thanksgiving and christmas day happened to be spare the air days. (keep in mind hardly no cars on the road)

enforcement on this can fine you. so if you own a house in walnut creek and light your fire wood you can get fined living in your $650,000 house.

it doesn't get any better than this.
Well, last Saturday Gov. Granholm gave us "Meat Out Day". The agri/food industry is Michigan's 2nd biggest industry.

With 15% unemployment, our esteemed Governor puts the hurt on a $70 billion industry.

Whose side are you on Governor?

[avalonracing]

Well, last Saturday Gov. Granholm gave us "Meat Out Day". The agri/food industry is Michigan's 2nd biggest industry.

With 15% unemployment, our esteemed Governor puts the hurt on a $70 billion industry.


Don't worry, there are plenty of fat-ass guys with hardened arteries that will make up for it. I don't think the slaughterhouses are going out of business anytime soon.

[Kirk007]

Well, last Saturday Gov. Granholm gave us "Meat Out Day". The agri/food industry is Michigan's 2nd biggest industry.

With 15% unemployment, our esteemed Governor puts the hurt on a $70 billion industry.

Whose side are you on Governor?

Maybe your gov should support putting roof top solar on all residences in order to create jobs and combat global warming.

[Kirk007]

how it really works

While I appreciate cynical humor, the attack on science is all too real in America. Do we really want to be back at a point where our analysis is back at the Monty Python level? (well I know some states do, but really...)

[Elefantino]

We should have more "Meat In Days" because cow farting is a big reason for global warming.

Eat more cows, less farting, less warming, problem solved.

Next: Ban anything made of wood. Save threes, more C02 conversion, less warming, problem solved.

You're welcome.

[Wilkinson4]

BEDEVERE: What makes you think there is Global Warming?
VILLAGER #3: Well, it is warm?
BEDEVERE: Warm?
VILLAGER #3: It's getting hotter.
VILLAGER #2: Global Warming!
VILLAGER #1: Global Warming!
CROWD: Global Warming! Global Warming! Global Warming!...
BEDEVERE: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether
there is Global Warming.
VILLAGER #1: Are there?
VILLAGER #2: Ah?
VILLAGER #1: What are they?
CROWD: Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do when it is warm?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
VILLAGER #1: Burn!
CROWD: Burn! Burn up! Burn!...

[Seott-e]

While I appreciate cynical humor, the attack on science is all too real in America. Do we really want to be back at a point where our analysis is back at the Monty Python level? (well I know some states do, but really...)


Wasn't the science really based on monty python, Oh sorry. Monty Python was funny, the Global Warming Hoax is really a joke on us....

[rugbysecondrow]

While I appreciate cynical humor, the attack on science is all too real in America. Do we really want to be back at a point where our analysis is back at the Monty Python level? (well I know some states do, but really...)

Science is not some singular entity, so saying ther is an "attack on science" is not really a fair statement. I think the internet has provided false information to people who think they can use that to attack some scientific findings. This has been easier to do since the internet and the 24/7 media has proliferated some bad science and has misintepreted and publicized the findings of good science. It is about headlines and not science, so you can barely blame the general public who, 10 years ago, would never even fathom reading about some of these things.

I can't say what is and isn't true about Global Warming, but I can say that no matter your opinion, you can find "Science" to back up your view. As has always been the case, you can argue the validity of your opponents sources. What I would add, which I think is often a mistake made, is to not mistake theory for truth or fact.

[Kirk007]

Science is not some singular entity, so saying ther is an "attack on science" is not really a fair statement. I think the internet has provided false information to people who think they can use that to attack some scientific findings. This has been easier to do since the internet and the 24/7 media has proliferated some bad science and has misintepreted and publicized the findings of good science. It is about headlines and not science, so you can barely blame the general public who, 10 years ago, would never even fathom reading about some of these things.

I can't say what is and isn't true about Global Warming, but I can say that no matter your opinion, you can find "Science" to back up your view. As has always been the case, you can argue the validity of your opponents sources. What I would add, which I think is often a mistake made, is to not mistake theory for truth or fact.

Agreed. My point was to the humorous yet to me disturbing post about how "science" really works. Yeah I'm sure a lot of scientists, including academics have their own self economic interest at heart, perhaps too much. But having spent a couple years doing medical research, seeing first hand the incredible smarts, hard work and good will of some of my colleagues, and thinking of all the advancements in science that have improved our lives, lengthened our life spans etc., I find the phenomena that you describe and what seems like increased challenges/attacks on the validity of science by folks that sway large segments of public opinion disturbing. And a media that equates "fair and balanced reporting with giving opposing "scientific" viewpoints equal standing, even if one of the viewpoints is lacking in merit, only adds to the problem.

[rugbysecondrow]

Agreed. My point was to the humorous yet to me disturbing post about how "science" really works. Yeah I'm sure a lot of scientists, including academics have their own self economic interest at heart, perhaps too much. But having spent a couple years doing medical research, seeing first hand the incredible smarts, hard work and good will of some of my colleagues, and thinking of all the advancements in science that have improved our lives, lengthened our life spans etc., I find the phenomena that you describe and what seems like increased challenges/attacks on the validity of science by folks that sway large segments of public opinion disturbing. And a media that equates "fair and balanced reporting with giving opposing "scientific" viewpoints equal standing, even if one of the viewpoints is lacking in merit, only adds to the problem.

Agree, but it also has to do with how publications title an article or a story about the research study. Often times the journalists don't understand what they have read or they title it just to get it read. Most people don't read the study, they read the article on Yahoos homepage about it. Mass information has created a sense of mass ignorance, with no recognition that they are so.

[nahtnoj]

First of all, is the author denying that global climate change is occurring? Not that I can see.

UC-Davis is one of the largest agriculture schools in the nation. Lets not pretend that they don't have a dog in the fight.

Really what we have here is a poorly written news article that confuses the issue.

American agriculture has grown vastly more efficient over the past few decades. Several decades ago we needed 3x the number of cows we need today to produce the same quantity of milk - about 9 million cows currently. That is the researchers point - its a narrow point, but a valid one.

It is patently silly to assert that agriculture isn't a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. But what this researcher is saying is that if the rest of the world adopts the farming practices his university advocates for, we could have the same quantity of production while drastically cutting emissions.

The UN report mixed methodologies. Not good practice, but hardly unusual, given the wide variance of data availability and methods from nation to nation and sector to sector.

[soulspinner]

First of all, is the author denying that global climate change is occurring? Not that I can see.

UC-Davis is one of the largest agriculture schools in the nation. Lets not pretend that they don't have a dog in the fight.

Really what we have here is a poorly written news article that confuses the issue.

American agriculture has grown vastly more efficient over the past few decades. Several decades ago we needed 3x the number of cows we need today to produce the same quantity of milk - about 9 million cows currently. That is the researchers point - its a narrow point, but a valid one.

It is patently silly to assert that agriculture isn't a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. But what this researcher is saying is that if the rest of the world adopts the farming practices his university advocates for, we could have the same quantity of production while drastically cutting emissions.

The UN report mixed methodologies. Not good practice, but hardly unusual, given the wide variance of data availability and methods from nation to nation and sector to sector.


+1