People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change

So Lord Whoever-he-is thinks if we all go vegan, it will reduce carbon emissions. Question: since the emissions he's concerned about are coming from living animals, how is our not eating them going to help? They'll still be alive and emitting. Or is he proposing some kind of global holocaust against animals raised for their meat? I wonder how the animal rights crowd will feel about that?

 

I've posted graph after graph, post after post, citations from the worlds authorities on the subject, projections, models, on over a dozen threads. The data you ask for is out there and it has been shown to you over and over. Yet you keep repeating the same stupid questions like they haven't been answered at length about five times already. If you aren't paying attention to my posts, then it's not worth the effort to bother responding.

Just because you find it difficult to understand something doesn't make it difficult for me . . . or anybody else.

 

Geez, do you guys all go to UnqualifiedObserver.com to find these "experts". :huh: What a softball.

Lets look at the Bio of this tower of climatological expertise. :hihi:

Once again a non-scientist who writes a column entitled "Global Warming Disproved" containing no scientific evidence whatsoever, does NOT disprove anything.

 

I've done that, too. Time and time again. It doesn't work with him or with you. You really don't care about the truth here. You only care about the politics.

I do and then I back it up with evidence.

Here is the problem. If you guys were just attacking the politics, I'd mostly let it go. Politics are subjective. But when you attack the science with hearsay and bullchit, I shoot it down. And you make it easy because of the attitude you have stated above. You are too lazy or bored or close-minded to check out the data and make a scientific objection that you can back up with evidence.

It's a "shell game" to you. You throw out some sound bytes, which are easily discredited and shown to be false. And when I do just that, you just pretend that it never happened and make the same damn ridiculous assertion tomorrow.

Either quit trying to poo-poo the science or attack it scientifically and be prepared to back it up. I ain't going away.

 

Some of it is common sense, amigo. But much of it are cold hard facts that some of you refuse to face.

No they don't. I've addressed this several times, as well. There are political voices out there that overstate the problem, that's why you don't see me defending the politics of Al Gore. But the scientific basis of this is not agenda driven. The peer-review, publication, and challenge process precludes politics. Reputation is everything in this field and no credible scientist will ever get caught allowing a political element to substitute for a scientific one in an academic paper.

Independent researchers who publish their results in refereed Journals are not rewarded by reaching specific conclusions, they are rewarded for reaching verifiable conclusions. In-house research also exists in corporations, think tanks, and as private consultants. These researchers often are sometimes tasked with proving a specific result. When they do, and it withstands publication and scrutiny by the rest of the discipline, it becomes accepted. But when such research doesn't fit the desired result it never sees the light of day or is released as a "report" that is not subject to scutiny and scientific challenge.