How about plants? You think they are not living?

All animals kill to eat.

This might explain everything. At least where Lord Stern is concerned.

Please give some evidence that the earth’s surface is 25% wasteland and desert in 1952 vs. 9.5% in 1882. Enviro nuts make lots of these types of claims and each time I examine them they are total fraud. Please post your pictures, sources, etc.

For example: In California – the central valley used to be a waste land, but after massive irrigation projects, it is now one of the most productive farmlands in the world.
For example: In Washington State – the massive Columbia River water projects have turned a massive desert into wine vineyards, potato fields … I can post google maps to show you.
For example: In Utah – the Mormons transformed a desert.
For example: In Israel – the settlers transformed a desert.
For example: In Egypt, China, all over S. America massive deserts are now productive farm land.

Only on the edge of the Sahara can you make any claim of increasing desert – which is an entirely natural process started 5,000 to 8,000 years ago. Everywhere else deserts are shrinking due to man, dams, and irrigation.

I’ll make you a $1,000 bet that the world has LESS wasteland and desert NOW then it did 70 years ago when the water projects really got going.

I’m sure you enviros probably call productive farms: wastelands of genetic uniformity in the service of the evil US Agra-business corporations. Of course, you ignore the fact that all species of animals enjoy the water and whole migrations of birds now rely on dams for their annual migration.

All the best
John

Strong Dittos. I also recommend that every single person read Dr. Weston Price’s book “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration”.

“Dr David Garwes, an independent livestock scientist, recently published a report, ‘Reducing Emissions from Livestock’, in which he said livestock actually helped to limit carbon emissions.
“More than 60 per cent of British agricultural land is grassland and much of it, particularly the hills and uplands, is unsuitable for other crops.
“Semi-permanent rough grazing and improved grasslands play a vital role in locking up carbon dioxide and regulating the flow of rain into water courses.
“Without livestock farming, those natural resources would be abandoned,” he said.
Imports
Critics added a reduction in UK livestock production, as envisaged by Lord Stern, would open the market to foreign imports with a worse carbon footprint than the domestic product.”

http://www.farmersguardian.com/news/industry-hits-back-over-call-to-eat-less-meat-to-save-planet/28592.article

That’s very much the issue. I suspect that a number of influential people are trying to use the modern, rational respect for science, as a means to shift people’s lifestyles towards a different set of values. Those who genuinely consider science as the best possible way to establish truth, with its self-correcting (eventually) peer review, are pretty much having to go with the scientific consensus. To not do so is to give up on science, which then sends one into a murky swamp of politics and superstition.

However, the key thing is that self-correction takes time, and this is why the AGWs cry that “but we don’t have time”, in effect, undermines the scientific method.

It is fine to trust the science because it is the science, so long as you have available a probationary period for any hypothesis.

But if AGWs continue to insist that there is no time, then the process is by definition not scientific. It is “best guess”. It is “hunch”. It is “leap of faith”.

They cannot have it both ways.

Personally, I have no use for vegetarianism, however I respect anyone who decides they want to practise it. What I do have is derision for those who would force me to stop being an omnivore. Vegetarian by choice? Great! Vegetarian by force? That’s science-fiction stuff.

Now, to put that into perspective, I also have no use for the gay lifestyle, but really don’t care if anyone wants to practise it. I am, however, offended by many of those forcing me to be aware of it.

I’m not religious, but I have respect for people who are. I would never mock them, certainly not where they can see, but am less than thrilled by those who expect me to follow their religion.

See a pattern here?

What this guy has done is state that my insistence on daily meat protein is bad, or unhealthy, or humorously, “bad for the planet”. That’s not acceptable. And I think that’s what a lot of posters on this thread are basically saying.

In all my examples, the repulsive and annoying individuals are the ones trying to force their belief system on me. I have my own, thank you very much, and although I’m open to reasoned explanations of yours, I’m very much against imposition.

A spiritual awareness doesn’t in and of itself grant ecological balance.

Did you know that fully enlightened Japanese Zen masters said that the one thing they regretted was not having had a chance to become Kamikaze pilots to defend the Japanese Empire?

Did you know that the Dalai Lama thinks being gay is a sin?

Spirituality does not in itself lead to a “correct” or “wise” belief.

Learning to meditate means you can be very good at entering meditative states. It doesn’t make you a better mathematician, mechanic, or piano player. It doesn’t mean you become good at ecology.

Spirituality is a very complex and subtle thing, and we do it a disservice if we naively pigeonhole it as being the “answer” or “the way” to all problems. I’m sure even the Mullahs in the Middle East, who spend a lot of time praying, are having spiritual experiences, but it is not changing their beliefs about war and aggression. The things are unrelated, separate parts of our being, like being a mechanic doesn’t mean you automatically know how to cook. Being spiritual doesn’t automatically mean one is wise.

It is a bit shocking, I know.

Spot on as always, thanks Roger.

Please do a similar research on the production of bio fuels, the new Green Mantra.
Calculate how much water is needed to produce one gallon of ethanol and one gallon of bio diesel.

I agree about the American Bison, and their millions upon millions. When added to the immense herds of antelope and other herbivores in Africa (and elsewhere), one must wonder just HOW did the earth survive all those years, with mega-tons of methane emitted from those critters? Surely a “tipping point” was reached?

Furthermore, through re-reading The Prize (Daniel Yergin), oil was discovered in areas where natural gas (methane) was vented from the earth – and sometimes caught fire. How many millenia did those methane vents spew forth their GHGs – and why didn’t the earth reach another “tipping point?” (btw, one can visit the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles, and see bubbles of methane every few seconds. Some bubbles are six to eight inches across.)

Also, ocean floor vents spew methane into the atmosphere – as documented offshore Santa Barbara, California. How did all those ocean vents not create a “tipping point?” We are told over and over how MUCH MORE POWERFUL methane is as a GHG compared to puny little CO2.

see

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uoc–gef071906.php

Then, after the American Bison were almost eradicated in the late 19th century, how did the earth’s GHG balance manage without all that methane placed in the atmosphere?

So many questions… for which AGW warmists have no answers… except The Debate Is Over, and The Time For Action is NOW!

I once ate meat, like a carnivore, until by good fortune I got away from eating it. It all comes down to a few simple points. One, compassion and love for nature and all its creatures. This is no simplistic fuzzy emotional thing, but derives from common sense, and a recognition that a we are all spiritual beings . Living from our highest nature, not from the sheer animal, selfish part that for many is the norm. This is a fact!!!!
Next point, if we stopped a eating meat, we will be far far healthier. This is a fact also..

Next point, global warming will ease considerably. I like so many here on this forum, believe the debate as put forth by such as Al gore, is extremely naive and at best a con trick by the established elite. a way of manipulation. However, the ecosystem can never be in full balance until we learn to live in a way that is balanced. This includes stopping the pollutants we pour into the atmosphere and biosphere. Carbon dioxide is a poison like anything else if it is in excess of what nature intended. This is a philosophic point however.

Last point, out of living as compassionate as opposed to selfish beings which we are now, we will be much happier, nature instead of being something we use for our convenience will be something that is therapeutic instead. Something we live peacefully within, not something we are in contention with . And it takes far far less food taken from a field say, used directly for our own consumption than being diverted through the gut if an animal first. This alone is common sense.

Nick,
You are entitled to live the life you want to live and think and believe what you like, nothing wrong with that, but please, never use the words common sense, carbon dioxide and poison in the same posting again.

People DO need to give up meat, but not because of any climate nonsense, but because of the land and resources required to provide for animals. If everyone went veggie then there would be MUCH more land available and much less use of resources like water and energy. In the future everyone WILL be almost vegetarian. Meat will be an expensive luxury. Admittedly that time is quite a way off, but it WILL come.

Total BS Barry,
Again, our science, technology and lessons learned from the past have caught up with alarmist doom preaching accepted as “reality”.
One example:
When the US was colonized, millions of Bison roamed the plains.
These animals are excellent meat producers.
They don’t need any special care and their thick fur protects them from the blizzards and extreme cold which would kill the extensive cattle stocks.

Farmers have rediscovered the unique properties of the Bison and breeding programs will bring them back in big numbers.
Intensive cattle breeding and indoor agriculture producing incredible high yields will significantly reduce the amount of land used for agriculture.

I regard the remarks from Lord Stern as semi socialist hog wash, fully in line with the European Party Line that will dominate our lives the coming years, unless we stop those loons (and we will).

The reality is that they will need to turn Europe (and the US for that matter) into a totalitarian police state in order to enforce the CO2 emission reductions.

People however have the tendency to fight for their rights and freedom and don’t accept any kind of repression.

So if Lord Stern continues his rands against humanity and civilization [snip, sorry, but . . . ~ Evan]

Due to the so called methane produced by the cows. So a theoretical problem (which may never happen at all), is solved by… creating more deaths.