By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - If you eat meat and believe in global warming you are a hypocrit.

Hmmm.....

<.< Meat....>.> Earth.....<.< Meat....... >.> Earth.....

I'll take the Chicken......



4 ≈ One

Around the Network
monkeyman40210 said:

Not necessarly, if you raise your own meat or hunt for meat how is that contributing to global warming

The amount of land, food, and water cows need is bad for the environment.  If we want to sustain 6 billion people (and counting) on the planet, we can't have that many cows.  With populations this high, either the cows or the humans gotta go.



thetonestarr said:

 

Problem is, though, if "global warming" were true, a cooler summer would be impossible. Period. That single summer exists entirely as evidence, because it defies everything that global-warming activists insisted about global warming before it ever happened.

Not to mention the winter before also.

Funny that the activists make other claims now. They know it contradicts what they'd been saying, so they try explaining it away another way.

 

Additionally, the world goes through phases. Historically, we've seen trends as far back as records go where the world would go through natural warming and cooling phases. These phases last something like one and a half to two decades, I believe. This effectively explains everything we've been seeing for the past umpteen years regarding "global warming". Don't believe me? In five to ten years, check the daily temperatures. Should be below average.

That's completely false.  That's like saying that the same evolutionary adaptation occuring more than once in nature is impossible because it is statistically improbable.  But that is blatantly disproved by actual data.  Mammals and birds evolved four-chambered hearts independently of each other and birds and bats evolved wings completely independently of each other.  The evolutionary model says this is extremely unlikely, but the model is still true even though these deviations have occurred.

Just because a model predicts that something is less likely to occur does not mean that is impossible or that the deviation from the prediction disproves the model.  In math, sometimes a function crosses an asymptote at one or two points, but as the function approaches infinity it moves infinitely closer to the asymptote without ever touching it.  You are completely ignoring the fact that statistical deviations in science are extremely common and do not automatically disprove theoretical models.

For someone who claims to know a lot of about global warming, you sure as hell know very little about science in general.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

The Ghost of RubangB said:
monkeyman40210 said:

Not necessarly, if you raise your own meat or hunt for meat how is that contributing to global warming

The amount of land, food, and water cows need is bad for the environment.  If we want to sustain 6 billion people (and counting) on the planet, we can't have that many cows.  With populations this high, either the cows or the humans gotta go.

Yep, it takes about 10 pounds of food to raise one pound of meat... of just about any kind i believe.

 

 



I believe in global warming and i eat meat, Meat hauls A$$ and global warming sucks it, Eating meat is unnecessary for a human but theres nothing like a big juicy steak of cheese burger, I dont believe global warming is happening as fast as scientist say is it tho,



Around the Network
akuma587 said:
thetonestarr said:

 

Problem is, though, if "global warming" were true, a cooler summer would be impossible. Period. That single summer exists entirely as evidence, because it defies everything that global-warming activists insisted about global warming before it ever happened.

Not to mention the winter before also.

Funny that the activists make other claims now. They know it contradicts what they'd been saying, so they try explaining it away another way.

 

Additionally, the world goes through phases. Historically, we've seen trends as far back as records go where the world would go through natural warming and cooling phases. These phases last something like one and a half to two decades, I believe. This effectively explains everything we've been seeing for the past umpteen years regarding "global warming". Don't believe me? In five to ten years, check the daily temperatures. Should be below average.

That's completely false.  That's like saying that the same evolutionary adaptation occuring more than once in nature is impossible because it is statistically improbable.  But that is blatantly disproved by actual data.  Mammals and birds evolved four-chambered hearts independently of each other and birds and bats evolved wings completely independently of each other.  The evolutionary model says this is extremely unlikely, but the model is still true even though these deviations have occurred.

Just because a model predicts that something is less likely to occur does not mean that is impossible or that the deviation from the prediction disproves the model.  In math, sometimes a function crosses an asymptote at one or two points, but as the function approaches infinity it moves infinitely closer to the asymptote without ever touching it.  You are completely ignoring the fact that statistical deviations in science are extremely common and do not automatically disprove theoretical models.

For someone who claims to know a lot of about global warming, you sure as hell know very little about science in general.

 

Lovely how you pick and choose what to reply to and what not. Pay attention to the rest of the post, and pretty much everything you just stated is entirely null and void.

Additionally, there is a point in probability where something becomes "statistically impossible", meaning that the chances of it happening are so ridiculously low that it can be considered impossible. I suppose that yes, it's theoretically possible. But considering the extremely low probability, it is statistically impossible.

For someone who claims to know a lot about science in general, you sure as hell know very little about scientific reasoning.



 SW-5120-1900-6153

Kasz216 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
monkeyman40210 said:

Not necessarly, if you raise your own meat or hunt for meat how is that contributing to global warming

The amount of land, food, and water cows need is bad for the environment.  If we want to sustain 6 billion people (and counting) on the planet, we can't have that many cows.  With populations this high, either the cows or the humans gotta go.

Yep, it takes about 10 pounds of food to raise one pound of meat... of just about any kind i believe.

 

 

 

 

Yeah but there are other animal on a farm, and what about if you hunt for your meat



Currently Playing: Mass Effect (360)

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed" - Gandhi

Lots of plant farming is good for the environment, if done right. The plants do nothing but clean the air of greenhouse gases.



 SW-5120-1900-6153

thetonestarr said:
akuma587 said:

That's completely false.  That's like saying that the same evolutionary adaptation occuring more than once in nature is impossible because it is statistically improbable.  But that is blatantly disproved by actual data.  Mammals and birds evolved four-chambered hearts independently of each other and birds and bats evolved wings completely independently of each other.  The evolutionary model says this is extremely unlikely, but the model is still true even though these deviations have occurred.

Just because a model predicts that something is less likely to occur does not mean that is impossible or that the deviation from the prediction disproves the model.  In math, sometimes a function crosses an asymptote at one or two points, but as the function approaches infinity it moves infinitely closer to the asymptote without ever touching it.  You are completely ignoring the fact that statistical deviations in science are extremely common and do not automatically disprove theoretical models.

For someone who claims to know a lot of about global warming, you sure as hell know very little about science in general.

 

Lovely how you pick and choose what to reply to and what not. Pay attention to the rest of the post, and pretty much everything you just stated is entirely null and void.

 

I never even claimed global warming was true.  You are simply assuming that one year's worth of data means something, and then you prove that your own claim is ridiculous by citing as authority records that go back as far as possible (based on millions of years worth of data, which you can actually draw reliable inferences from).

Its just laughable that you claim to have an informed viewpoint on a scientific issue when you have the scientific reasoning skills of a middle school student.  You would look equally ridiculous if you were trying to argue for global warming.  Bad reasoning is bad reasoning, no matter what side of an argument you are on.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

I used to be a meat maniac. But the one two combo of enviromentalism and the discovery of amazing vegitarian cuisine turned me meat free.

I'm having a bit of meat here in Korea, just because it's hard to find out what's in the food and a lot harder to get anything without meat (or at least seafood), but I think the amount of meat I'd eat in a year two years ago will now last me 4 life times.



I'm a mod, come to me if there's mod'n to do. 

Chrizum is the best thing to happen to the internet, Period.

Serves me right for challenging his sales predictions!

Bet with dsisister44: Red Steel 2 will sell 1 million within it's first 365 days of sales.