Bull-crap Indoctrination about Bull-crap.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

 

[NeuroTypical]

I am the world's biggest fan of arguments made in artsy ways.  That said, this cool song's arguments are slowly taking a back seat to good environmental sustainable land practices and science.  The concept is "net zero grazing", where rotating cattle & crops result in, well, net zero methane additions to the environment.

https://www.feedstrategy.com/sustainable-agriculture/is-grazing-the-secret-to-net-zero-emission-agriculture/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236970471_Higher_sustainability_performance_of_intensive_grazing_versus_zero-grazing_dairy_systems

Folks advocating this cowby hat wearing singer's position, are left with standard animal-rights-esque arguments of "killing cows is murder", and that just doesn't make for as catchy a song.

 

[Anddenex]

Just think how bad dinosaurs were to our atmosphere (One dinosaur was probably 100 cows).

[mordorbund]

4 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Just think how bad dinosaurs were to our atmosphere (One dinosaur was probably 100 cows).

That's why humans extincted them so hard.

[JohnsonJones]

58 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Just think how bad dinosaurs were to our atmosphere (One dinosaur was probably 100 cows).

Well, for some of the period of their existence, we know it was a LOT hotter on this planet.  Perhaps that is why?

[Still_Small_Voice]

I just passed gas in an empty room in my house and I do not feel bad about it either.  People who think the planets atmosphere is being destroyed by cows belching and farting are just not correct.

Edited July 31, 2020 by Still_Small_Voice

[Still_Small_Voice]

---

Edited July 31, 2020 by Still_Small_Voice

[Anddenex]

On 7/31/2020 at 4:31 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Well, for some of the period of their existence, we know it was a LOT hotter on this planet.  Perhaps that is why?

I don't know, probably not though.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Anddenex

[NeuroTypical]

Get back to me when we see some good evidence that goes against the theory that Mars' climate fluctuates along with Earth's, indicating much of it is largely due to solar activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars#Evidence_for_recent_climatic_change

Edited August 2, 2020 by NeuroTypical

[Traveler]

Why science becomes political.  We often hear that we should follow the science.  The problem is that scientific research is driven by funding.  There are two types of funding.  There is government funding and private funding.  Government funding is by definition - political.  Private funding is also biased - but with a bias to produce profits.  This is why it was so difficult to demonstrate through science that smoking was bad for health - the tobacco industry was controlling (through funding) much of the research.  Smoking had to become political before there was sufficient funding to counter the tobacco industry.

I sometimes wonder if the military (war) is one of the best funding of science.  This is because war research into science is highly motivated towards accuracy, efficiency and the building of things that work better than one's enemies.   The other interesting factor is the relationship in politics between liberals and conservatives.   Generally liberals want to spend more but their spending is under the strict control and agenda of liberal politics.  Generally conservatives do not want the government to spend anything - they want free markets to be the primary means to fund science and just about everything else (with as few exceptions as possible.)    Liberals are more likely to fund science and liberals have a definite political addenda.  When I entered the market place as a engineer and scientist I found the military to be at the cutting edge of research.

One military project that I personally worked on involved the sun and solar radiation.  Particularly because we were studying magnetic effects on earth because of the sun.  This was being done for navigational research and for insights into electronic counter measures in a theater of war.   I learned a lot about our sun and how our solar system has been changing our climate for thousands of years.  You all may be interested to know that photons and electrons reaching the earth were generated deep in the sun thousands of years ago.  Though it only takes 8 seconds for them to reach the earth from the sun's surface - it is believed that it takes hundreds of thousands of years for them to reach the sun's surface.

Our sun is currently experiencing climate change and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  Because the sun's climate is changing - so also are all the planets in our solar system experiencing global climate change.  Generally we think of climate change as changes in atmosphere - planets with an atmosphere will demonstrate the greatest changes.  This is why Venus is experiencing greater changes that Mercury.   This is also why the atmospheric storm eye on Jupiter is shrinking  and disappearing.   But because the majority of atmospheric scientist are dependent of government research $$$$ - they are bowing to political pressure to continue their funding.  But I had access to scientific research that the sun is driving our climate changes - but the research I worked with was classified.  How convenient is that for the liberals that think humans are the primary force behind climate changes.  And so my question is - What other planets in our solar system experiencing climate changes and why?

 

The Traveler

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 8/2/2020 at 8:39 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Get back to me when we see some good evidence that goes against the theory that Mars' climate fluctuates along with Earth's, indicating much of it is largely due to solar activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Mars#Evidence_for_recent_climatic_change

Wait, the sun causes heat to increase and decrease? I thought it was CO2?

lol

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Wait, the sun causes heat to increase and decrease? I thought it was CO2?

lol

Obviously the Sun has an impact...CO2 creates what is known as the Greenhouse effect. 

It is similar to glass, in that it allows heat and light in, but retains more of the heat rather than letting it escape.  One can see this idea in most greenhouses today (why it's called the Greenhouse effect), or, a more simple example could be a car on a hot, sunny day.

It is why, in theory, rise in Sun temperatures would affect Venus more than they would Mars. 

This is something that is not just US scientists pointing it out, but Scientists all over the world.  Thus, it is not some US government conspiracy...though if one is a conspiracist, they would then have to say it is a worldwide conspiracy with some large organization trying to create the dialogue among all nations of the world, rather than just the US.  If anything, the US has more skeptics in general than most of the rest of the world regarding current ideas of Climate change.

I'd say, rather than fight the idea of Climate change, look at what they are saying and question what predictions they make.  For example, I believe Al Gore predicted New York would be underwater at this point, or soon would be.  If that was supposed to be the prediction of the time, why has it not happened and what flaws were there in his argument.

Another that I look at today is how much they say the temperature WILL rise.  Normally it is a mere 2-4 degrees by the end of this century (80 years from now, when even my grandkids will be old).  If it is only 2-4 degrees, how much of a change will that really make?  We have years that have a deviation of at least 1-3 degrees in general...the crops still grow and life still goes on as any other year.  Are their predictions actually reasonable in regards to this temperature change?

I think instead of calling the science faulty, perhaps looking at the wild guesses they are tossing out to try to scare people into taking action should be looked at more closely.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 8/5/2020 at 12:15 PM, JohnsonJones said:

I think instead of calling the science faulty, perhaps looking at the wild guesses they are tossing out to try to scare people into taking action should be looked at more closely.

The main problem I have is with the arrogant scientists who think they can make a quick buck by twisting the science to meet their agenda. They ignore the counter argument, also made by scientists, and go on with the belief that they have all the answers. Some have even suggested putting giant sun shields in place in orbit to counter the cold and warm cycle that has been happening since long before man was even here. As though man will suddenly be able to change the cycle and bring order to nature. Nope, not going to happen.

[Guest Scott]

21 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

The main problem I have is with the arrogant scientists who think they can make a quick buck by twisting the science to meet their agenda. 

Making a quick buck?  People make a lot more money denying global warming than those researching it. Any one of those scientists would be making a lot more money if they worked with the fossil fuel industry.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Scott

[JohnsonJones]

6 hours ago, Scott said:

Making a quick buck?  People make a lot more money denying global warming than those researching it. Any one of those scientists would be making a lot more money if they worked with the fossil fuel industry.

Ironically, some of the leading scientists and groups work for the fossil fuel industry.  Of course this can lead to what some see as extremely ironic situations.  One such example crossed the news which can lead to some chuckles regarding it.  Imagine if you will, solar power being utilized to power oil drilling in order to get those fossil fuels.  Think that's crazy...

Chevron turns to solar energy to help power its lost hills oil field

Many of the energy companies are buttering both sides of the toast at this point, with one being focused on the traditional fossil fuels while the other utilized or markets renewables.  Sometimes people who think they are supporting the clean energy by supporting clean energy companies, if they look at who the parent company or who is paying for that company, will find those same fossil fuel companies ultimately still in charge.