Forum home The potting shed

Environmental impact of the meat industry

1679111214

Posts

  • LynLyn DevonPosts: 15,921
    Didn’t see that news bulletin, did they mention airplanes and ships, pollution on one trip equal to one years household pollution.
    They don’t usually because it suits them not too.

    Gardening on the wild, windy west side of Dartmoor. 

  • Bee witchedBee witched Scottish BordersPosts: 547
    Hi @Lyn,

    It was about the United Nations climate conference currently taking place in Madrid.
    https://unfccc.int/cop25

    So it's looking at all causes of global warming .... not just food choices ... and agreeing actions to try and reverse the current rises. 

    Here's hoping they can make progress.

    Bee x

    Bees must gather nectar from two million flowers to make one pound of honey   
  • LynLyn DevonPosts: 15,921
  • steveTusteveTu Posts: 456
    Always bear in mind that science only knows what science knows AT A POINT IN TIME - science evolves (as it must do) and views change. Science just documents, it doesn't create (in as much as it can't create something that can't be created - if that makes sense).
    My bug bear is scientists talking as if they are at the pinnacle of knowledge and that their view then is immutable. 'Standing on the shoulders of giants' has two meanings.




    UK - South Coast Retirement Campus (East)
  • punkdocpunkdoc Sheffield, Derbyshire border.Posts: 8,049
    Problem is, if they are right, then in 50 years time large parts of the world will be uninhabitable.
    Somewhere in my heart
    There is a star that shines for you
    Silver splits the blue
    Love will see it through
  • steveTu said:
    Always bear in mind that science only knows what science knows AT A POINT IN TIME - science evolves (as it must do) and views change. Science just documents, it doesn't create (in as much as it can't create something that can't be created - if that makes sense).
    My bug bear is scientists talking as if they are at the pinnacle of knowledge and that their view then is immutable. 'Standing on the shoulders of giants' has two meanings.




    You talk as if Scientific knowledge is merely fashion, which changes randomly with time, whereas it actually moves forward and builds on existing knowledge. The idea that the Earth is round will never be disproved, nor will the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. These 'views' are immutable because they are demonstrable facts. That is why we can be confident that reducing CO2 emissions will slow down global warming.
  • steveTusteveTu Posts: 456
    I must admit I haven't looked at the CO2 data, but we know the planet goes through cycles - hot/cold interchange, poles move, magnetic fields alter and develop holes. All this is known. Mini ice ages as recent as the 18th Century - mini warm peiods in medieval times. What are the 'normal' planetary cycles? Over what periods? What sun cycles?
    But what I would say, is that if CO2 is thought to be the culprit (which appears to be the current scientific thought) behind any warming. then tackle it - as long as by tackling it, another 'effect' isn't being created that someone else will have to deal with. If it turns out that CO2 wasn't the cause, then what the heck. Cleaner energy seems like a win win - although I haven't seen how people propose to deal with all the batteries from 'n' million cars, homes etc.

    UK - South Coast Retirement Campus (East)
  • FireFire LondonPosts: 6,425
    "What are we too believe?"

    @Lyn both of the linked articles are opinion pieces. In wondering what to believe I would stick as closely as possible to hard core data as you can. As little spin, polemic and emotive hyperbole as possible. Good quality, expert sources of info are vital. Look for references that offer citations for their stats so you can check them up and follow the data trail through.

  • steveTusteveTu Posts: 456
    Can you tell from the data though? Isn't the CO2 issue like 'the weather' in as much as you need something to 'model' the data? And what you can't tell is if there's some other 'agent' that you don't have data for that is having an effect?
    So doesn't this end up with a 'trust' issue? IE the scientists say that CO2 is going up (can be proved or not) and that warming is occurring (can be proved or not) - they then say there is a correlation between CO2 and warming based on a model. It's that last bit that is the 'trust' isn't it?
    Much the same as the weather. There is base data that says where highs/lows are/were - where humidity is high/low - and then the models say where there weather is going. You either trust the model or not - and trust that they have included all the factors that may affect the model (such as volcanoes, bush fires, solar flares,weak point in magnetic fields, sea currents...blah).

    UK - South Coast Retirement Campus (East)
  • LynLyn DevonPosts: 15,921
    edited December 2019
    Agrre agree with you Steve, add to the list,  half the worlds on fire, tyres burnt for the protest of it, I don’t take any notice of any of it,  I do what I do because it suits me to live very frugally, that’s why I don’t have any refuse waste,  I do have oil fired heating but the boiler runs at 98% efficiency because  I have it serviced every year so cost is minimal.
    I don’t read any of those scientific links, just googled for this thread.
    I also Googled about wetlands,   Giving off methane, but if they want to dam rivers and make more, Who am I to argue. 
    Now they’re  mining on the ocean bed, maybe more methane release, over millions  of years it’s always been an angry planet, things won’t change. 
    Gardening on the wild, windy west side of Dartmoor. 

Sign In or Register to comment.