Global Warming? What is worse, cows (flatulance), worms or are humans really the culprits?
No Fooling: Cow burps and farts contribute to climate change and a new study by an international team of researchers says earthworms could be contributing to global warming. “Our results suggest that although earthworms are largely beneficial to soil fertility, they increase net soil greenhouse-gas emissions,” according to the study’s abstract. There are concerns that earthworms increase greenhouse gas emissions, which troubles scientists since earthworm numbers are on the rise (aw oh). The cows aren't waiting for AL Gore to take up their cause, they are takin it to the worms themselves.
Cow created methane is the single most destructive force to the environment in the modern era, human irresponsibility is obviously the problem (in raising and consuming too many cows) but that does not change the issue.
None of the above.
Global Warming, aka Climate Change, has very little to do with cows, worms, SUV’s or even coal burning mega factories. The earth is warming up for the same reason that the other planets and the sun itself are warming; the solar system is moving into a higher energy part of the galaxy. A discussion of this with references can be found at: http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start … lar-system
Information about warming of the other planets and the sun is squelched so that we will believe it’s an earth only phenomenon. That way the government can blame it on carbon emissions and tax the air we use in combustion, or even just breathe, through the “Carbon Credits” as per the Kyoto Protocol.
Thanks for that link which points out “Global warming ” from CFCs and fossil fuel usage is actually only a minor player (if at all) in the changes that are now occurring. Funny how the man made gw crowd (& the media) never go where the truth is.
All of the above. Each of the sources of greenhouse gases mentioned, plus several more, contribute to climatic change.
When 99 % of what affects global warming is totally out of our control (the sun) it seems futile to even think that any effect man might have being much less than 1% can merit changing our way of living to the extent of ruining our economy.
There are at least 22 climate change causes (drivers). The drivers exert their influence at different time scales and intensities so the climate is never in equilibrium. Climate change is the norm The sun supplies over 99% of the heat to Earth's surface. Earth's temperature changes, then CO2 follows. CO2's ability to trap more heat declines very rapidly. Empirical observations indicate CO2 is not a major driver of climate change. Climate models that have focused on CO2 have been very poor at hind-casting Earth's known climate history as well as their recent forecast of the future.
A fossil fuel by-product, the greenhouse gas CO2, has been shown to be very beneficial to Earth's plant and animal kingdoms, as well as humanity's health and well being. Its benefits far out weigh any possible global warming risk and the truth is liberals simply ignore the facts when the facts don't agree with their agenda, or in other words they LIE. That said I'm betting the cows' campaign to get rid of worms will win the day and save the earth as long as the humans don't blow it up.
So pathetic. CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gasses not particularly harmful but incredibly plentiful thus creating a crisis. CO2 is indeed necessary for plants and animals... in moderation, too much kills them a process that has occurred before.
What is pathetic is how you cling to myths - there are 55 Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment I can list with more room but here is a list of CO2 myths, I bet you ascribe to every one. http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=373
CO2 rich greenhouse environments do not translate to the far more complex real world where extra CO2 is not necessarily beneficial. H. Leighton Steward is not a climate scientist and has no peer-reviewed work (and works for oil and gas companies).
What does that have to do with the myths listed? So are you saying that you believe these myths? That they are not myths? Prove it? You can't so you attack the messenger - very scientific.
Plants Need CO2 is void of peer-reviewed research. Hence, not science. You're welcome to it. I was just pointing that out. Want actual science as well as rebuttals for all of those myths try here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Yeah, peer reviewed science - you're grabbing at that straw? You mean like the peer reviewed science done by the charlatan "scientists" of east Anglia U or haven't you heard of "climategate"?
You mean the East Anglia U that was cleared of any dishonest practices by all eight independent and government investigations? Yeah that's why peer review is important because otherwise it's just rumors.
Independent? Hardly, reviewers were members of the same scientific community who had to act to protect the "integrity" of their peers. They only found "no evidence of wrong doing." Emails themselves aren't evidence but their implications were serious
Climategate? The undying rumor of the the intellectually impoverished? It's been reviewed to death. At least 9 times, not always by scientists. Even without review, it was cherry-picked quotes taken out of context that amounted to nothing.
Of course YOU'D say that. While peer review is the mainstay of sci publishing any scientist will tell you it has a great deal of difficulty detecting fraud claims and the current system isn't perfect having alot of problems, some of them serious.
You SHOULD challenge credibility. That's the point. You don't have to agree on how credibility is established (e.g. peer-review) but you do have to have some reason to consider sources credible right? So, for Plants Need CO2, what is it?
You lost me on that one...Plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, a scientific fact that needs no peer review for validation. Furthermore when 99% of global warming is due to the sun what sense does it make to focus on CO2 unless you have another agenda.
Junkseller, you are dead wrong asserting the myths I cited aren't peer reviewed, start with the first Myth: more CO2 in the atmosphere will make ocean acidic. http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-becoming-acidic/ Want me to go through the rest?
"Plants Need CO2" was in reference to a website.
Citing isn't doing. Anyone can cite scientific work, that doesn't mean they understand it or draw proper conclusions. Would you let a non-doctor do surgery on you because they read an article about it?
Sorry JS - I didn't post that link so it didn't hit home. I see what you meant, but it looks like DTMBro posted one for you, look back.
If simply citing peer-reviewed science establishes credibility in your mind, than that is your prerogative. I am far more discerning in whose work I choose to accept. "Plants Need CO2" is a brain-cell destroying vortex of horsepoo. To be polite.
Climate is impacted by numerous variables including volcanic eruptions and solar activity. There is no definitive proof that humans cows, or worms have any direct impact of any significance. For every study that says there is, there are numerous others that demonstrate humans, cows or any other one specific species have no single substantive impact. Let's not forget that most scientist agree that one of the warmest period in earths history with the highest amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was the Crustaceus period. Since the dominant species during this period was the Dinosaur, it's tough to pin that one on energy companies. Or for that matter any direct or indirect impact via human activities. Perhaps it was Dinosaur flatulance.
The reality is that scientist have been so far off on their predictions and observations for decades they have to keep redefining the problem. In the 1970's the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was warning of the coming Global Cooling disaster and actually requesting to intentionally melt the polar ice caps to slow the process down. Then we transitioned into global warming. Yet recent data shows that the global climates average temperature has largely not changed over the last decade, and in fact slightly cooled.
I live in Long Island NY. This Island was once a complete sheet of ice. It thawed long before man's industrial revolution. And before man began to raise increased amounts of cattle to expand their food supply. So the reality is the global climate has been in a constant state of change, and in fact extreme volatility. Humans have a very small history when compared to the history of the planet. Trying to measure the impact of humans on the climate, is the same thing as a stock analyst attempting to determine the long term price direction of a company based solely on the last 10 seconds of trading.
Of course our elected officials have convinced the population that the way to deal with this issue is a global tax. Isn't that convenient.
Ineresting article in Forbes a few days ago about the majority of scientific opinion. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor … ng-crisis/
Please read the comments to that Forbes article. It honestly wouldn't pass a 6th grade journalism class. Even the survey's author wrote to complain.
Oh gee JS so much for the value of peer review huh, You can't have it both ways. The comment that made sense said "Science isn’t a democracy where the majority wins. Unpopular ideas are reluctantly accepted,even in the face of overwhelming evidence!"
Not interested in the authors writing skills, only the results of the peer reviewed study. Junkseller please explain the warming during the Crustaceus period, and the 5 major ice ages before the industrial revolution. Sounds pretty volatile.
"yeah what he said" lol So, JS it apears your position is if science disagrees with your opinion, you claim (falsely) there is no peer review, but if there is peer review that disagrees with you, ignore,criticize it, or oh yeah, attack the author
The author is just a journalist. He has nothing to do with the study. I don't know why his grammar would even be relevant.
LandmarkWealth, I just want to voice my thumbs up on your original answer - especially that last paragraph.
Thanks, it's just an inconvienent fact to the climate fanatics that this entire planet has been in a constant state of extreme weather changes long before man walked the earth. Mankind is a grain of sand on the beach.
It was a survey of petroleum professionals in Alberta, yet the author made claims about "the majority of scientists." It's like surveying a church and concluding that scientists agree the world is 5000 years old. Survey authors wrote to say as much.
He linked to two other more diverse studies with the sam result. Again please explain the warming during the Crustaceus period, and the 5 major ice ages before the industrial revolution. How can the climate be so volatile without human intervention ?
Landmark, yes, as former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” -works for made up crises as well as real
Believe in rubbish if you choose. Heartland is also non-scientists funded by oil companies. No one denies natural cycles. They are accounted for in the models. Natural cycles do not preclude human impacts. Past changes were not volatile, but gradual
So you don't consider an ICE age a volatile change from the Crustaceus period. But the earth warming by less then 1 degree fahrenheit in a century, and no change in the last decade is volatile. Dr Spencer at University of AL blew up those models.
I'm not arguing the science with you. I was challenging the credibility of a source you provided. Do you honestly stand by the Forbes article?
Yes, the article quotes more than just. petroleum members. The point is that there are numerous repsected scientist doing peer reviewed work like Dr Roy Spencer that say the opposite. Yet the media portrays this as some uniform belief in disaster
Same old playbook, when they can't argue against the facts they attack the messengers. This is so old and just always the proof they have lost the argument because they will never admit defeat.
Challenging the credibility of expert sources is critically important for everyone. You folks turn devastating scrutiny towards the bulk of the global scientific community and yet only bat a soft lash at the Heartland Institute. It ain't right.
See, they just go on and on and will never admit they're wrong about anything. When shown their hipocracy they ignore it and skip to another form of attack while ignoring the facts. No peer review-oh but there is- it doesn't matter-then- y'all suck.
The SURVEY was peer-reviewed. The Forbes article was not. The Forbes article drew a completely incorrect conclusion from the survey, which the survey authors themselves said in a comment on the article, which to me makes the article uncredible.
And the countless other scientist that feel that climate change is nothing to be concerned about. The problem is your tone in prior comments suggests that those who disagree are flat earthers,when many are respected scientist in acedemia and priv sec
My complaints have been levied only at people who talk about science (Forbes + Heartland), not scientists. Not unlike your complaints against the media. All I've been trying to do is understand how your credibility detector decides which is ok.
Oh...you mean people like Al Gore that have no scientific credentials whatsoever and make 100's of millions creating panic that is not universally backed by scientist. I don't presume a scientist who is employed by industry is inherently dishonest.
Yes, actually. You examine Al Gore, little science cred + conflict of interest, and find that unacceptable. Heartland also has very low science cred with major conflict of interest, but you seem not to mind them.
The Gentlemen from heartland simply reported the results of this peer reviewed study. You are the only one talking about him. He didn't conduct the studies cited. That was done by the American Meteorological Society
JS you totally ignore YOU insisted "Plants Need CO2" site is void of peer-reviewed research, DTMBro shows the scientifc facts on that site were peer reviewed so you skip to another bogus argument and then another Give it up already you lose all cred!
Yes but he WRONGLY reported the results of that survey, which you then repeated. You evidently don't give a crap that your spreading wrong info as long as it jives with what you believe, so whatever, I'll let dishonesty win.
He didn't wrongly report anything. Read the links to the survey yourself. He reported it quite accurately. Read the report yourself instead of comments by other readers. http://www.apegga.org/Environment/repor … report.pdf
You're right, the survey authors, who wrote a comment pointing out Taylor's numerous errors, obviously have no idea what they are talking about.
What are you talking about. The Survey was conducted by the APEGGA and it's committee, which is a regulatory body. They are not one individual, and they posted no comment on behalf of the committee that I saw.
Survey was developed and analyzed by Lianne Lefsrud for APEGA. She also co-wrote the article linked to and quoted by Taylor and commented on his article.
What are you talking about. Her comments do not in anyway suggest the article is not credible. She is simply stating that it does not represent the entire scientific community. Nor did I say it did. Simply that there is no consensus among scientist.
Landmark, you're never going to get the last word. JS will just go from one strawman argument to another. I know his kind they don't care about the facts and will go to any length possible to divert discussion from them so they can claim victory.
DTMB - Give me a break. I challenged Landmark's source. He went back and re-checked it is all I really wanted, so kudos to him. We still come to a different conclusion. That's alright. That's life. My interest is truth seeking, not winning.
You're free to conclude what you will. But stop pretending like the energy industry is some evil culprit, and anyone who disagrees is a flatearther. When in fact there is still a great deal of debate in the scientific community about mans impact.
Humans are the main perpetrators of global warming. When humans weren't that developed yet, global warming does not even exist, and that rubric isn't coined because the climate humans live in, according to their geographical location, is normal. Now that the weather is abnormal, we cannot give the pretext that animals are instead the ones who mar the earth. We treat animals as scapegoats; and being purportedly ''mature'' adults, how can we be so indifferent towards the wellbeing of the earth, which is our only home?
"mature" adults make sure they are informed before commenting on a subject. "When humans weren't that developed yet, global warming does not even exist" is just a lie, and when was the weather ever "normal". What'd you say you tudor children?
Then I'd doubt that you are mature, hypocrite! How do you know that people are lying when they are just opining? Don't think you can scorn me like that! You are violating the rules of goodwill here!
by ThunderKeys 9 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
by SparklingJewel 4 years ago
from the patriotpost:::a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences has found that in the past 160 years the Earth's absorption of carbon dioxide...
by SportsBetter 6 years ago
Is global warming and climate change an important issue, or is it a hoax?I know there is much talk about climate change issues. I also know that various people profit off of these concerns, and the media certainly promotes theses issues as well. So a question needs to be asked, is...
by Judy Specht 7 years ago
How do we know the climate is changing?If the earth is millions of years old what evidence do we have to substantiate man made climate change is indeed man made instead of part of an extended climate cycle?
by Sychophantastic 6 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|