The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

No - when cows eat grass, and then move on to other fields - they are SINKING carbon into the soil, in a big way.

It had to do with gases that are produced in 1 of their 4 stomachs. Those don't sink into the soil.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by Xist

"Experiments in sheep showed that if dried Asparagopsis taxiformis seaweed made up just 2 percent of total feed, methane emissions drop by 70 percent."
"Seaweed experiments in Canada were inspired by observations that seaside cattle, who periodically chowed down on storm-tossed seaweed, were both heftier and healthier than their inland relatives."
"Scientists calculate that it would take some 6,000 hectares (about 15,000 acres) of seaweed farms to supply a mere 10 percent of Australia’s 29 million cattle; to supply America’s 92 million would take over thirty times more."
Some articles say 99%, but that was in cow simulations, compared to the experiments with live sheep.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/p...-burping-cows/

https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...tml#post553425

[oil pan 4]

If the global warming religion goes pro nuclear, which its looking like it will I may find it more agreeable.
I might be able to look past the agenda driven science, throwing out observations that go against the narrative, untestable hypothesis, marathon cherry picking, obvious attempt at global redistribution of wealth.
Well maybe not that last one.

Obviously no one has the cure for the common cold or aids.
But 20 years ago they said hep C would always be in curable.
I expect big pharma to have an aids cure by 2030.
If some individual came up with it on their own then they would become one of the top 10 riches people on earth very quickly.
Obviously that guy doesn't believe in testable, reproducible science.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by All Darc

My complaim of medicine is that it could be better if they wasn't so greed, if giant companies was more focused on science advance rather than just money, and if doctors was more honest and less arrogant.

That's a perfectly valid complaint. My point was only that it isn't a complaint about the science behind modern medicine, but the way we administer it and the bureaucracy we've established around it. The scientific basis behind things like cancer treatments, surgical practices, medical imaging, etc. is well-established.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by Xist

What am I supposed to do about any of that?!

Well, I'm not sure what you can do--I don't know your background, economic means, etc. In all probability, there's nothing you can actually do that will have any meaningful effect. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; while you have valid complaints against the medical industry, its scientific establishment isn't, I think, one of them. If you're going to tilt at windmills, make sure they're the right ones.

For the record, I feel exactly the same way about "climate protesters" like we saw in NYC in 2014--people fully partaking in a carbon-intensive lifestyle "protesting" their own consumption with no acknowledgement of their complicity.

[Xist]

I do not know about anything else, but I am a speech therapist, and my brother has autism, so I try to help him communicate better.

Unfortunately, I get distracted looking at cat pictures, and arguing with strangers.

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The believers need to all get on the same page. It makes the story more believable.

If we were actually "believers", we would be.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If the global warming religion goes pro nuclear, which its looking like it will I may find it more agreeable.
I might be able to look past the agenda driven science, throwing out observations that go against the narrative, untestable hypothesis, marathon cherry picking, obvious attempt at global redistribution of wealth.
Well maybe not that last one.

See, that's the thing. Most of us here are pro-nuclear. Because we understand it.

Hell, most scientists are pro-nuclear. As seen here:

Elaborating on the Views of AAAS Scientists, Issue by Issue | Pew Research Center

Again, don't confuse media with science. And don't confuse the rantings of the extreme left with the scientific consensus.

Oh, and look at those splits where the votes show a less than 80% consensus.

Almost like scientists can think for themselves and have different views on issues.

Almost like they're not 'believers', eh?

[sendler]

Ruminent livestock such as cows are an important piece of the puzzle in a permaculture homestead. They can make use of hilly land for grazing that cannot easily be used to grow crops and turn it into meat and milk. And they bring back NPK fertilizer in their dung for use in the crop fields. Hogs can thrive and grow on food scraps and waste trimmings that humans can't readily eat. Free range Chickens venture out to feed on pest grubs and insects and turn them into eggs and meat.

[sendler]

Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy (electricity) 12.0
.
https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/...120-vfinal.pdf
.
But even they are guilty of my pet peave right in their title: Most people, and researchers, conflate the terms "energy" and "electricity". But electricity is only 20-30% of our primary energy consumption. So even if we make it to 100% of ELECTRICITY world wide by 2050, and increase it's share with electrified and simplified personal transportation and some heat pumps, we will still have the more difficult 60% of thermal energy to try to replace.

[oil pan 4]

Some of the believers on here are legitimately terrified of nuclear power and they don't appear to under stand how it works or the nuclear fuel life cycle.
They think all nuclear is the devil, even gen 4 reactors that can't melt down or blow up are useless for nuclear weapon fuel and don't produce long lived waste isotopes.
Well they do produce one long lived waste, a relatively tiny amount of plutonium 238, which is used on deep space probes.
The space program would want most if not all of it.