I have been carefully studying bovine flatulence, and have determined that cows emit exactly the same amount of carbon as they consume during their life, and thus have a net carbon footprint of zero.
This new research will be met with great skepticism by the team, who are otherwise known as “the stupidest scientists who ever walked the face of the planet.”
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Engineering |
 | Chris Barron on The World’s Worst Scient… |
 | HiFast on “Trees are feasting on d… |
 | gelcarrion0t on “You Can’t Hide Yo… |
| gelcarrion0t on Doubling Energy Costs |
| gelcarrion0t on Australia Permanent Drought Up… |
| gelcarrion0t on “New computer modeling… |
| Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Christopher Simpson on 1896 : Japan Hit By Earthquake… |
 | energywise on What’s At Stake? |
“One of these days your sense of humor is going to get you in trouble !”
Serious scientists that lead the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, etc. and serve the public as editors of prestigious journals like Science, Nature, PNAS, etc. may not appreciate your comments.
But the rest of us do.
Steve is being mild. I want all government funding of science and academia STOPPED! Not a penny more of American citizen tax dollars should go to science grants or to colleges or universities.
They have completely abused our trust and do not deserve any further funding!
Amen.
Those crafty bovine combine some of that carbon with oxygen and hydrogen, which is then emitted as gasses at opposing ends of the beasts. Still, any climate impact is hypothetical.
Bison population used to be 60,000,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting
Cattle population currently is 87,000,000
http://agebb.missouri.edu/mkt/bull12c.htm
Dang!
You beat me to it.
No, cows do add additional carbon to the system. You see, the tenth one of their fifteen stomachs is actually a one-way wormhole from a parallel carbon universe. It draws additional carbon from the carbon universe as food passes through it, much like a venturi tube – so there’s really no issues with the 1st law of thermodynamics. And that’s the truth – Al Gore said so.
much like the oceans ate the heat and then transferred it to another space-time continuum so that we couldn’t find it
Love this. If you’re interested I have more newspaper articles from Manitoba, one from 1902 and another from 1896 that talk about Climactic change. Drop me an email if you want them.
Apparently conservation if mass and energy were NOT settled science!
(N.B. I’ve already had this conversation with them. They respond that cow farts “liberate” the carbon that is locked up in the plants, injecting it into the atmosphere.
(A subsequent attempt to discuss how the carbon got into the plants in the first place was met with a very detailed explanation summarized as follows: “shut the f*** up, you paid shill of Big Oil”).
Yes, but the evil bovines turn benign sequestered carbon (never mind that it came from atmospheric CO2) into the alleged hyper greenhouse gas methane (ignore the miniscule concentration, short lifetime and radiative window aligning with H2O). Just another ludicrous rational for vegans to try to pry our T-bones from our warm living hands.
In Arizona they may be shot for attempting such an overt physical act. Thus, they will simply legislate our right to steak away.
It would be nice if cows would produce solid fuel closer to carbon, like charcoal. Dung is just not the best for barbecuing.
Still, it takes additional energy to feed, house and transport them to the slaughterhouse and then to market. This all requires some fossil fuels.
Whis is probably less than the fossil fuels burned for planting, harvesting, storing and transporting crops and fruits. The said vegans are on the forefront there because they want organic, ripe plucked tropical fruits to offset their malnutrition. These cannot be transported by ship but are flown in.
And still I rarely hear that plants, fruit and vegetables have a “carbon foot print”.
I have been thinking for some time now that alarmists keep talking about man made global warming due to man putting CO2 into the atmosphere. But do they really think that mankind made the CO2? If I burn some oil, do they think the CO2 released was magically made somehow? I have heard them say that the 95% of CO2 put in the atmosphere each year by nature is no problem and only the 5% of CO2 put there by mankind each year is a problem. Why does the 95% get a pass and the 5% get convicted?
And so it goes.
That’s easy. The 5% are funded by the Koch Brothers.
Nick Stokes Shines A Light On USHCN Adjustments
Interesting development in the USHCN adjustment scandal. Paul Homewood ends with, “I have to admit to feeling slightly vindicated. It is now clear that USHCN adjustments are much greater than previously announced, as I have been suggesting.”
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/07/07/nick-stokes-shines-a-light-on-ushcn-adjustments/
That bovine flatulence is considered a “Global Warming” issue by climate scientists should be exhibit “A” in the case of “Why they are not to be believed”.
Methane is produced everywhere in nature, not just cows. Here’s a cute little YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM0hczFNDZI
Some people having fun lighting off methane bubbles under Siberian lakes.
“I have been carefully studying earths Co2 production, and have determined that all things emit exactly the same amount of carbon as they consume during their life, and thus have a net carbon footprint of zero”. LOL
Here is the best summation for the reason why so many have bought into the Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption Deception that I can find. Coincidentally it is exactly the same reason why the same people voted for the current president:
That’s because the team is incapable of knowing the answer to adding 2 and 2.
Strictly speaking, *our* net carbon footprint is zero, considering that the CO2 was originally in the atmosphere to begin with. Here’s a hint: the “fossils” in fossil fuels weren’t originally fossils.
Following that logic burning down a forest is carbon neutral because the ash settles to the ground again, eventually.
No. it’s carbon neutral because eventually the forest will grow back (if left alone).
While carbon neutral (except for fossil based tractor fuel and fertilizer for feed,) cows emit methane from both ends, which has a GWP of 72 on a 20 year time horizon.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html
Poor bob, he believes the IPCC.
(Don’t tell him total polar sea ice is about to set new records.)
Radiative transfer models show that methane is almost completely irrelevant to Earth’s greenhouse effect. But thanks for repeating progressive propaganda!
Methane is 0.48 W/M^2
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html
but I didn’t know that the IPCC was ‘progressive propaganda. More CH4 info:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/forcing/Methane.pdf
Bob doesn’t know IPCC is “progressive propaganda”.
Does it get any funnier?
Come on Bob, try to keep up.
Is keeping up getting progressively more difficult?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/progressives-trashing-us-history/#comment-384793
Doubling methane would increase the greenhouse effect by about 0.1%
Looking at the IPCC calculations it’s estimated at about 25% of the total effect of CO2.
That looks like a reverse hockey stick on Bessy’s tongue to my old eyes.
Methane is often said to be 20 times more powerful than CO2 as a green house gas. The reason for this is that there isn’t very much of it. As our host points out above, “Doubling methane would increase the greenhouse effect by about 0.1%” it doesn’t take much methane to double its concentration.
I don’t know where Steve gets that number from. I think he just made that up.