We might not be doomed - Page 2 | Science | TORN
We might not be doomed
    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:30:13 - 17/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Well that is the point, the literatture I am referring to IS the further research that shows that what he is saying isnt correct. Trying to bring up that we used to think the planet was flat as a way to discredit science is ridiculous beause people thought that before the scientific method was invented. The important thing is that the evidence and data show that what he is saying is not true. 

    Savorys whole idea is that you cannot perform research to test his ideas becaise they cant be replicated. He is trying to hide behind unscientific mysticysm because the evidence shows that he is wrong. 

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    Is he completely wrong, as in his ideas have no validity whatsoever, or is it that he is a shill for the cattle industry, but there is some proof that in some places his techniques could be used to make the situation better? In other words, his fix isn't going to fix all of the problems, but maybe it could be used as a partial cure in some places?

    Like chemo isn't always the cure for cancer, sometimes it needs to be cut out, and other times a combination of solutions should be employed?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    That is an important question. Here is what we know for certain: The promises he makes about reversing climate change, feeding the world, and restoring rangelands by adding more cattle are false. Allan is not a scientist, but he pretends to be so he can make claims like this and makes it sound like they are backed by evidence, but they are not. It also depends on what your goal is, rangeland sciences originally had the goal of increasing grass cover in order to increase the amount of animals that could be grazed. That is Savory's goal, but it might not be the best goal considering the other ecosystem services like carbon storage or water resource provision. Savory is a politician so he goes about looking at evidence in the wrong way, which is common among people trying to prove their point. He is trying to find evidence to fit his narrative, rather than looking at the evidence and creating a narrative based on the evidence. Most of what he says is fluff and buzzwords, for example read this paper from his website, there is only one statement of intent in the entire 20 pages. Some of what he says in those 20 pages is true, but he is waffling around to hide his message, which is that we should increase stocking rates: https://www.savory.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/climate-change.pdf

    Increasing stocking rates doesn't restore rangelands anywhere. But, if you are going to have a high stocking rate there are mixed results regarding whether you should use rotational grazing or not. So it is sort of true that you can improve rangeland quality in some areas using his approach, as long as you don't increase stocking rates. 

    He is not exactly a shill for the cattle industry, but that is who his clients are. They did not approach him and ask him to create a propoganda network for them, he came up with these ideas and is trying to sell them to the cattle industry. That is why he overstates the benefits, he is a salesman. 

    Truly understanding this takes a whole lot of effort, I have been working full time on this and similar issues for the past 6 or 7 years and I realize my posts probably aren't totally satisfying, but I would need to teach an entire class on the subject for everyone to understand enough about how rangelands actually function for us to have a discussion. On top of that, scientists have been working on increasing grass cover in rangelands for 100 years and we don't have an answer right now. Everything going on in rangelands favors shrubs over grasses, climate change, grazing, fire suppression, all work to reduce grass cover, so in order to truly restore rangelands we would have to fundamentally change society. 

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    Fair enough. I really know nothing about the subject. I do like a good grilled steak from time to time, but I would rather eat chicken and not live on dried up rock.

    Thanks for the answer.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Just to be clear I didnt mean to imply you were dumb or not worth talking to about this. I was thinking "oh shit I agreed to talk about this and now it is going to take a lot more effort than I originally thought and I have too much actual work to do this week!"

    I have also been thinking a lot about the role of experts and science communication. The democratization of information, largely via the internet, has led to some very good things but it also presents new challenges. Like this guy Savory, he makes a compelling argument, but it is not based on the reality of what we observe. But in order to know that he is wrong you have to put in a lot of effort to understand all the processes. The vast majority of people dont want to do that, and it is impossible to do for all the policy questions we need to decide there is simply too much knowledge for one person to know it all. So how do we fit in experts who can speak authoritatively on a subject with the fundamental anti authoritarian nature of science? My response in the past when people question scientific findings has been that they should do an experiment for themselves, but I know full well that wont happen. So how do we get people to trust what scientists say when the evidemce goes against what people want to hear? Savory is what people want to hear, a solution to solve all mankinds problems in 3 easy steps!

    Im kinda just rambling but any insight you or anyone else has would be helpful to me. 

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    I didn't take it as you implying anything, so no worries.

    It sounds like you may have the makings of a good PhD thesis in your mind, lol.

    Too be fair, as much as I would like to think Savory was right... I can't bring myself to trust a guy who would advocate for killing 40,000 elephants. Even in the 1970's, and even though he owned up to it, and says he feels bad... I would have felt bad after killing one or two... 40,000 that is just mind boggling to me. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night to be honest.

    I am a pessimist. I don't think there is any chance of reversing or fixing the problems we have... I think it will all just end, and before that there will be lots of suffering, and then the earth will fix itself over a few million years... without humans.

     
    Haha yes killing all those elephants because they were eating grass he wamted cattle to graze guves a pretty good idea of where his priorities are!

    I know that you are pessimistic and it is certainly possible that humans will ruin everything and go extinct pretty soon. But it is also possiblle that we get our shit together and prevent all that suffering. I am going to make damn sure I do what I can to prevent that. We are at a damgerous time where there is misinformation everywhere so people dont even know what they are doing wrong and that is scary but a place that I can make a difference. 
    • Louis_de_Pointe [1963196]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 71
    • Posts: 7,157
    • Karma: 8,849
    • Last Action: 4 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 15:40:56 - 17/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I am super excited to see this on here and think it is great if we can talk about it. This is basically my area of expertise (he even has pictures from one of my study sites). Some of what Allan says is good advice, holistic management practices are important. But he is way overselling the benefits and in the scientific community is known as a shyster. His evidence here is essentially a set of photos that purposely dont show the whole picture. The whole picture shows pretty clearly that rotational grazing of learge herds does not increase grass cover. Additionally, desertification is not necesarily bad. We dont use tye term desertification anymore because we have improved our understanding of it. But for example those algea mats he mentions, otherwise known as biological soil crusts, are super important for sustaining soil water and grass growth.

    He started his career making some good points, but has since become so convinced that his ideas are good for the world he has accepted lying about the benefits to push for the outcome he wants. It is analogous to the plastic garbage island in the pacific. Plastic pollution is a problem, but there is no island of trash, just areas with higher density of trash. You would probably not even see it if you were out there. But it has helped make a point that we need to address plastic. Savory vastly exaggerates any benefits to his ideas to try and sell them to a wide public, but his ideas have generally been rejected by the scientific community. 

    Land management is extremely important, but Savorys approach is not scientifically valid. The real picture is much more complex and tuere is no easy solution, anyone who claims to have such a simple easy solution is lying. 
    Mass sterilisation Is a good and simple solution to much of the world's problems.
    • MachineGunSteve [184119]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 92
    • Posts: 7,739
    • Karma: 7,950
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 16:09:13 - 17/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    Is he completely wrong, as in his ideas have no validity whatsoever, or is it that he is a shill for the cattle industry, but there is some proof that in some places his techniques could be used to make the situation better? In other words, his fix isn't going to fix all of the problems, but maybe it could be used as a partial cure in some places?

    Like chemo isn't always the cure for cancer, sometimes it needs to be cut out, and other times a combination of solutions should be employed?

    Quickdraw [915500]

    That is an important question. Here is what we know for certain: The promises he makes about reversing climate change, feeding the world, and restoring rangelands by adding more cattle are false. Allan is not a scientist, but he pretends to be so he can make claims like this and makes it sound like they are backed by evidence, but they are not. It also depends on what your goal is, rangeland sciences originally had the goal of increasing grass cover in order to increase the amount of animals that could be grazed. That is Savory's goal, but it might not be the best goal considering the other ecosystem services like carbon storage or water resource provision. Savory is a politician so he goes about looking at evidence in the wrong way, which is common among people trying to prove their point. He is trying to find evidence to fit his narrative, rather than looking at the evidence and creating a narrative based on the evidence. Most of what he says is fluff and buzzwords, for example read this paper from his website, there is only one statement of intent in the entire 20 pages. Some of what he says in those 20 pages is true, but he is waffling around to hide his message, which is that we should increase stocking rates: https://www.savory.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/climate-change.pdf

    Increasing stocking rates doesn't restore rangelands anywhere. But, if you are going to have a high stocking rate there are mixed results regarding whether you should use rotational grazing or not. So it is sort of true that you can improve rangeland quality in some areas using his approach, as long as you don't increase stocking rates. 

    He is not exactly a shill for the cattle industry, but that is who his clients are. They did not approach him and ask him to create a propoganda network for them, he came up with these ideas and is trying to sell them to the cattle industry. That is why he overstates the benefits, he is a salesman. 

    Truly understanding this takes a whole lot of effort, I have been working full time on this and similar issues for the past 6 or 7 years and I realize my posts probably aren't totally satisfying, but I would need to teach an entire class on the subject for everyone to understand enough about how rangelands actually function for us to have a discussion. On top of that, scientists have been working on increasing grass cover in rangelands for 100 years and we don't have an answer right now. Everything going on in rangelands favors shrubs over grasses, climate change, grazing, fire suppression, all work to reduce grass cover, so in order to truly restore rangelands we would have to fundamentally change society. 

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    Fair enough. I really know nothing about the subject. I do like a good grilled steak from time to time, but I would rather eat chicken and not live on dried up rock.

    Thanks for the answer.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Just to be clear I didnt mean to imply you were dumb or not worth talking to about this. I was thinking "oh shit I agreed to talk about this and now it is going to take a lot more effort than I originally thought and I have too much actual work to do this week!"

    I have also been thinking a lot about the role of experts and science communication. The democratization of information, largely via the internet, has led to some very good things but it also presents new challenges. Like this guy Savory, he makes a compelling argument, but it is not based on the reality of what we observe. But in order to know that he is wrong you have to put in a lot of effort to understand all the processes. The vast majority of people dont want to do that, and it is impossible to do for all the policy questions we need to decide there is simply too much knowledge for one person to know it all. So how do we fit in experts who can speak authoritatively on a subject with the fundamental anti authoritarian nature of science? My response in the past when people question scientific findings has been that they should do an experiment for themselves, but I know full well that wont happen. So how do we get people to trust what scientists say when the evidemce goes against what people want to hear? Savory is what people want to hear, a solution to solve all mankinds problems in 3 easy steps!

    Im kinda just rambling but any insight you or anyone else has would be helpful to me. 

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    I didn't take it as you implying anything, so no worries.

    It sounds like you may have the makings of a good PhD thesis in your mind, lol.

    Too be fair, as much as I would like to think Savory was right... I can't bring myself to trust a guy who would advocate for killing 40,000 elephants. Even in the 1970's, and even though he owned up to it, and says he feels bad... I would have felt bad after killing one or two... 40,000 that is just mind boggling to me. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night to be honest.

    I am a pessimist. I don't think there is any chance of reversing or fixing the problems we have... I think it will all just end, and before that there will be lots of suffering, and then the earth will fix itself over a few million years... without humans.

     

    Quickdraw [915500]

    Haha yes killing all those elephants because they were eating grass he wamted cattle to graze guves a pretty good idea of where his priorities are!

    I know that you are pessimistic and it is certainly possible that humans will ruin everything and go extinct pretty soon. But it is also possiblle that we get our shit together and prevent all that suffering. I am going to make damn sure I do what I can to prevent that. We are at a damgerous time where there is misinformation everywhere so people dont even know what they are doing wrong and that is scary but a place that I can make a difference. 
    Best of luck.

    Earth Mother, Ganesha, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Mithra, Jesus, Allah,... GOD...  and the Internet God of conspiracies... I beg you:

     

    Please protect me from your followers.

     

     

    • Wollongong [12833]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 13,004
    • Karma: 16,560
    • Last Action: 5 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:38:06 - 17/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Well, of course just getting grasslands to become a little bit more vegetated with bushes and shrub isn't gonna fix the problem. But let's be honest here: there is not a single solution out there that will fix climate change. That's why we need all we can do. All the little bits. All drops on a burning plate (is that a saying in English too)? In the end, it WILL cool the thing down.

    He did actually mention getting more and bigger herds of cattle in his talk. Being the Neanderthal man that I am, that appeals to me. But that aside, it's also a fix for food problems. If you can't grow grain or anything. Look at Australia. In large parts of the country, cattle is all the food that can be obtained.

    I still don't get the WPE bit. Encroachement means that woody plants take over grass areas, right? How can you say that more plants equals desertification? Wouldn't more plants mean...I dunno...forestation? From highschool, I recall biology lessons on ecology...you have a rock, then moss on the rock. Then a crack in the rock, then grass, then small herbs, then shrub, bushes, trees, jungle. WPE would be a step in this process, no?

    Or am I just interpreting the word "encrouchement" totally wrong, silly foreigner that I am?

    Anyway, you say this: "So a rangeland full of shribs is not good for ranchers. But you are right that it isnt all bad. "

    Now I get more confused. First you are saying that his approach isn't helping the ecosystem, as it's just good news for ranchers. And now you're saying it isn't very good for rangers? Or is it just that you are saying he's lying to the farmers?

    About the cattle vs. elephants. Interesting. But don't elephants destroy woodlands?

    8fb0af51-dbaa-8cb0-12833.jpg?v=1040063

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 00:35:37 - 18/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    Well, of course just getting grasslands to become a little bit more vegetated with bushes and shrub isn't gonna fix the problem. But let's be honest here: there is not a single solution out there that will fix climate change. That's why we need all we can do. All the little bits. All drops on a burning plate (is that a saying in English too)? In the end, it WILL cool the thing down.

    He did actually mention getting more and bigger herds of cattle in his talk. Being the Neanderthal man that I am, that appeals to me. But that aside, it's also a fix for food problems. If you can't grow grain or anything. Look at Australia. In large parts of the country, cattle is all the food that can be obtained.

    I still don't get the WPE bit. Encroachement means that woody plants take over grass areas, right? How can you say that more plants equals desertification? Wouldn't more plants mean...I dunno...forestation? From highschool, I recall biology lessons on ecology...you have a rock, then moss on the rock. Then a crack in the rock, then grass, then small herbs, then shrub, bushes, trees, jungle. WPE would be a step in this process, no?

    Or am I just interpreting the word "encrouchement" totally wrong, silly foreigner that I am?

    Anyway, you say this: "So a rangeland full of shribs is not good for ranchers. But you are right that it isnt all bad. "

    Now I get more confused. First you are saying that his approach isn't helping the ecosystem, as it's just good news for ranchers. And now you're saying it isn't very good for rangers? Or is it just that you are saying he's lying to the farmers?

    About the cattle vs. elephants. Interesting. But don't elephants destroy woodlands?
    I apologize, I was speaking to you more as a colleage rather than an interested citizen. I dont have a whole lot of experience communicating scientific findings to the public, its something I'm working on. I have been talking about WPE assuming you know what it means, but you are probably thinking of savorys talk. He gives a very misleading idea of WPE. I will attach a photo to this post that illustrates it better. 

    Of couse bigger herds of cattle is appealing! The problem with that is that bigger herds of cattle eat more grass, trample soil, create more erosion etc and ruin the rangeland and prevent grasses from growing back. This is the big thing that savory has wrong and he has no evidence to support his claim that bigger herds makes the rangeland healthier. He is telling ranchers that they can have bigger herds, which is what they want to hear, so many of them listen to him. But this results in ruining their rangelands for the future by promoting woody plant encroachment. Savory is a salesman trying to sell his consulting, so he says he helps ranchers, but doesnt actually do it, hence me calling him a shyster (con-man is another word, shyster is english slang). As far as what it does to the ecosystem, there are good and bad things depending on what your objective is (carbon storage, water production, native species habitat, human uses etc.) and we dont understand the full picture yet. 

    Regarding WPE, what you are thinking of "then grass, then small herbs, then shrub, bushes, trees, jungle." is really a rainfall gradient. In order to have a forest or jungle you need more water, and we are talking about very water limited systems. In a single location we cant increase the rainfall to move an ecosystem from a desert to a forest. So what shrub encroachment (also known as desertification) does is bigger shrubs move in, but because they are bigger than grasses, there is more bare soil between the shrubs to make up for it. Check out this image from Arizona. The grassland has very little bare soil patches and the encroached landscape in 2003 has a lot of bare space between plants. http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/rise/images/srhill.jpg
    • Wollongong [12833]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 13,004
    • Karma: 16,560
    • Last Action: 5 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 09:07:35 - 18/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    so Savory is tricking rangers into saving the planet. Not very moral, but hey... in this case I am all for it.

    Now, about your last paragraph: I have learned th at the lower tier vegetation creates a miniclimate, or mini ecosystem which produces the condition for the next tier. Moss keeps moist in the soil, which then enables grass to grow. That's also a leading principal in the whole permaculture thing, if I understand correctly.

    Oh... and my goal is stopping climate change. Not helping the farmers, but if that's a side effect... awesome

    I am also happy to provide you with an opportunity to practise your "How do I tell my mom"-skill (aka talking to the general public. I have taught university, and learned a lot about my own trade just by translating it into layman vocabulary :)

    8fb0af51-dbaa-8cb0-12833.jpg?v=1040063

    • BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 77
    • Posts: 1,798
    • Karma: 2,266
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 2
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:57:35 - 18/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    My problems with the climate change fearmongering are as follows:

    1. Climate change has been happening as long as Earth has existed. There are geological records of this. It cannot be stopped. It happens even on uninhabited planets.  Deliberate attempts at altering these processes could have unintended and unfortunate consequences, in the form of feedback.

    2. Climate science is not established as a reliable predictive sceince. It is mostly speculation and to the best of my knowledge, it has not successfully predicted anything of significant consequence, because what they DON'T tell you is that the cycles run at approximately 15-20 year intervals. When their predictions don't pan out, they make excuses, adjust their models, and resume fearmongering for political purpose .

    3. Climate change is impacted not only by human actions but by natural events. Dinosaurs didn't do anything to alter natural climate processes until their remains were converted into fossil fuels by natural processes, and yet they were rendered extinct due to climate change brought about by an impact event.  We are and have been throughout my lifetime statistically overdue for a similar such event, and this probability increases over time. Current climate models focus on trends and make no allowances for such an event, arguing that said trends would overshadow such an event. This is in direct contrast to something that any child with a strong intrest in the extinction of dinosaurs can tell you - trends did not make the dinosaur extinct, an impact event, however, did.

    4. EVEN IF the politically-motivated climate models used by the IPCC were 100% valid, there exists no viable proposed solution which, if implemented, would reverse the trend. The Paris Agreement, for example, was faulty in that it was based on an honor system which can be shown not to have been followed, even by countries that agreed to it. Yes, I'm looking at YOU, China.

    In conclusion, its all bullshit meant to control your use of energy and even the food you eat.

    Does CO2 cause Climate Change? No. It is a symptom, not a cause.
    • Lewri [1762864]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 72
    • Posts: 895
    • Karma: 394
    • Last Action: 4 minutes
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:57:55 - 18/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]

    My problems with the climate change fearmongering are as follows:

    1. Climate change has been happening as long as Earth has existed. There are geological records of this. It cannot be stopped. It happens even on uninhabited planets.  Deliberate attempts at altering these processes could have unintended and unfortunate consequences, in the form of feedback.

    2. Climate science is not established as a reliable predictive sceince. It is mostly speculation and to the best of my knowledge, it has not successfully predicted anything of significant consequence, because what they DON'T tell you is that the cycles run at approximately 15-20 year intervals. When their predictions don't pan out, they make excuses, adjust their models, and resume fearmongering for political purpose .

    3. Climate change is impacted not only by human actions but by natural events. Dinosaurs didn't do anything to alter natural climate processes until their remains were converted into fossil fuels by natural processes, and yet they were rendered extinct due to climate change brought about by an impact event.  We are and have been throughout my lifetime statistically overdue for a similar such event, and this probability increases over time. Current climate models focus on trends and make no allowances for such an event, arguing that said trends would overshadow such an event. This is in direct contrast to something that any child with a strong intrest in the extinction of dinosaurs can tell you - trends did not make the dinosaur extinct, an impact event, however, did.

    4. EVEN IF the politically-motivated climate models used by the IPCC were 100% valid, there exists no viable proposed solution which, if implemented, would reverse the trend. The Paris Agreement, for example, was faulty in that it was based on an honor system which can be shown not to have been followed, even by countries that agreed to it. Yes, I'm looking at YOU, China.

    In conclusion, its all bullshit meant to control your use of energy and even the food you eat.

    Does CO2 cause Climate Change? No. It is a symptom, not a cause.
    The funniest thing about people like you is your source is only ever one random person (quite often the actual person doing the shitposting) with sketchy (if any) credentials and minimal research. 

    1. Yes, the climate has been changing over the lifetime of Earth, this is to be expected and is known as non-anthropogenic climate change. Antrhopogenic climate change is known to be currently occuring though, please look at some actual sources such as: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta;jsessionid=2137CC39F3F8704BE2414EC24EDF9A9B.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org

    We also know that not cutting back on the antrhopogenic factors of climate change will result in the Earth becoming uninhabitable to humans.

    2. Climate change science aims to make long term predictions, as it is a relatively new field these predictions haven't had much of a chance to play out yet. However, in essence it predicts rising temperatures globally at approximately the rate we're seeing. Science works by testing models, seeing if they work and then fixing them if they don't, this applied to climate change science too.

    3. You clearly don't understand the most basic principles of statistics. Anyway, just because natural causes also lead to death does that mean we shouldn't bother attempting to stop murderers? It's the exact same logic as you're trying to pull off here. Also, a child is probably less of an expert on dinosaurs than, say, an expert in paleontology.

    4. So you're saying that if there's no perfect solution then give up? How about an imperfect solution? China certainly isn't the only country to be looking at.

    If you think this is all a government conspiracy though, you're probably already too far gone.

     

     

    • BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 77
    • Posts: 1,798
    • Karma: 2,266
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 01:40:14 - 19/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]

    My problems with the climate change fearmongering are as follows:

    1. Climate change has been happening as long as Earth has existed. There are geological records of this. It cannot be stopped. It happens even on uninhabited planets.  Deliberate attempts at altering these processes could have unintended and unfortunate consequences, in the form of feedback.

    2. Climate science is not established as a reliable predictive sceince. It is mostly speculation and to the best of my knowledge, it has not successfully predicted anything of significant consequence, because what they DON'T tell you is that the cycles run at approximately 15-20 year intervals. When their predictions don't pan out, they make excuses, adjust their models, and resume fearmongering for political purpose .

    3. Climate change is impacted not only by human actions but by natural events. Dinosaurs didn't do anything to alter natural climate processes until their remains were converted into fossil fuels by natural processes, and yet they were rendered extinct due to climate change brought about by an impact event.  We are and have been throughout my lifetime statistically overdue for a similar such event, and this probability increases over time. Current climate models focus on trends and make no allowances for such an event, arguing that said trends would overshadow such an event. This is in direct contrast to something that any child with a strong intrest in the extinction of dinosaurs can tell you - trends did not make the dinosaur extinct, an impact event, however, did.

    4. EVEN IF the politically-motivated climate models used by the IPCC were 100% valid, there exists no viable proposed solution which, if implemented, would reverse the trend. The Paris Agreement, for example, was faulty in that it was based on an honor system which can be shown not to have been followed, even by countries that agreed to it. Yes, I'm looking at YOU, China.

    In conclusion, its all bullshit meant to control your use of energy and even the food you eat.

    Does CO2 cause Climate Change? No. It is a symptom, not a cause.

    Lewri [1762864]

    The funniest thing about people like you is your source is only ever one random person (quite often the actual person doing the shitposting) with sketchy (if any) credentials and minimal research. 

    1. Yes, the climate has been changing over the lifetime of Earth, this is to be expected and is known as non-anthropogenic climate change. Antrhopogenic climate change is known to be currently occuring though, please look at some actual sources such as: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta;jsessionid=2137CC39F3F8704BE2414EC24EDF9A9B.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org

    We also know that not cutting back on the antrhopogenic factors of climate change will result in the Earth becoming uninhabitable to humans.

    2. Climate change science aims to make long term predictions, as it is a relatively new field these predictions haven't had much of a chance to play out yet. However, in essence it predicts rising temperatures globally at approximately the rate we're seeing. Science works by testing models, seeing if they work and then fixing them if they don't, this applied to climate change science too.

    3. You clearly don't understand the most basic principles of statistics. Anyway, just because natural causes also lead to death does that mean we shouldn't bother attempting to stop murderers? It's the exact same logic as you're trying to pull off here. Also, a child is probably less of an expert on dinosaurs than, say, an expert in paleontology.

    4. So you're saying that if there's no perfect solution then give up? How about an imperfect solution? China certainly isn't the only country to be looking at.

    If you think this is all a government conspiracy though, you're probably already too far gone.

     

     
    You started by downrating my post, respond with bias and condescention and then expect me to believe your bullshit? Ha! Let's play.

    1. Consider the source fallacy. You attack the source of information (poorly at that), not the information itself. This is a non-argument. The "climate change is settled science" LIE is based on a survey to which most of the respondants responded that there was not enough information to make such a claim, and the resulting data was then manipulated so as to EXCLUDE scientists who chose not to take a definite position. This is a benchmark of pseudoscience. It is bullshit. Science is never "settled" as new data, more accurate models, more contributing factors for a phenomenon become available. You do not and can not "know" that the Earth will become uninhabitable because, again, climate science is not shown to be able to accurately predict things. NASA (NAtional Socialist Administration, started by Nazi scientist Werhner Von Braun) and other organizations in support of the fearmongering, have engaged in further data manipulation, such as averaging results from different sources of data in order to make them "fit" into their bullshit. Many laypeople have no idea that the IPCC is comprised mainly of politicians with a vested interest in advancing pseudoscience, not actual scientists.

    2. In your second point, you basically concede the point that climate science is not an accurate predictor of things. Your conclusion here is a non-sequitur. Climate science is based on a faulty model intended to allow the U.N. (the "enforcement" arm of the IPCC) to take control of national and local governments under the guise of pseudoscience.


    Figure 1. Approaches to the development of global scenarios: (a) previous sequential approach; (b) proposed parallel approach. Numbers indicate analytical steps (2a and 2b proceed concurrently). Arrows indicate transfers of information (solid), selection of RCPs (dashed), and integration of information and feedbacks (dotted). Source: Moss et al. (2008).


    Notice that the common basis (IAMs) are simply a justification for the United Nations to take control of this sphere of influence.

    3. Ad-hominim attack, not an argument. I defy you to produce a paleleontologist who would produce a viable argument against the impact event that caused said extinction. You can't.

    4. No.  I'm simply saying that a respectable scientist would not recommend action without being solidly convinced of the impact of said action. This is not the case here. Climate change is not a valid reason for national sovreignty to be surrendered to the U.N.

    However, since I am of the opinion that a large, wealthy, political organization like the U.N. and its appointed IPCC have a vested interest in advancing pseudoscience for political power (land grab) then you can unilaterally declare me "too far gone" and declare my stance "wrong" without any pesky need to priovide evidence, which you clearly cannot be arsed to do, either because it does not exist, or because you can't be bothered. Get rekt, I can write you off too.
    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:30:43 - 20/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    so Savory is tricking rangers into saving the planet. Not very moral, but hey... in this case I am all for it.

    Now, about your last paragraph: I have learned th at the lower tier vegetation creates a miniclimate, or mini ecosystem which produces the condition for the next tier. Moss keeps moist in the soil, which then enables grass to grow. That's also a leading principal in the whole permaculture thing, if I understand correctly.

    Oh... and my goal is stopping climate change. Not helping the farmers, but if that's a side effect... awesome

    I am also happy to provide you with an opportunity to practise your "How do I tell my mom"-skill (aka talking to the general public. I have taught university, and learned a lot about my own trade just by translating it into layman vocabulary :)
    Is Savory tricking ranchers into saving the planet? No. It is not so simple, woody plant encroachment might result in more carbon storage in soils, but there are drawbacks. The increased amount of bare soil increases erosion, which washes valuable nutrients away and make it tougher for more vegetation to grow. Since woody plant encroachment is a relatively new phenomenon we do not know the full long term consequences. Also, the research about shrublamds storing more carbon has been published after savorys ted talk was recorded so he isnt trying to trick them into saving the world.

    Regarding the tiers of vegetation. That is not a good way to think about plants because it makes it seem as if a higher tier is somehow better. While it is certainly true that plants create their own microclimates their effect is not enough to change the ecosystem climate. A rainforest will never grow in a region that only gets 200 mm of rainfall. I dont know how much time you have spent in deserts, but plants that live there have amazing adaptation to water stress so temperate plants could not survive there. 

    If your only consideration is stopping climate change, increasing the stocking rates of cattle is probably not a good idea. The carbon storage benefits from woody plant encroachment are small compared to things like the methane release from cattle. Then on top of that there are the soil erosion and loss of native habitat, which are strong negative results of savorys intense grazing recommendations. 
    • Wollongong [12833]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 13,004
    • Karma: 16,560
    • Last Action: 5 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 17:57:40 - 20/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Wouldnt bushes/trees reduce erosion by breakinh wind and rainfall?

    You are probably right on tired, but I don't know a better word for it. Nextinline plants? You do have a point anyway. I spent a couple of months in the Australian Desert, I see what you mean.

    How do you stand, in this light, towards the efforts of justdiggit.org, which show similar images of greened  areas? They say that the problem is often that rain is sudden and intense, but water flows away, while the forests lock the water in the soil

    8fb0af51-dbaa-8cb0-12833.jpg?v=1040063

    • Wollongong [12833]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 100
    • Posts: 13,004
    • Karma: 16,560
    • Last Action: 5 hours
      • 1
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:00:07 - 20/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link
    Oh, and note to all: the premise of this threat is that climate change is real. Any arguments on why it is all a hoax are off topic. If you insist on arguing that, make a thread. I kindly request you do notderail this thread.

    Thus will first and last response I make to that. Any offtopics will be reported from now on. Thanks

    8fb0af51-dbaa-8cb0-12833.jpg?v=1040063

    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 18:13:59 - 20/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]

    My problems with the climate change fearmongering are as follows:

    1. Climate change has been happening as long as Earth has existed. There are geological records of this. It cannot be stopped. It happens even on uninhabited planets.  Deliberate attempts at altering these processes could have unintended and unfortunate consequences, in the form of feedback.

    2. Climate science is not established as a reliable predictive sceince. It is mostly speculation and to the best of my knowledge, it has not successfully predicted anything of significant consequence, because what they DON'T tell you is that the cycles run at approximately 15-20 year intervals. When their predictions don't pan out, they make excuses, adjust their models, and resume fearmongering for political purpose .

    3. Climate change is impacted not only by human actions but by natural events. Dinosaurs didn't do anything to alter natural climate processes until their remains were converted into fossil fuels by natural processes, and yet they were rendered extinct due to climate change brought about by an impact event.  We are and have been throughout my lifetime statistically overdue for a similar such event, and this probability increases over time. Current climate models focus on trends and make no allowances for such an event, arguing that said trends would overshadow such an event. This is in direct contrast to something that any child with a strong intrest in the extinction of dinosaurs can tell you - trends did not make the dinosaur extinct, an impact event, however, did.

    4. EVEN IF the politically-motivated climate models used by the IPCC were 100% valid, there exists no viable proposed solution which, if implemented, would reverse the trend. The Paris Agreement, for example, was faulty in that it was based on an honor system which can be shown not to have been followed, even by countries that agreed to it. Yes, I'm looking at YOU, China.

    In conclusion, its all bullshit meant to control your use of energy and even the food you eat.

    Does CO2 cause Climate Change? No. It is a symptom, not a cause.
    I know you are just trolling, but I am responding for the other people reading this thread. And anyome who calls NASA the national socialist administration has no room at all to try and claim the logical high ground, what you are saying in these two posts is patently false. 

    1) Sure climate change has happened all throughout earths history. But it has never happened as quickly as it is happening now. Also previous climate changes would destroy human civilization if they occurred today, so we want to avoid that. During many of the previous warm periods, the entire united states was underwater!

    2) Climate science is pretty good at predicting climate changes when we know what humans are doing. The largest uncertainty in the models is how much carbon humans will burn, that is where the large ranges in presictions come from. The second largest umcertainty is how many aerosols humans will release into the atmosphere because aerosols affect cloud formation. The uncertainties in how the earth system works are relatively small. Im not sure what cycles you are referring to, but natual cycles are all included in the models. 

    3) totally unrelated...

    4) there are plenty of proposed solutions that would work, like a carbon burning tax. There are just no solutions that YOU like. Ultimately that is why people choose to believe scientists are lying, it is easier to believe that scientists are lying than to accept that your political philosophy is wrong. But it is wrong and buring your head in the sand will not make the problems go away.

    Climate change deniers all use the same 10 or so talking points directly quoted from the fossil fuel lobby. To save us all some time and effort there are good resources to help everyone understand why these talking points are false, even if they sound good. 

    https://www.skepticalscience.com

     
    • BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 77
    • Posts: 1,798
    • Karma: 2,266
    • Last Action: 2 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:26:00 - 21/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]

    My problems with the climate change fearmongering are as follows:

    1. Climate change has been happening as long as Earth has existed. There are geological records of this. It cannot be stopped. It happens even on uninhabited planets.  Deliberate attempts at altering these processes could have unintended and unfortunate consequences, in the form of feedback.

    2. Climate science is not established as a reliable predictive sceince. It is mostly speculation and to the best of my knowledge, it has not successfully predicted anything of significant consequence, because what they DON'T tell you is that the cycles run at approximately 15-20 year intervals. When their predictions don't pan out, they make excuses, adjust their models, and resume fearmongering for political purpose .

    3. Climate change is impacted not only by human actions but by natural events. Dinosaurs didn't do anything to alter natural climate processes until their remains were converted into fossil fuels by natural processes, and yet they were rendered extinct due to climate change brought about by an impact event.  We are and have been throughout my lifetime statistically overdue for a similar such event, and this probability increases over time. Current climate models focus on trends and make no allowances for such an event, arguing that said trends would overshadow such an event. This is in direct contrast to something that any child with a strong intrest in the extinction of dinosaurs can tell you - trends did not make the dinosaur extinct, an impact event, however, did.

    4. EVEN IF the politically-motivated climate models used by the IPCC were 100% valid, there exists no viable proposed solution which, if implemented, would reverse the trend. The Paris Agreement, for example, was faulty in that it was based on an honor system which can be shown not to have been followed, even by countries that agreed to it. Yes, I'm looking at YOU, China.

    In conclusion, its all bullshit meant to control your use of energy and even the food you eat.

    Does CO2 cause Climate Change? No. It is a symptom, not a cause.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I know you are just trolling, but I am responding for the other people reading this thread. And anyome who calls NASA the national socialist administration has no room at all to try and claim the logical high ground, what you are saying in these two posts is patently false. 

    1) Sure climate change has happened all throughout earths history. But it has never happened as quickly as it is happening now. Also previous climate changes would destroy human civilization if they occurred today, so we want to avoid that. During many of the previous warm periods, the entire united states was underwater!

    2) Climate science is pretty good at predicting climate changes when we know what humans are doing. The largest uncertainty in the models is how much carbon humans will burn, that is where the large ranges in presictions come from. The second largest umcertainty is how many aerosols humans will release into the atmosphere because aerosols affect cloud formation. The uncertainties in how the earth system works are relatively small. Im not sure what cycles you are referring to, but natual cycles are all included in the models. 

    3) totally unrelated...

    4) there are plenty of proposed solutions that would work, like a carbon burning tax. There are just no solutions that YOU like. Ultimately that is why people choose to believe scientists are lying, it is easier to believe that scientists are lying than to accept that your political philosophy is wrong. But it is wrong and buring your head in the sand will not make the problems go away.

    Climate change deniers all use the same 10 or so talking points directly quoted from the fossil fuel lobby. To save us all some time and effort there are good resources to help everyone understand why these talking points are false, even if they sound good. 

    https://www.skepticalscience.com

     
    I delight in trolling a troll, and wrote what I did to get you to respond. It seems to have worked.

    You never could take a joke, Quickdraw. Fact remains that the orgins of NAZA lie with Operation Paperclip and the von Braun rocket. How does this relate to the Big Lie? Read on.

    Of course my arguments are a priori, but its all this topic deserves because the arguments on both sides meet this condition. Why are people so quick to name-call, or make fun when you take a contrarian stance on climate change giggles? The logical reason is something that every troll (since you call me one, I'll play along and become what you want me to be): They are demonstration an emotion-based, rather than logic-based response. This is important because it is a documented phenomenon, and if you''d like to dabble in manipulating public opinion, I'd suggest you give it a look: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is an early study of crowd psychology by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay, first published in 1841. My real purpose here is to hold up a mirror. What do you believe and why?

    1. I don't necessicarily contest any of what you're saying That, however, does not negate the validity of my position. I am saying that the overlying principle of propaganda-based dissemination of information is demonstrated by the IPCC. In the hope of being a "good" troll, here is a video of a webinar on how to propagandise your talking points more effectively: Just over 6 months old, pay attention to the purpose of the organisation, the qualifications of the speakers (psychology, social sciences). Propaganda rears its head.

    2. I read the natural extrapolation of your response as follows: Human activity is the only variable in climate science which we cannot predict or control.  Therefore, the best way to stop climate change is to manipulate human behavior, by force if necessary, because the ends justify the means.

    3. You wish. Demonstrating use of illogic and non-argument supports my stance that this argument is political and propagandistic in nature, rather than scientific.

    4. Labelling me a climate change denier oversimplifies my stance, and is incorrect. Basically, I believe that in a choice between allowing a group like the United Nations impose its will under the guise of a "science" openly using techniques recognised as belonging in the realm of pseudoscience, or not acting in response to a possible gradual Earth warming climate trend which may or may not ultimately effect anything significant, I have no choice but to strongly recommend the latter as being more desirable.

    If my lovely readers are still unconvinced as to how illogic and fallacy are used to advance this pseudoscientific fearmongering , consider this clip: D. Charles Pyle D. Charles Pyle 3 years ago Interesting the way they set that up. It is even more interesting how they needed to pump enough CO2 into the chamber to raise the level to 7.351% (73,510 ppm) to get just under 1 degree Celsius increase over the controls. If it took more than 70,000 ppm to get it to heat to less than one degree, what makes people think that 560 ppm (a doubling of pre-industrial levels) will raise temperatures more than 2 degrees Celsius? I'd say "Myth Busted"! Of course, it did manage to raise the temperature a little bit after 4 hours, so if we stick just to the actual title of the video, I suppose it also is "confirmed." :-) But, we will never get average global atmospheric levels of CO2 as high as they were in the experiment, not even if we burned every, single oil and coal deposit on the planet all at once.
    • PopadaPill [900338]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 91
    • Posts: 6,071
    • Karma: 3,820
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 13:27:21 - 21/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    BlnkSugarSocket [2018522]

    My problems with the climate change fearmongering are as follows:

    1. Climate change has been happening as long as Earth has existed. There are geological records of this. It cannot be stopped. It happens even on uninhabited planets.  Deliberate attempts at altering these processes could have unintended and unfortunate consequences, in the form of feedback.

    2. Climate science is not established as a reliable predictive sceince. It is mostly speculation and to the best of my knowledge, it has not successfully predicted anything of significant consequence, because what they DON'T tell you is that the cycles run at approximately 15-20 year intervals. When their predictions don't pan out, they make excuses, adjust their models, and resume fearmongering for political purpose .

    3. Climate change is impacted not only by human actions but by natural events. Dinosaurs didn't do anything to alter natural climate processes until their remains were converted into fossil fuels by natural processes, and yet they were rendered extinct due to climate change brought about by an impact event.  We are and have been throughout my lifetime statistically overdue for a similar such event, and this probability increases over time. Current climate models focus on trends and make no allowances for such an event, arguing that said trends would overshadow such an event. This is in direct contrast to something that any child with a strong intrest in the extinction of dinosaurs can tell you - trends did not make the dinosaur extinct, an impact event, however, did.

    4. EVEN IF the politically-motivated climate models used by the IPCC were 100% valid, there exists no viable proposed solution which, if implemented, would reverse the trend. The Paris Agreement, for example, was faulty in that it was based on an honor system which can be shown not to have been followed, even by countries that agreed to it. Yes, I'm looking at YOU, China.

    In conclusion, its all bullshit meant to control your use of energy and even the food you eat.

    Does CO2 cause Climate Change? No. It is a symptom, not a cause.

    Quickdraw [915500]

    I know you are just trolling, but I am responding for the other people reading this thread. And anyome who calls NASA the national socialist administration has no room at all to try and claim the logical high ground, what you are saying in these two posts is patently false. 

    1) Sure climate change has happened all throughout earths history. But it has never happened as quickly as it is happening now. Also previous climate changes would destroy human civilization if they occurred today, so we want to avoid that. During many of the previous warm periods, the entire united states was underwater!

    2) Climate science is pretty good at predicting climate changes when we know what humans are doing. The largest uncertainty in the models is how much carbon humans will burn, that is where the large ranges in presictions come from. The second largest umcertainty is how many aerosols humans will release into the atmosphere because aerosols affect cloud formation. The uncertainties in how the earth system works are relatively small. Im not sure what cycles you are referring to, but natual cycles are all included in the models. 

    3) totally unrelated...

    4) there are plenty of proposed solutions that would work, like a carbon burning tax. There are just no solutions that YOU like. Ultimately that is why people choose to believe scientists are lying, it is easier to believe that scientists are lying than to accept that your political philosophy is wrong. But it is wrong and buring your head in the sand will not make the problems go away.

    Climate change deniers all use the same 10 or so talking points directly quoted from the fossil fuel lobby. To save us all some time and effort there are good resources to help everyone understand why these talking points are false, even if they sound good. 

    https://www.skepticalscience.com

     
     Pay your Space Bucko,then tidy your room.
    • Quickdraw [915500]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 89
    • Posts: 1,111
    • Karma: 526
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 16:49:56 - 21/08/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    Wollongong [12833]

    Wouldnt bushes/trees reduce erosion by breakinh wind and rainfall?

    You are probably right on tired, but I don't know a better word for it. Nextinline plants? You do have a point anyway. I spent a couple of months in the Australian Desert, I see what you mean.

    How do you stand, in this light, towards the efforts of justdiggit.org, which show similar images of greened  areas? They say that the problem is often that rain is sudden and intense, but water flows away, while the forests lock the water in the soil
    Yes, bushes and trees do reduce erosion, but so do grasses, to almost the same degree. The important thing to remember here is that is drylands there isnt enough water to support large vegetation. There is enough water for grass to cover most of the soil, but if the ecosystem switches to shrubs or small trees, there must be a reduction in vegetation cover. So there can be higher cover of small plants like grass, or lower cover of larger plants like shrubs. So shrublands have higher amounts of bare soil, these bare soil patches can have very high erosion and that is why people are talking about desertification as a prroblem. There are larger plants, but fewer of them. 

    I havent heard of justdiggit before, but they seem to be on the right track. You have to keep the goals in mind and their goal appears to be to increase vegetation productivity to provide food for humans. It is true that once you get vegetation established it creates microclimates that make it easier for plants to survive. And the capturing runoff is important to making it easier for plants to sirvive. This has a drawback though, if you create a system where plants use more water there is less water for humans to drink or whatever so you have to think about the whole picture. Every decision will have posiyives and negatives. They have roughly the same goal as Savory, but his method of accomplishing that goal doesnt work. 
    • Alien [2052982]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 95
    • Posts: 1,127
    • Karma: 3,147
    • Last Action: 2 hours
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 12:24:10 - 06/09/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link

    MachineGunSteve [184119]

    The thing that really sticks out for me is just how little we humans know.

    In the 1970's it was sold to the public to use plastic to save trees. This guy killed 40,000 elephants to save the grassland. In the Americas all the buffalo were killed off in the span of 75 years or so, and then we wondered why we had the dust bowl when we plowed up all the land to grow wheat, and then FDR spent millions on a make work program trying to plant trees to prevent another dust bowl... 

    My point is that today's solution often ends up being tomorrows problem.

    The problem is simple.

    Too many people.

    The solution is not so simple.

     

    dunmugmeh [538353]

    Yes the main problem is that there are too many people.

    Every single one of us places a huge burden on the ecosystem.

    That is the one over riding thing which  places a strain on the environment.

    Im not a vegetarian far from it. But sometimes days go by when i dont eat any meat.

    Some people eat meat multiple times a day.

    The costs on the environment of raising cattle to give us that meat is very high.

    Some of us do need to eat a lot less meat.

    But even if all of us only ate meat once or twice a week there would still be a problem.

    There are too many of us and we place strains on the environment in other ways.

    If you dont get what im saying about meat check how large the cattle/poultry industry is worldwide. 

    All those animals need feeding etc, just for us to eat more meat.

    We all need to eat less meat.

     
    I think clean meat (lab grown meat) will be a promising solution to the impact raising cattle has on the environment. In time I think it will probably completely replace the industry. 

    • PopadaPill [900338]
    • Role: Civilian
    • Level: 91
    • Posts: 6,071
    • Karma: 3,820
    • Last Action: 3 years
      • 0
    • Reason:
      Are you sure you want to report this post to staff?
      Cancel
    Posted on 12:40:05 - 06/09/18 (5 years ago)
    Post link copied to clipboard Copy post link


    Wow..Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm..the future looks amazing
Reply
Thread Title: