FreeHovind - Is the Earth Cooling Because of Global Warming?

Is the Earth Cooling Because of Global Warming?

19 Comments - 1904 Views

Is the world getting colder because of global warming?

Submitted By ronnie(l.a.) on 10/01/14

FreeHovind, ronnie(l.a.), General

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 19 Replies

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/14 - 17:36 GMT

ooooh dam....more 70s reminiscence.

ronnie, wee already been over this.

look at ALL the data and actually try to not quote mine a short term trend.

(this 70s global cooling has already been thuroughly debunked, chekc out user

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/14 - 18:42 GMT

Ronnie, are you ever going to answer anyone's questions.??

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2010/01/15 - 11:50 GMT

Deeeeebunked! Next claim pls.

There's about 600%(to say the least) more scientific papers from that period that tell of global warming than global cooling. The mainstream media just took the only paper that suggests an ice age and quotemined it. The only scientific papers concerning global cooling form 30 years ago tell of signs of a coming ice age IN THE NEXT 20,000 YEARS! Ronnie you're a sockpuppet to the mainstream media and the perjury factory that is fox news. Everything they say to discredit liberalism as some hippy bullshit or conspiracy. Just listen to rush limbaugh in the video i supplied. So fucking stupid only creationists and far right-winged christians believe it.

Peter

10 hours - 774v

Posted 2010/01/15 - 16:24 GMT

Scientist have discovered that flatulence from cows are a top cause of global warming. This would be a good reason to tax and regulate flatulence from cows and people who eat too many refried beans from Mexican resaurants.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article745601.ece

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/15 - 20:55 GMT

¨Scientist have discovered that flatulence from cows are a top cause of global warming.¨

yes, it´s one of the causes.

but hey, that can be solved via better breeds, better feed. or the cows could even be turned into bioreactors to produce methane for human consumption. (thus decreasing our dependency on natural gas)... that is IF we don´t want to cut in our meat consumption.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/15 - 16:52 GMT

That is completely unfair. We are NOT allowed to research any of Ronnie's claims. Utter B.S. YOu are not following the rules.
Ronnie, care to change the subject to .....oh...civil rights again??? Economics??? Evolution??
I know, let's talk about one of your heros....Pat Robertson.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/15 - 22:56 GMT

I thought most of a "fart" was methane gas? Probably a dumb question.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/16 - 22:02 GMT

""I thought most of a "fart" was methane gas? Probably a dumb question.""

yes. and CH4 is a more potent greenhousegas then CO2, hence the large problem large scale cattle reasing poses to the environment (not to mention the resources needed to produce meat).

there are essentially 3 main contributors to the greenhouse effect.

CO2, CH4 and H2O.

H2O isn''t that big of an issue tho, because that ISN'T just pumped back into the system, like fossil fuels are. and it's greenhouse effect is limited to lower atmospheric ranges.

CO2 however, isn't.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2010/01/16 - 3:38 GMT

Hey ronnie, remember 3 days ago when you posted this?

Thanks homie. I'm finally done. Have fun with yourself here. Just keep watching posts every five minutes like you do jus in case I come back. You really strengthened my faith today.

Way to go, 'lil fella - you even managed to fail at running away!

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/16 - 15:53 GMT

Gotta admit...without little ronnie around....it's boring here. Nobody to make rediculous claims...and fail to provide evidence....nobody to change subjects so quickly you get whiplash.
Ronnie, get a new screen name and come back.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/17 - 1:39 GMT

Okay..probably another dumb question. How long have we known that methane is a bigger problem than co2. I am curious because ALL you ever hear about in the media is co2. Rarely do you hear anything about methane. Or is the media a couple of years behind the actual reserach???

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/17 - 17:45 GMT

""How long have we known that methane is a bigger problem than co2.""

it's not.

i should have elaborated a bit more on this point.

mehtane IS a stronger greenhouse gas then CO2, but we are producing far more CO2 then CH4. thus antropogenically speaking, we should be more worried about CO2.

there are a few sources of methane:

-anaerobic organisms (like in the gut of the cow or human, or in low oxygen environments)

- underground gas deposits.

now the way humans contribute to it's release is via:

-cattle raising

- oil drilling (we tend to make the gorund unstable and as a result these methane bubles leech out not and then. btw the flame at the refinery, that'mostly burnign methane i believe. they burn it of because they need to keep the preassure down while kracking the oil. YES it's wastefull, they know)

now the largest contribution we make is via cattle. since we keep so much of em, they produce quite some methane, but you can help prevent that by altering their feed easier to digest sugars). or you can even turn them intoa resource ! (walking biogas reactors!).

NOW, you have to think about everythign that releases CO2, which is ALL the burning of carbonhydrates, both organically and inorganically.

that menas you, the powerplant, the industry, your car, the machines that make the feed for the cattle, ect.

so you can see there are a LOT of ways we can cut CO2 emissions, as opposed to mehtane (eat less meat, or better feed).

ona side note, i we can use the methane from animals to power out lives, but then we''d be producing CO2 again.

""I am curious because ALL you ever hear about in the media is co2.""

that would be because the methane problem is confined to one sector, and it''s usually overlooked by most people. that and, what popular media would market "eat less meat"? the ones who most stress is are the vegans.

fortunetely some other do too, just google.

but somehtign funny about all the people who scream: "eat meat to save the planet!".

we only eat small parts of most plants, the rest of the plant is INDIGESTABLE TO HUMANS. and is thus thrown away...OR fed to cattle, who''s large digestive tracts and gut flora allow then to at least metabolize it into tissue....

so the best option would NOT be the pure vegan, but rather alow meat diet.

" Or is the media a couple of years behind the actual reserach???""

sadly, most of the times that is the case.

and in other cases, the media can''t sentationalize it enough to make a good story.

there is a LOT of difference between the scientific literature, and the popular media.

when did you ever hear about when we figured out the structure of ribosomes ay?

i hope that elaborated more.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2010/01/18 - 0:54 GMT

There's also the fact that it's seriously inefficient to raise cattle for human consumption by feeding them grain. Four people can surive on the same amount of grain that it takes to produce enough beef to sustain one person (a friend of mine in high school was fond of spraypainting "Feed people, not cows" around the city).

If I remember correctly, the practice of raising cattle on grain started because farmers discovered that grain was much more effective for fattening-up their cattle - and the beef didn't have to go through a long curing process (as opposed to cattle raised on grass and hay).

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/18 - 14:55 GMT

i'd have aked your friend:

"how do you feed people with gras?"

way i see it, herbivores are just another methabolic pathway we humans can aquire the sun's energy in the form of "processed" nutrients.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2010/01/19 - 2:50 GMT

i'd have aked your friend:
"how do you feed people with gras?"

You don't. But people do tend to subsist quite well on grains (things like wheat, oats, barley, etc).

way i see it, herbivores are just another methabolic pathway we humans can aquire the sun's energy in the form of "processed" nutrients.

It's a metabolic pathway, but one that's 75% less-efficient than direct consumption of grains. To use an analogy, it's sort of burning your clothes for heat - when you have perfectly-good firewood available.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/19 - 15:59 GMT

¨You don't. But people do tend to subsist quite well on grains (things like wheat, oats, barley, etc).¨

yes, now what is the weight percentage of those grains, as opposed to the rest of the stalk. ;)

¨It's a metabolic pathway, but one that's 75% less-efficient than direct consumption of grains.¨

plants don´t posses several metabolic pathways that animals do, for one, animal iron compouns are WAY easier to absorb then plant iron compounds.

hence most vegan mothers to be are usually perscribed extra iron.

¨To use an analogy, it's sort of burning your clothes for heat - when you have perfectly-good firewood available.¨

about the starch in the grians, YES. about the cellulose which makes up most of the rest of the plant, NO.

a fitting analogy would be tying to use a lump of iron to fuel your fire.

we don´t poses the digestive tract to turn leaves into tissue, cows do.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,497v

Posted 2010/01/22 - 3:10 GMT

¨It's a metabolic pathway, but one that's 75% less-efficient than direct consumption of grains.¨

plants don´t posses several metabolic pathways that animals do, for one, animal iron compouns are WAY easier to absorb then plant iron compounds.

hence most vegan mothers to be are usually perscribed extra iron.

Yes, I'm not a vegan/vegetarian myself - but have several friends who are, they all have to put extra effort into getting enough iron (and protein, of course). There are non-meat sources of iron, however - offhand peanuts, brocoli, blueberries, etc (admitedly not in the same quantites as meat, especially red meat).

¨To use an analogy, it's sort of burning your clothes for heat - when you have perfectly-good firewood available.¨

about the starch in the grians, YES. about the cellulose which makes up most of the rest of the plant, NO.

Well yeah, that's why we don't consume those parts of the plants :)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not railing against raising cattle, advocating vegetarianism, etc. But the scale of modern commercial cattle farming is ridiculous, with forest being cleared to raise cattle, huge amounts of the world's grain supply tied up as cattle feed, etc.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/22 - 16:31 GMT

¨There are non-meat sources of iron, however - offhand peanuts, brocoli, blueberries, etc (admitedly not in the same quantites as meat, especially red meat).¨

ya, but it´s not only about the quantity there, it´s also about the quality.

plants don´t really contain Haem iron.

¨Don't get me wrong, I'm not railing against raising cattle, advocating vegetarianism, etc. But the scale of modern commercial cattle farming is ridiculous, with forest being cleared to raise cattle, huge amounts of the world's grain supply tied up as cattle feed, etc.¨

howabout we feed em on algea?

we use the lipids form the algea for biodiesel, and the sugars for cattle feed.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2010/01/20 - 0:18 GMT

so can we leave this thread to die like every other thread that ended in creationistic claims being debunked?

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 19 Replies