This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
...ecos push to make ridiculuous regulations punishing capitalism which is their real goal anyway. It is an easy position to take, because it makes you feel so good, and you arent actually required to do any thinking to take it.
By far the largest source of greenhouse gas is termites, whose digestive activities are responsible for about 50 Billion tons of CO2 and Methane annually (yes that is Billion with a B). By the way this is roughly 10 times the annual world production from burning fossil fuels COMBINED!!! So we could close every factory, get rid of every car (which if you read Al Gore's book is the goal) and you would still only effect the world level of greenhouse gases by about 1/10 of what comes just from the lowly termite (without even taking every other living thing into account)
Termites produce 10X more greenhouse gases that man's use of fossil fuel?
By far the leading source of the C02 and Methane gas in the world are all living animals . . .
. . . many [living animals] emit Methane out thier other end. Cows alone in the US produce 50 Million tons of these gases each year.
I recall reading that 60% of greenhouse gas production is attributable to man, and the other 40% to "natural" things like termites and swamps. The EPA website (link provided above by jim kennedy) has man's contribution at 66%. Obviously, these numbers don't jibe with yours. Is there any reason I should suspect that the EPA (headed by a Bush appointee) is way off with their numbers? Do you mind pointing me to your source?
I've read that termites produce less than 5% of the total atmospheric methane. Again, could you please provide me with your source?
By the way, I've also read that the rate at which termites produce greenhouse gases is 10X greater than the rate at which burning fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases (methane in particular.) I believe that I read this in an article comparing the energy converting efficiency of cows vs. termites. Accordingly, I viewed the "rate" as a measure of relative energy converting efficiency, rather than a measure of absolute production. Assuming we are talking about the same "10X," did you misinterpret or did I?
I was under the impression that animals (most of which are industrialized animals) produce only around 20% of greenhouse gases. Your source?
You grew up on a cattle ranch-- I am sure you are aware that ranching is an industry, and that cows and sheep are industrialized. If it weren't for the agricultural industry, there wouldn't be too many "natural" cows roaming the plains.
Lastly Turboe, when discussing this issue why do you insist on engaging in name-calling, empty rhetoric, and didactic attacks aimed at straw-man enviro-morons? You don't actually think your rant furthers anyone's understanding of the "facts," do you? If you are really concerned with the facts, wouldn't it make more sense to set aside the Limbaughian vitriol and stick to reasonably discussing those facts.
There simply is no scientific proof or even a consensus among the scientific community that global warming caused by "greenhouse gas effect" is occuring much less that is caused by man.The global warming thesis originated in a report done by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1990. Since then their predictions of temperature increases have been way off and they have been criticized by various scientific organizations that the methodology used in their forecasts was flawed. The IPCC even acknowledged as much when they issued their second assessment report in 1995.While there is merit to the claim that the earth's temperature is slightly rising (and even that is disputed) there is absolutely no consensus about long-term climate trends and what causes them. The IPCC itself acknowledges that as does the NAS.
20th century climate was unusual.Palaeoclimatic reconstructions for the last 1,000 years indicate that the 20th century warming is highly unusual, even taking into account the large uncertainties in these reconstructions.The observed warming is inconsistent with model estimates of natural internal climate variability. . . . it is  unlikely (bordering on very unlikely) that natural internal variability alone can explain the changes in global climate over the 20th century. . . .The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature in the vertical is inconsistent with natural forcing . . . It is  unlikely that natural forcing and internal variability together can explain the instrumental temperature record. . . .Anthropogenic factors do provide an explanation of 20th century temperature change. . . .The effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is detected, despite uncertainties in sulphate aerosol forcing and response. . . .It is unlikely that detection studies have mistaken a natural signal for an anthropogenic signal.
Who, specifically, should I listen to instead?
Since this has nothing to do with GCA I responded privately.
Geez David, we dont even agree on this. Presumably, we on this site are all concerned with the future of golf architecture.