Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Interestingly, I just heard a story on the radio today that the FBI is looking into whether or not the climate change deniers would be subject to prosecution similar to when the Clinton administration won a civil suit against big tobacco in the 1990s. Evidently a lot of the same names keep popping up between the two groups (climate change denier researchers and big tobacco illness denier researchers).

Not exactly true. The Department of Justice has had "conversations" about taking civil action against "fossil fuel industry" for denying man made global warming. The DoJ forwarded the issue to the FBI but so far nothing has come of it. The anti-tobacco suit also had to do with a whole lot more than denying that cigarettes were harmful.

Still, the fact that the DoJ was willing to do this should frighten people.

Thanks for the added information. I just caught a brief blurb. As to whether or not it should frighten people: if anything does come of it and the FBI does take action, and if it does go to court (lots of ifs there), then I really don't see anything wrong with it. If an industry is intentionally spreading false information in order to cook the books, so to speak, that should be something that is litigegated. Frankly, I would be more frightened if they thought something was wrong and they just turned a blind eye towards it.

I actually did talk about the issue of these lobbyists and other people who moved from big tobacco into other industries. And I found/remembered the name of the documentary where I saw just how intertwined, and present they are on so many issues. It's called Merchants of Doubt, if you care for documentaries.

 djones520 wrote:
Sebster, the US Government alone has spent over 4 billion in the last several years on researching climate change, and associated topics. Per the EPA's website, they grant close to 30 million a year on Climate Research.

That is big money.

Of course there's money in climate research, it's a major field of research. The point is whether it's easier to get a decent contract through that government stream, or instead look to oil, coal and other companies and get them to fund your work. And the answer there should be extremely obvious. The resources sector will pay extremely good rates, and they don't even care if your work is scientific crap, just as long as the conclusions are right.

Think of it like this - 30 years ago there were three types of people getting paid for research. There were professional scientists who believed in man made global warming, there were professional scientists who were skeptical man made global warming, and there were professional skeptics who played at science. Theoretically there could have been a fourth category, professional believers who played at science, but the basic reality is there's never been any money in that - no environmental group is ever going to have the deep pockets of BHP or Rio Tinto.

Over the next 30 years the science developed and became increasingly clear, and the professional scientists who doubted man made climate change steadily dropped away. This has left two groups working at climate research, professional scientists who believe in man made climate change, and professional skeptics who play at science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Or... stated in another way...

Because of this large pot-o-money, AND the fact that the government funds almost 100% of the research into climate change... you cannot view any results of such research as completely unbiased.

Really, this is just a fairly dramatic way of saying that you choose to doubt the findings of major research institutions like NASA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Are there any privately funded climate change research in the UK?

What the hell kind of private organisation is going to pour millions of dollars in to research to verify findings already made by government?

The requirement you're setting up is ludicrous, something that's ever been expected of any scientific finding, ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I still have yet to see any reputable research showing methane related to cattle specifically to be even a minor contributor to global warming. All the sources I see are from kooks and whackjobs.

So you haven't read anything, then. Here's the EPA;
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

"Methane (CH4) is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities. In 2013, CH4 accounted for about 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities."
"Globally, the Agriculture sector is the primary source of CH4 emissions."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I still find the claims to be dubious. Largely because Earth has had huge herds of herbivores for thousands and thousands of years.

High methane emission is not consistent among all large herbivores. That's the point. Cows are particularly bad for methane emission, because of how their digestive systems work. Please, just, I implore you to stop thinking up bits and pieces of knowledge to try and reject the findings coming out from major institutions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Actually, you'd be suprised. There are about 1.4 billion cattle alive today. The amount of animals alive just to feed us all is astounding.

It's even crazier when you think that it'll be a different 19 billion chickens two months from now, because we've eaten the last lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
In fact, methane might be the real killer, it's a far more potent greenhouse gas (I think ~80 times more effective). There is some evidence that destabilization of methane deposits might have wreaked havoc with Earth's climate in the past, if runaway CO2 levels were to trigger runaway methane escapement, it would be like turbocharging the system.

Oh for sure, methane is a huge issue. I was just pre-empting the argument that because the impact of methane has been downgraded about 25% over the last five odd years, that it's not a risk at all (I've seen that argument before a few times, not sure if I've seen it on dakka).

Despite that 25% downgrade it's still a major driver of climate change.

 Breotan wrote:

Still, the fact that the DoJ was willing to do this should frighten people.

Frightening people into doing honest research can only be a good thing.

Sourclams: I'm not optimistic that we can change eating habits with regard to beef. It's tasty, milk and cheese and so on are getting more popular. As you point out, Islam is a growing religion and beef is a good option for them diet wise.

I also don't think that it's just developed nations who need to change, it's obviously even more important in developing nations, but also much harder to bring about there.

I don't believe the problem is easily solvable. And also, of course, some areas are more suited to cattle agriculture than others.

I also don't think cattle farmers are bad people - I grew up between two dairy farms in Ireland. My entire culture is obsessed with cattle. The word in Irish Gaelic for "road" is "bothar" - literally "cow path". Buachaill is boy, can be translated as "person who watches the cattle". Our most famous High King, Brian Boru - Brian of the Cattle Tributes. Our version of the Iliad - The táin bó cúailnge - the cattle raid at Coole. When I worked as a researcher, it was in cattle agriculture, because that's where the focus is at home.

Our agricultural production is pretty much the only reason we're not reaching our targets, but beef exports are one of the only things actually functioning in our economy past multinationals using it as a tax haven or property speculation.

I think acknowledging the problems posed by large scale cattle agriculture is possible while still accepting that the problem is both complex and intractable, and any solution will likely create economic and social problems for large swathes of the world's population.

But we should still think on the problem and consider solutions to it.

I'm quite optimistic that we can move away from producing and consuming vast quantities of meat. Tofu and bugs supported by more sensible local farming is an alternative. Plus people will eat what is readily available so that's a powerful method of influencing eating habits.

I'm not so optimistic that this will happen before massive environmental and economic collapse. The main problem is that food is produced to be sold rather than eaten which creates all sorts of perverse and dangerous incentives. Unless we replace the global economic system we can't solve any environmental problems.

Which, obviously, offers some difficulties of its own.

Goat's and sheep's milk and meat is also acceptable.

I cut back eating red meat, especially processed meat, for health reasons.

Beef is not a necessity. if global warming gets bad enough, everyone may just be forced to reduce consumption.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
If we didn't cut down the rainforests to grow corn for cattle as well as cattle, CO2 might be self regulating yet still.

The clearing of S. American rainforests is moreso to create pastureland for grazing animals (cattle) and soybeans than it is corn. The corn-cattle link is relatively unique to N. America on any sort of scale. Brazil is actually a pretty poor climate for corn, and it was the aberration of ethanol-policy-induced $6+/bushel corn that resulted widespread planting in Brazil in recent history. I suspect you're expressing a sentiment moreso than a fact here, but soybeans are more of an export crop for cooking oils and pig feed in Asia.

As it is, we've removed the world's lungs, and people still think it will breathe.

So here's another of the unnoticed hypocrisies of the urban developed world versus the rural developing world: much of the world's best arable farmland has buildings on it, because urban areas tend to accumulate, grow, and 'sprawl' from river basins and waterway sites that allowed them to become established as transportation hubs. Chicago and its suburbs, for example, is on some of the best-yielding farmland on the planet. One of the most sustainable things that society could collectively do today woudl be to take many of the large East Coast and Midwest population centers, and relocate them somewhere between the Rockies and Mississippi (much of which is still Federal land, even). Et voila, human habitation is now on crappy land full of clay and rocks and sand, and we've got millions of acres opened up for prime vegetable-planting.

But that'll never get proposed, because it would be hugely inconvenient. It's much better to preach about how 'we' [but not you] have removed the world's lungs, but never mind you're in the global 1% of standard of living, that dirt peasant trying to literally cut a farm our of jungle is the problem. (which I can actually agree with, but the easiest solution is to open up his local marketplace to commercial agriculture, which will out-produce him at lower cost and 'force' him off the land, so to speak, because he can't compete with economies of scale)

People don't need to eat beef, FFS. It is and always was optional. Humanity shouldn't feel it has the right to endlessly expand its population without moving to another planet. We need to be smarter than bacteria in a petri dish.

See, people don't need to consume beef (milk and leather) but most do want to. Beef also has a much longer shelf life than other meats and its byproducts, in the form of milk and cheese and butter, are both perishable and also highly demanded. Goats (and I am a firm advocate of goat farming, their conversions are incredible) and sheep yield far less milk than dairy cattle, meaning that it will take disproportionately MORE animals for the same amount of output. Sheep in particular have weaker digestive tracts which open them up to disease and diet issues. There's always tradeoffs.

The "solution" of 'banning cattle', or whatever is supposed to be done to limit cattle methane, is pretty stupid once you get into the details. Just like 'conserving' by driving a Prius, which has a battery made out of heavy and rare-earth metals and consumes electricity powered predominantly by coal, is also pretty stupid. These aren't really science or fact-based assessments, they're emotional sentiments "I feel I'm doing well therefore I must be doing well" [even though my actual impact is nil and might actually be counterproductive].

The fact that this thread contains so many of you who are disregarding this on virtually no grounds

What irritates me (and even so I'd never tell you how to live your life) is that you probably think you're a "sustainable" person even though I doubt you really understand the environmental impact or standard of living you're enjoying by being a non-agrarian urban or suburban-dwelling, leafy-green-vegetable eating, internet-and-all-of-the-attendant-electricity-consuming "enlightened" person. The sheer amount of preachy, implied altruistic intellectualism that you're spouting without much evidence that you understand the details to begin to even comprehend how complex these systems are is what's off-putting, regardless of your argument.

The poor farmer cutting down rainforest to make room for a quick cash crop is not the problem. It's the economic policies in place that make this the best choice for his continued survival.

 sourclams wrote:

What irritates me (and even so I'd never tell you how to live your life) is that you probably think you're a "sustainable" person even though I doubt you really understand the environmental impact or standard of living you're enjoying by being a non-agrarian urban or suburban-dwelling, leafy-green-vegetable eating, internet-and-all-of-the-attendant-electricity-consuming "enlightened" person. The sheer amount of preachy, implied altruistic intellectualism that you're spouting without much evidence that you understand the details to begin to even comprehend how complex these systems are is what's off-putting, regardless of your argument.

I am fully on board with the fact that a genuine equalisation of global resource use would mean the end of consumer electronics and cheap meat as well as other significant changes to our diet and general lifestyles. The first world lifestyle will one day end whether we would like it to or not and I would say it's much better to build a sane replacement voluntarily under orderly circumstances than scrabble in mad panic as it collapses.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

Still, the fact that the DoJ was willing to do this should frighten people.

Frightening people into doing honest research can only be a good thing.

Using the state to frighten anyone is a bad idea, just because they support your ideas doesn't mean its a good idea.
Fascist.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

Fascist.

"System of government, characterised by extreme dictatorship," Seven across.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

Fascist.

"System of government, characterised by extreme dictatorship," Seven across.

That's a good movie.