First, let us take as our premise that the world is warming, that the rate of warming is being accelerated by human beings, and that there is a tipping point that we are approaching quickly beyond which the Earth is ruined for human habitation forever. (Is this the AlGore theory?)

Clearly, little half measures like cutting auto pollution in half in twenty years won't do it.

So here it is:

Kill all the animals.

Raising animals for food is a very inefficent way to feed all these people. Do you have any idea how much grain a beef cow eats before slaughter? And most of the energy generated by that fuel is wasted on things like breathing, walking around, sex, and farting. Of course, that farting is another problem. We have all heard of the damage being caused by the methane cows produce. No cows, no damage. With no cattle, we can convert all that pasture to cropland, and feed the multitudes. Of course, all that feed to produce a gallon of milk is wasteful too, so the dairy cattle are included. I am sure you will get opposition from the Beef Cattle industry and Milk Cattle industry, but hey, they just care about the money, not the earth. They will probably show you some studies showing meat and milk is good for you, but those are paid for by the industries themselves. Instead listening to the bought-and-paid-for studies of the agricultural experts and the ecological scientists, we should ban them from the discussion and listen only to politicians and economics professors.

But why stop with cows. Pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys, all are inefficient uses of our food supply. Wild animals too. Those pesky deer eating our forests are just wasting our limited energy supplies. And don't even get me started on lap dogs. Is there anything more wasteful than a doggie in a purse?

So eliminate one entire level of the food chain. Energy wasted on animals should be directly invested in plants. We can live off vegetables alone - look at California. And we can use the the rest of the biomass produced to create fuel, so we no longer need to use fossil fuels.

Yes, killing all animal life but us is drastic. But the science is in, and there can be no further discussion, or it will be too late. So shut up, stop denying the facts, and go kill something for the good of the earth.

ok Mister Swift.

I feel dumber for having read that.

This Carnivore will be heading to the Black Meat Market for food. Heck, I might begin an illegal animal growing operation in my basement!

GrayBeard Wrote:This Carnivore will be heading to the Black Meat Market for food. Heck, I might begin an illegal animal growing operation in my basement!

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1080

greaybeard theres your solution. ;-)

Clearly we will need food police to control the denying deniers who want to ruin the Earth. Put them on bread and water. Oh, wait...

I believe New York City already has some food police. Maybe they can be training leaders.

Alfalfa and bean sprouts for dinner!! Yum, yum.

Can we at least all agree on the little yappy dogs?

Kill all the cows and India retaliates with nuclear weapons.

ShoreBuc Wrote:Kill all the cows and India retaliates with nuclear weapons.

Make them sign the Cow-oto Treaty.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

ShoreBuc Wrote:Kill all the cows and India retaliates with nuclear weapons.

Make them sign the Cow-oto Treaty.

lmfao lmfao

[

GrayBeard Wrote:This Carnivore will be heading to the Black Meat Market for food. Heck, I might begin an illegal animal growing operation in my basement!

Heh, you are looking for the black meat... market :kobe:

Man, has it been liberating to be liberal for once. No need to worry about implementation or unforeseen consequences. Just propose something, and if anyone objects, just shout them down with phrases like "I guess you want your grandchildren to starve".

Went out to dinner with friends. We went to IHOP, and I told them I was going to start now on living without animals. We have to, to save the earth. So I ordered the Nut and Grain pancakes. My friend said he would help hurry up the extinction of the animal life, so he got BOTH sausage and bacon. He is still kind of a conservative, so of course he asked how all this would be done. I said, I don't know, I guess we will just create a new bureaucracy to enforce the law. He said it would work better if we did our usual liberal thing of taxing the rich, so we decided to tax livestock owners $1000 for every horse or cow, $500 for every sheep, goat, or pig, and $150 for every chicken or turkey. Since poor people don't own livestock, just those rich farmers will pay, and they can afford it. They're all cronies of Bush anyway. Some of them have even been selling meat to the military. War profiteers. Anyway, you have to hit those polluters where it hurts - the pocketbook,

http://data.dmregister.com/duffy/details...2007-01-19

In reality,

Could we put some ingenuity behind the problem and counterbalance the problem of CO2 emissions? I've read some articles that talk about giant sattelites that unfurl huge solar collecting foils. We could then beam electrical energy down to a collecting station using microwaves. (One problem here is China could bump the sattelite and there would be a death ray going across the continental United States. lmfao ) Use a geostationary satellite over any area of desert, any area that gets too much radiation now, and counterbalance that trapped radiation. One argument from the right that does hold merit is we can't control what India and China do in regards to CO 2.So what can we do? Another area I think we could make a big dent is in electrical cars. Let's ramp up our nuclear technology and have everyone plugging in their cars. Wait what about nuclear wastes. Believe it or not but there is a technology out there using carbon fibers. You build a giant elevator and then send the waste to the sun to be burned up. I read it in a Current Science a couple of years back. Interesting.

Machiavelli Wrote:In reality,

Could we put some ingenuity behind the problem and counterbalance the problem of CO2 emissions? I've read some articles that talk about giant sattelites that unfurl huge solar collecting foils. We could then beam electrical energy down to a collecting station using microwaves.

Wow. I agree with you. I haven't seen all the discussions on this, but it is one that may be gaining some traction. This was the plan that W should have put out when he was revamping NASA (of course McCulsky the Dim would still have objected.)

Quote:Use a geostationary satellite over any area of desert, any area that gets too much radiation now, and counterbalance that trapped radiation.

That's pretty dumb.

There is talk of putting a defocusing lens at one of the Lagrangian points, but I think that's pretty flaky too.

Quote:One argument from the right that does hold merit is we can't control what India and China do in regards to CO 2.So what can we do?

Why doesn't that hold merit? Of course it does. It's one of the reasons that the Kyoto protocol hasn't done a damn bit of good...rather it's done harm.

Quote:Another area I think we could make a big dent is in electrical cars. Let's ramp up our nuclear technology and have everyone plugging in their cars. Wait what about nuclear wastes.

Recycle nuclear wastes. Technology exists. I don't know the details or status. A company named Nuclear Solutions started off in this direction, however, they no longer mention it on their website.
Hard to believe our brilliant science teachers and journalists haven't looked into this...since they're known to be so dilligent.

Quote: Believe it or not but there is a technology out there using carbon fibers. You build a giant elevator and then send the waste to the sun to be burned up. I read it in a Current Science a couple of years back. Interesting.

lmfao

That idea is around, but it's a f'n stupid idea...flawed both scientifically and technologically.

Quote:Recycle nuclear wastes. Technology exists. I don't know the details or status. A company named Nuclear Solutions started off in this direction, however, they no longer mention it on their website.
Hard to believe our brilliant science teachers and journalists haven't looked into this...since they're known to be so dilligent.

I think the government ruled out nuclear fuel recycling during the Carter years due to proliferation but then allowed it again under Reagan. Now there is no reason not to reprocess, but I guess energy companies think it is more cost effective to keep all their waste on site. I think they reprocess in europe, though.

Mach, hope you are feeling better today. I expected you to post whenever you got to work, and here it is Tuesday already. I assume you took a sick day.

Tulsaman, you got the point rather swiftly, I must say.

Back to Mach - you seem to make the assumption that it is OK to rob the deserts of their energy and that this will not change anything for the negative. I cannot even begin to define the negative things that would happen to the people, plants, and animals in the areas you dismiss, but it would have a cascade of effects that are similar to the ones you are trying to correct. I don't think making deserts colder is neccesarily better than making icecaps warmer. Maybe you should put the shields over the poles instead. The antelope would like that.

I posted over lunch smart ass. Don't have much time today or for that matter this week. I'm not talking about blotting a whole area. Actyally my first idea was over the Sahara. If you don't want to go with geo-sationary go with polar orbiting like the GPS system. I don't think you could microwave the electricity down to a station though. I like voiding one area. How is this any different than zoning an area industrial. You take out plants and wildlife there too. Except, with my idea nature will adapt in that area. Who knows. Your post was trying to ridicule the idea of solving Global Warming and i think we can solve it. We did a hell of a job with CFC's and the ozone layer. We can impact our globe in a positive sense too.

Machiavelli Wrote:Except, with my idea nature will adapt in that area.

Natue will adapt to a warmer globe too, so why bother?

Quote:Your post was trying to ridicule the idea of solving Global Warming and i think we can solve it. We did a hell of a job with CFC's and the ozone layer.

lmfao

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/e...i/63/21998

Golly gee, Mach, I am happy that you are back to normal. Since your posts are over 2:20 apart, I will just assume you get really good lunch breaks.

You just don't get it, do you. The world is interconnected, and changing one part changes others. You yourself recognized this in so many ways - your zoning analogy(getting really personal there), melting polar caps raising seas levels, etc. Then you think you can change the Sahara in a vacuum. Whether it is the Sahara, the Gobi, the Sonoran, or any other desert, changing the nature of the desert changes weather patterns I guess that is like fighting fire with fire - fight climate changes with other climate changes. Once we start juggling all these climate changes, I think unintended consequences will cause us to do more and more and more until the system collapses.

Edit: Examples - rabbits in australia, kudzu, fire ants, killing the yellowstone wolves, etc.

Do you think there were no El Ninos before the Spanish came to California? Most of what is happening is a natural process, but the thrust of the GW movement is to try and stop this natural change in its tracks - to lock the Earth into the same weather pattern as 30 years ago. Not only is that not possible, IMO, but the cure could end up worse than the disease. The real crisis it that it will affect people adversely economically for the first time in history. If you just wanted to reverse the small percentage that is man-caused, fine, but that won't stop the glaciers from melting, etc. The only way to stop the melting, etc., is to stop the natural warming cycle. Yes, let us control nature. No hubris there. The flaw in the GW movement is the thought that the Earth will return to stability once we cancel the effect of modern man, when in truth the world's climate has never been stable.

As for my post as being one ridiculing the idea of solving global warming, it really is more of one riduculing the Chicken Littles who are running around saying the science is proven, don't let those other people speak, and act now, worry about consequences later.