Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
framheim

The One Show tells us to give up meat to battle climate change

Recommended Posts

hahahaha, really?

did anyone else see this? i get the argument but that reporter is really naive and is targeting the wrong part of the industry. giving up meat will not stop climate change but looking at mass industrial meat farming methods might, for instance the massive ranches in north, central and south america which supply the fast food industry. giving up steak farmed in the uk to eat pulses grown abroad and flown in is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sooner all these mentalists accept that global warming is a wholly natural process, and that the human impact on it is minimal (at worst), the better.

Now excuse me while I burn down a forest then drive through the ashes in my Range Rover, before heading home to burn a shitload of coal. It's cold at this time of year you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sooner all these mentalists accept that global warming is a wholly natural process, and that the human impact on it is minimal (at worst), the better.

Now excuse me while I burn down a forest then drive through the ashes in my Range Rover, before heading home to burn a shitload of coal. It's cold at this time of year you know.

If it was a wholly natural process then there wouldn't be any human impact, surely.

Even if it's a natural process, surely the idea of wasting energy and causing pollution is still a repugnant idea? Something we should try and cut down to a minimum?

Childbirth is a wholly natural process (as far as I'm aware), but it's hard to find any strong argument about preventing it using condoms...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sooner all these mentalists accept that global warming is a wholly natural process, and that the human impact on it is minimal (at worst), the better.

Now excuse me while I burn down a forest then drive through the ashes in my Range Rover, before heading home to burn a shitload of coal. It's cold at this time of year you know.

Nay: global warming is largely a natural process however the human impact is not exactly minimal. Rainforest degredation is a huge factor of this also. However, as Daveofficer said, in the aftermath of Kyoto, the wrong methods are being utilised to right the negative effects of anthropogenic pollution. Industrial farming methods must change and saying "we should give up meat, you go eco-warrior" is immaterial.

Furthermore, there is no point getting countries like the USA and China to cut their carbon emissions, this will cost billions of dollars and is simply impractical. This money should be put in to research and development for renewable energies, which may not moderate our emissions in the short run, but will reduce our emissions of damaging gases exponentially in the future. As well as this we should be putting these billions of dollars aside for adapting to the inevitable impacts of global warming (if we even have to), as well as what I believe to be more pressing issues in society: in example poverty, HIV/AIDS, malaria, malnutrition, free trade etc.

180 odd (+/-) years of greedy resource usage and economic development by the human cannot be alleviated by 10-15 years of behavioural changes in society, it is unfeasible. Hopefully this can be realised during the procedings in Copenhagen this week.

(cool story bro'?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should also get rid of our dogs and cats.... - they expel methane:rolleyes:

Maybe the ratcatchers of old had it right by sewing up the rats arse then leaving it to die - yet allowing it to reproduce so he would have more business - and also providing a body for the customer to see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I despise The One Show. There's an overpowering stench of smugness coming out of the television, which I loathe slightly more than the "2 seconds of absolutely everything/anything" approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the many problems with this whole debate, is that people who know fuck all about science are being given an equal footing with the scientists by the media.

Whether man-made global warming is happening or not, is not a philosophical argument, it is 100% scientific, so I wish the media would concentrate on that rather than MORI polls about what Joe Public thinks is going on. Better still, opinion from impartial scientists would make a nice change, rather than the usual Intergovernmental panels or Greenpeace-esque groups who have a pre-determined, unmoveable opinion and consequently only ever present one half of the argument.

There is loads of evidence in favour of both sides of the argument. My gut feel is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle....there probably is a man-made contribution, but I am highly doubtful that it is anything close to as important as is portrayed. Geologically, it makes perfect sense that the climate is warming.....we're in a post-glacial. Also, these things are cyclical by their very nature. Warming means sea-level rise means greater water area means greater evaporation means greater precipitation means cooling.

I honestly don't believe the science is currently good enough to explain what will happen if significant warming occurs, other than using anecdotal "evidence" of "freak" weather events, that if you look hard enough, have actually been happening throughout our recorded weather history.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the many problems with this whole debate, is that people who know fuck all about science are being given an equal footing with the scientists by the media.

Whether man-made global warming is happening or not, is not a philosophical argument, it is 100% scientific, so I wish the media would concentrate on that rather than MORI polls about what Joe Public thinks is going on. Better still, opinion from impartial scientists would make a nice change, rather than the usual Intergovernmental panels or Greenpeace-esque groups who have a pre-determined, unmoveable opinion and consequently only ever present one half of the argument.

There is loads of evidence in favour of both sides of the argument. My gut feel is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle....there probably is a man-made contribution, but I am highly doubtful that it is anything close to as important as is portrayed. Geologically, it makes perfect sense that the climate is warming.....we're in a post-glacial. Also, these things are cyclical by their very nature. Warming means sea-level rise means greater water area means greater evaporation means greater precipitation means cooling.

I honestly don't believe the science is currently good enough to explain what will happen if significant warming occurs, other than using anecdotal "evidence" of "freak" weather events, that if you look hard enough, have actually been happening throughout our recorded weather history.

This is a well thought out response. Tres bien.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stopping cows from farting and not driving a Range Rover will have the same effect on climate change as firing a pellet gun at an asteroid. Absolutely fuck all will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a question that has always confused me. I'm gogin to seperate it out becaus eit confuses me otherwise

The world is here it contains finite amounts of elements, the population is steadily rising

Animals, plants, rocks, cups, spoons are all made of elements, we have some of the same stuff in us that makes up the forth road bridge naturally, iron!

Surely the weight of the earth wont increase as everything is being made up of elements that were already here

Same goes for climate change, unless there are massive amounts of co2, cfc's etc copming from outside the atmosphere, it was all here to begin with and shouldnt have a negative effect

But then is it because it is being released more often and the atmosphere is not having a chance to dispose of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a question that has always confused me. I'm gogin to seperate it out becaus eit confuses me otherwise

The world is here it contains finite amounts of elements, the population is steadily rising

Animals, plants, rocks, cups, spoons are all made of elements, we have some of the same stuff in us that makes up the forth road bridge naturally, iron!

Surely the weight of the earth wont increase as everything is being made up of elements that were already here

Same goes for climate change, unless there are massive amounts of co2, cfc's etc copming from outside the atmosphere, it was all here to begin with and shouldnt have a negative effect

But then is it because it is being released more often and the atmosphere is not having a chance to dispose of it?

If you burn petrol, it creates CO2 (among other things) that weren't already in the atmosphere. We haven't gained or lost any elements in the process, we've just changed the compounds that those elements are stored in.

Mystery solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×