Trump's Speech on Paris Accord

[MBgrower]

Carbon taxes = big revenue streams for governments. Researchers need grant money. Grant money generally comes from governments. Researches conclude man made global warming. Government rewards said researchers with more money. Government increase carbon tax....... follow the money folks.

[grassfarmer]

Hamloc have you really looked at the research leading to the conclusion that feeding high energy feeds versus grass is the way to reduce emissions? It's all reductionist science. While a trial no doubt shows that growing them faster on grain or pelletized forage = less days alive = less methane produced (and less water used) it does not factor in the emissions impacts of producing the pellets or growing the grain.
A complete, holistic analysis would be needed to determine the least damaging method of beef production. On my system that would include the contribution our cattle make to sequestering C02 through our grazing management, the fact our fat cattle only get trucked once in their lives but it would also include the fuel and machinery usage we do incur to make or buy in winter feed.
An analysis of the conventional system would include this increased efficiency due to being grown faster but would also have to include additional trucking costs of cattle from ranches to auction marts and to feedlots. It would have to include the emissions incurred farming the land to grow the grain and silage used in the feedlot and the trucking of grain into the feedlot and trucking manure out.

Some of the research results I've studied pin the entire emissions of the land base (gasses produced by natural decay of vegetation) used in the cow/calf through to fat cattle stage under a grass based system on the grass-fed production system yet exclude the land base emissions of the cow/calf herd, the grain growing emissions and the grain growing land base emissions used under the "conventional" production system.
Do you think that is a fair analysis upon which to base policy? A complex multi-factor analysis needs to be done and thus far I haven't seen one.

Haven't read the article you suggested, will look at it later.

[stonepicker]

So grass, are denying the science about cows? The same science that endorses manmade climate change?

[burnt]

In many of the climate change deniers posts on Agriville, facts or scientific evidence don't matter its all about the politics. Left vs right. Liberals vs Conservative. Never a a shred of any credible science to back their claims. Just a lot of over heated rhetoric and laughable claims.

It is so ironic that some fiscal conservatives are so concerned about deficits and growing debt and the impact on future generations but are in complete denial about what the massive financial impact of climate change will be on our children and grandchildren. In the true meaning of the word conservative it should imply that you don't **** up the world for future generations and pass on the costs and a legacy of bad decisions.

Well chucky, as a hysterical alarmist asking others to provide evidence, now's your chance to back up your claims. And remember, we get to decide what "evidence" is acceptable...see how this works? You and grassy and forage are apparently the only ones who get to decide what stands as evidence or science.

And you want to pretend to be apolitical? LOL! You're quite the comedian, along the lines of Kathy Griffin!

BTW, what kind of a stupid fool would use the term "climate change deniers"? Why don't you point out a few so we can quiz them about whether they actually "deny" that climate changes?

[chuckChuck]

Burnt checkout NASA's website on climate change https://climate.nasa.gov/.

If you need more evidence than that I will post a list of numerous scientific organizations that clearly prove and state that current rapid climate change is caused by humans and their massive release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

When I use the words "climate change deniers" it means those who don't believe in human caused accelerated climate change.

I think you would have to be pretty stupid to not know that the worlds climate changes for other reasons as well.

[furrowtickler]

Cover by none othe than CNN

[fjlip]

"I think you would have to be pretty stupid to not know that the worlds climate changes for other reasons as well."
And to know beyond a shadow of a doubt how much change is attributable to "mankind" is pure GUESS WORK!
The "scientists" just pick a number out of thin air to scare the shit out of the population, and get more $$$ to do more of the same. Calculate a World Temperature! Horse or Cow shit! Impossible too many variables! All BS!

[chuckChuck]

"I think you would have to be pretty stupid to not know that the worlds climate changes for other reasons as well."
And to know beyond a shadow of a doubt how much change is attributable to "mankind" is pure GUESS WORK!
The "scientists" just pick a number out of thin air to scare the shit out of the population, and get more $$$ to do more of the same. Calculate a World Temperature! Horse or Cow shit! Impossible too many variables! All BS!

No doubt you are more than qualified to recognize bullshit. And NASA faked the moon landing too!

[blackpowder]

This is why I dont watch any news (or any tv) anymore. I find myself increasingly dated on many issues.
Tired of nonsense and want to be left alone. I do not care about changing the world. Carbon? who the hell cares??
I personally know no one who believes or cares either. Most people would put their standard of living far ahead of something they cant see.
Maybe it is real. But how its being handled is phony as hell.

[Hamloc]

Chuck one quick point. NASA started collecting this data in 1978. So 39 years of data in which they conclude a temperature rise of .14 degrees Celsius per decade. Hard to believe you can determine in such a short time beyond any possible doubt that an Eco-system which has existed for millions of years in being changed by it's inhabitants.