Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by soulgeezer, Aug 21, 2007.
ridiculous... absolutely ridiculous..
the Global Warming fanatics are reaching a new low...
You know, the average human puts off the same amount of heat as a 60w lightbulb. I blame that. Let the genocide commence.
For years and years Australian kids have been being taught that cows burping are a major cause for global warming. They start telling you that in year 5. I think its outrageous.
I absolutely agree. It sounds to me that all the biological aspects of planet earth, erm, "excrete" more waste than our human made machines have. In that case: This warming trend is pretty much Nature running her course, and the only way to stop it is by a mass genocide of all sentient beings on our little pocket of the universe. Sounds great Mr. Gore, when do we start?
back the to thread,
Yeah, don't blame ourselves, blame it on those damn moose!
But damn 35,000 moose to be killed in the hunting seaon?
What a bunch of bloodthirsty neanderthals.
yes, but if it'll save the environment...
I'm a little gassy right now. As I speak.... No really.... I am.
IMO this points out how insane the climate-politics game is. I can't express how stupid it is without breaking certain forum rules. In fact, I may already have broken one. Sorry about that.
They should send all the moose to the north pole to help the melting process move faster
Well, to put a little perspective on this, the high number of moose in Norway (and Sweden) is largely due to making wolves all but extinct. This is a human activity that has taken place in the last couple of hundred years. So yes, humans must take the blame for moose methane (there's a snazzy band name!), at least to some degree...
Haha... That must be fake, or some norwegian blogger did it
But if you want to think about it, the CO2 output from humans and animals are far bigger then all the human made ouput together...
We should just kill all the cows and the problem would be over!
Do these moose drink soda or something?
Just to answer this and a couple of previous posts in this thread...
You cannot compare CO[SUB]2[/SUB] output from, say, moose with industrial CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions. The CO[SUB]2[/SUB] that moose breath out is a product of respiration, where organic compounds, largely carbohydrate, are oxidised. As these organic compounds were produced by the plants by fixing atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB], we're talking about a cycle that has no net input of carbon (ignoring, for the moment, energy costs of agricultural production), so however much CO[SUB]2[/SUB] a population of moose produces, they can never increase the amount of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, does.
The problem in this case is the methane that they produce. It's a pity that the journalist who wrote that piece was so scientifically inept that the message was completely garbled.