Comments SkyHunter has made

  • Actually science and politics are easy to separate. In politics perception is reality. It is very difficult to discern which side is right or wrong, since so much depends on ideology. This is why the deniers inject politics into AGW, then cry that the science is polluted by politics. It is an argumentative fallacy known as poisoning the well. Science is easy. The correct argument is supported by empirical evidence and can be demonstrated. Physics doesn't dither and gravity always wins!On Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline? posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago 25 Responses
  • Llogan, There is not one peer reviewed paleoclimate reconstruction that shows the MWP as globally warmer than today. The MBH98/99 is in the IPCC 4th assessment report. The NAS concluded that due to the sparsity of proxies, especially in the SH, that the claim of warmest in the last 1000 years was overstating the confidence level of the study. Since then, new and more robust reconstructions have confirmed that the last century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. They also applauded the study, being the first of it's kind, was a significant contribution to the scientific body of knowledge. ALL the reconstructions since have a hockey stick shape! Mann has released his code. The miner and his bean counter made a lot of noise about nothing. All that they accomplished, and what they intended to accomplish, was to create a lot of denier talking points not grounded in reality. The end result of all the hoopla was an even more robust study that confirms the conclusions of MBH98/99. But go ahead and spout off all the specious arguments surrounding the "controversy".On Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline? posted 3 weeks, 1 day ago 25 Responses
  • Uh... Boxer is the chair of the Environment and Public Works committee. The committee that has primary legislative authority on this issue.On What does recent Senate drama on the climate bill mean? Peak Boxer posted 3 weeks, 3 days ago 7 Responses
  • Llogan, The IPCC does not ignore water vapor. Water vapor accounts for ~65% of the greenhouse effect. Specific humidity is a function of temperature and is therefore a feedback, not a forcing. You cannot increase the amount of water vapor without increasing temperature. None of your statements, or the opinions of the scientists you quote are supported in the scientific literature. The Hockey stick was found to robust. Their were questions raised about the sparseness of proxies, which led the NAS to question the claim that the 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years. The Wegmon report questioned the statistical method used and found an error. Neither of which had a statistically significant effect on the results. Subsequent reconstructions have shown that MBH 98/99 was accurate and robust. Cherry picking specious arguments off the internet is not a part of the scientific method. Your website and booklet is a joke.On Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline? posted 3 weeks, 3 days ago 25 Responses
  • Llogan, I have looked into every one of the claims you make... and found them to be baseless. Your argument is based on fallacies, distortions and outright lies. I am not going to waste my time refuting every specious claim you make on this comment thread. If you want to know why you are wrong, or think you can convince others with evidence from the refereed science journals try this forum. http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=84 You have a political bias and are promoting that agenda. You will not be allowed to make appeals to authority, like citing the Oregon petition, nor will you be allowed to make reference to opinions. Science is not politics, so if you decide to join the conversation there remember to cite your sources (provide links) and make sure your sources are published in peer reviewed journals. AGW is based on sound physics. There is no debate about it in the scientific community. The open question is not whether atmospheric carbon dioxide increases temperature, that question was answered by John Tyndall in the 19th century. The open question is how much? You are not "sharing information", you are propagating disinformation. Bailsout, Chrichton writes fiction. HIs novel is fiction and bears no resemblence to reality. The scientific method is based on disbelief. Nothing in 100%, and every assumption is tested and challenged constantly.On Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline? posted 3 weeks, 4 days ago 25 Responses
  • llogan, You are a conspiracy theorist. You pick up on all the fringe stories printed in the denialist media and present them as facts. Your story is full of half truths presented with an extreme bias and outright lies. I feel sorry for someone who would spend all that time and effort compiling a 32 page conspiracy. Just curious, do you receive any money when people visit your website?On Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline? posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago 25 Responses
  • Wow, It is old stuff, but you got all those dated talking points right. Must have a good memory, or are reading the archives. Of course, you cannot support any of those strawmwn with facts... But neither could anyone else a few years ago when those particular fallacies were all the rage in the denier media.On Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline? posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago 25 Responses
  • We can lower atmospheric CO2 by reducing how much goes in, but it will still take a long time before the cycle equilibrates. The best way to restore the atmospheric levels is to put the carbon back in the soil. The best way to do that is through organic agriculture. Here is a great idea, even if it is 2000 years old. http://www.eprida.com/On Poll finds sharp rise in global warming skepticism posted 1 month ago 31 Responses
  • Hi Daniel, The carbon cycle maintains an equilibrium that is naturally tied to global temperature, at least that is what the paleoclimate evidence such as ice and sediment cores reveal. During glacial epochs carbon is sequestered in the oceans and soil as the ice sheets grow. As the glaciers melt and the oceans warm it is once more released into the atmosphere further amplifying the warming during interglacial epochs. At least that is how the recent (last 2 million years) carbon/climate cycle has played out. This process takes centuries to reach an equilibrium. Here are a few charts to get an idea. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_Residence_Time_png http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Stabilization_Scenarios_png Here is a good paper by David Archer. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf And here is a great forum to discuss Earth science. http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=84On Poll finds sharp rise in global warming skepticism posted 1 month ago 31 Responses
  • This is precisely the case. There are a number of psuedo-scientific organizations that are disseminating misinformation about climate change, ozone depletion, DDT, evolution, tobacco, etc. etc. This has resulted in the average person not knowing what to believe, so they believe whatever confirms their political, religious, or other personal beliefs.On What does the Pew poll mean? posted 1 month ago 5 Responses
  • Short term climate variability in general and global temperature in particular is influenced primarily by ocean oscillations. The oceans store a tremendous amount of heat. Solar variability from maximum to minimum only varies the energy input into the climate system by ~0.3C. This is an immediate forcing and can be detected when analyzing the temperature record. However, the solar/climate correlation has disappeared over the last 50 years as solar has decreased while temperatures continue to rise. 1998 was an outlier. It was not the peak of a trend, but a spike due to the exceptionally strong El Nino event of 1997/98. When you look at temperature trends over decades and centuries, there is a definite positive trend consistent with the theory for GHG forcing. August and September of this year were the second warmest on record, while solar is at it's lowest output since measurements have been taken. Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for centuries, it's forcing though slight continues to force the trend upwards for decades as the oceans warm and the climate system comes into equilibrium. So unlike solar variability, the CO2 signal is only observable over decades not years.On Poll finds sharp rise in global warming skepticism posted 1 month ago 31 Responses
  • The study you probably saw was the one commissioned by the British Food Standards Agency. Like the FDA and USDA in the US, it is heavly influenced by industry advocates and lobbyists. It was not an actual study, just a review of other scientific papers published in the last 50 years. And what they did find were much higher nitrogen levels in industrial ag foods. Nitrates anyone? Here is a response from the Soil Association to the study. http://www.soilassociation.org/News/NewsItem/tabid/91/smid/463/ArticleID/97/reftab/57/t/Soil-Association-response-to-the-Food-Standards-Agency-s-Organic-Review/Default.aspx Here are some other studies that arrived at a much different conclusion. http://www.ota.com/organic/benefits/nutrition.html http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/taste/13560666.html Organic agriculture has the distinct advantage of being sustainable since it builds soil while industrial ag depletes soil. But what is most important from a nutritional aspect is to eat fresh, vine ripened, and minimally processed food.On Pollan shoots down organic myths at Grist event posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 25 Responses
  • A hot water valve like the Hot Water Lobster will circulate the hot water through the pipes to provide instant hot water.On Ask Umbra on replacing hot-water heaters posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses
  • A hot water valve like the Hot Water Lobster will circulate the hot water through the pipes to provide instant hot water.On Ask Umbra on replacing hot-water heaters posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses
  • Evacuated tube, thermosyphon with an electric on demand for backup on cold cloudy days is my recommendation.On Ask Umbra on replacing hot-water heaters posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses
  • I am sorry that you are pessimistic and have such a low opinion of America. I on the other hand am optimistic that the world is ready and America can lead the world toward a sustainable future. A future with social, economic, and environmental justice. The future of the American economy is technology, specifically green energy technology. Cap and trade can be applied to imported goods to make goods produced domestically, with zero emissions, much more competitive with a comparable item produced in China and shipped here.On What the EPA announcement did (and did not) say posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses
  • Foodprovider, Since I have already switched to a low energy, low carbon, low pollution lifestyle, the impact on me would be negligible. Externalizing the cost and passing it on to posterity is like stealing from your children. I say pay the price now, or better yet, make changes to your lifestyle so that you are part of the solution, instead of the problem. Be the change you want to see in the world.On What the EPA announcement did (and did not) say posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago 17 Responses
  • Not a tax, an investment. By charging polluters to pollute and investing the revenues into cleaner technology does three things: 1. Makes dirty power more expensive. 2. Which makes cleaner power more competitive. 3. All the while developing better cleaner alternatives.On What the EPA announcement did (and did not) say posted 2 months ago 17 Responses
  • Derekcrane, You are as confused as your hero, Steve McIntyre. Michael Mann is the lead scientist that did the reconstruction commonly referred to as the "Hockey Stick", Not James Hansen. And ClimateAudit is not a scientific resource, therefore not a credible citation. Even though he won't go away...it is OK to ignore McIntyre, since you won't miss any real real science.On James Hansen on Obama, climate legislation, and the scourge of coal posted 2 months ago 8 Responses
  • Bud, While it is true that we have only been able to observe and measure Arctic sea ice extent with satellites since 1979, sea ice extent is only one metric. Perennial ice, ie thicker ice accumulating over years has also shown significant decline. Thinner ice is not only more susceptible to melt, it is also more easily blown around by winds. The Arctic is warmed significantly during the past century, reversing a 2000 year cooling trend. So it is reasonable to expect that the conditions in the Arctic are well outside the bounds of normal. http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/arctic2k.jspOn Ask Umbra on combating climate denial posted 2 months, 1 week ago 55 Responses
  • Gnovak, I have never had any intention of arguing with you here. I directed you to the physics forums thread because it is a better venue to discuss climate science. As for calling you a troll... Well you are hanging out on an "alarmist" website calling people names and trying to pick fights. You are not my opponent. Arguing with idiots is not only unproductive... people may not be discerning enough of such a complex subject to be able to tell the difference.On Ask Umbra on combating climate denial posted 2 months, 1 week ago 55 Responses
  • Gnovak, If you have a theory that disproves thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and relativity... Then I am sure the scientific community would love to see it. Publish it in a peer reviewed journal and stop trolling here.On Ask Umbra on combating climate denial posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 55 Responses
  • Gnovak, I am not at all concerned about who you are. Do you know who Max Planck is?On Ask Umbra on combating climate denial posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 55 Responses
  • Gnovak, 1. The only way energy leaves the Earth is by radiation. 2. In order for the Earth to balance the energy received from the Sun it must emit at a temperature of 255K. The surface temperature is 288K. The additional 33C of temperature at the surface is due to the greenhouse effect. Adding greenhouse gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere optically thicker and slows the rate of thermal emission. Consequently the atmospheric layer at which equilibrium temperature (255K) occurs is higher. The dry adiabat is 6.5C per kilometer. 3. The Oregon petition makes no scientific argument. It is sponsored by a religious/political organization. You have a very distorted understanding of atmospheric physics. If you are representative of the signors of the Oregon petition... then I rest my case.On Ask Umbra on combating climate denial posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 55 Responses

  • Gnovak,

    What your coment shows is that you do not understand atmospheric physics. While it is true that the CO2 absorption spectrum saturates about 10m from the surface, absorption is only one aspect of transmission. The energy absorbed is then emitted and reabsorbed, until it finally escapes the atmosphere. The black body temperature of the Earth is ~255K, the surface is ~288K the difference, ~33K is a result of the so called greenhouse effect.

    After reading the thread, if you still have questions or arguments you can ask or present them on the forum and your misunderstanding can be explained in greater detail.

    BTW - The Oregon petition is sponsored by the same people who brought you Intelligent Design. Also, since the petition is nothing more than an opinion it is an appeal to authority which is a fallacy de argumentum and irrelevant to a scientific debate.

    Bud,

    Changing the subject is not honest dialogue.

    On Ask Umbra on combating climate denial posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 55 Responses

  • Gnovak,

    I suggest you read this thread. Hopefully it will clear up your confusion about atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=307685

    Bud Dingler,

    Judging from your response to my last post you are hopelessly ignorant. Therefore the above link will do you no good.

    On Ask Umbra on combating climate denial posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 55 Responses

  • Bud,

    Global warming is a fact. The globe is warming.

    Antropogenic global warming or AGW, is a theory that explains the fact of global warming to a high degree of scientific certainty.

    Denying this and suggesting there is a scientific debate over textbook physics is NOT scientific discourse!

    On Ask Umbra on combating climate denial posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 55 Responses

  • So many jobs have been outsourced by the corporatists who run our government, it would behoove them to support a green energy industry. Otherwise there will soon be no American jobs left, leading to no American consumers to buy the goods now produced overseas, leading to a global economic meltdown.

    Gregoire is spot on. The solution to the economic recession is a green revolution led by American ingenuity.

    On Washington guv highlights green-jobs potential of climate action posted 4 months, 1 week ago 2 Responses

  • CA&W,

    Carlin is an economist, not a scientist.

    Sylas uses SW and LW in context. IR is infrared which is long-wave radiation. Therefore there is no such thing as short-wave IR. (infrared)

    So I stand by my earlier comment that you have no clue about the physical science that you are trying to argue.

    On Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September posted 4 months, 1 week ago 34 Responses

  • I am not going to argue with an idiot.

    If there were no greenhouse effect the Earth's surface would be 255K not 288K.

    There is no such thing as shortwave infrared.

    CA&W, you do not have a clue!

    On Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September posted 4 months, 1 week ago 34 Responses

  • You missed the point Cleanair&water, (big surprise)

    It is a moderated forum to discuss science. I was suggesting that you post there if you wish to have a serious discussion about the science. If all you want to do is make specious non-sensicle arguments, then I suggest you avoid it and other forums like it.

     

    On Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September posted 4 months, 1 week ago 34 Responses

  • Cleanwater&air,

    Your posts demonstrate an exteme lack of understanding of spectral physics. It is obvious you do not understand even the terms you are using in your arguments.

    Also this is not the proper forum to discuss physics. If you are interested in such a discussion I suggest this forum.

    On Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September posted 4 months, 2 weeks ago 34 Responses

  • CLEANWATER&AIR,

    The Heinz Hug paper has been thoroughly discredited by none other than Roy Spencer.

    Hug ignores emission and only considers absorbtion in his calculation of atmospheric absorbtion of surface emissions of IR. If that were the case and the atmosphere only absorbed IR energy, there would be no mechanism for shedding the energy which is impossible. The pertinent fact that he ignores is that the atmosphere itself is also emitting, in fact there is more downward IR flux to the surface from the atmosphere than there is SW flux from the Sun.

    Just because there are 100 or so websites making money propagating specious psuedo scientific arguments does not validate the ludicrous argument thet there is global conspiracy by the scientific community.

    Just the simple fact that your source would promote such a silly premise should give one pause and reason to question all assertions made by said source.

    On Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 34 Responses

  • WWAGD?!

    How do you define natural causes?

    Climate responds to forcings.

    What natural forcings can you identify that are responsible for the ~0.2C per decade warming trend since 1975?

    Robert K

    What historical data are you talking about?

    The Earth has been in an ice age for the past few million years with only brief interglacial periods, such as the current Holocene.

    Where do you guys get such patently false ideas from?

    On Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 34 Responses

  • Much as I agree with Javaman, I also feel that passing anything as a first step is as important as passing a good bill.

    Once inertia is overcome it will be easier to pass additional measures or even a completely new bill that will have an impact.

    On Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 34 Responses

  • And the NSIDC does not track glacier advancement/retreat

    Really?

    You never heard of GLIMS?

    That is an acronym for Global Land Ice Measurements from Space. (NSIDC)

    Maybe you should more thoroughly study real scienctific sources and lay off the junk science.

     

    On McCaskill says House climate bill will sink in Senate posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses

  • RMOEN,

    So you are telling us that for 20 years while average solar flux declined and global temperatures rose you decided to question the validity spectral physics???

    Maybe you should start with something simpler and easier to understand than the IPCC Assessment Reports.

    GEORGIACT,

    Your first link is to a paper where they study land temperatures. Since the land responds faster to changes in solar flux than the oceans there is nothing surprising in their findings.

    Your second link is to a denialist web sites and is not a credible source.

     

    Wikipedia and Global Wrming Art are acceptable links as long as they are well cited. Global Warming Art and Wikipedia are both transparent. You can go directly to the cited data sources and make your own graph if you think they made a mistake.

    On McCaskill says House climate bill will sink in Senate posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses

  • I blocked Bud so I didn't read his post, but if he is arguingthat his grass fed cows are healthier because they are eating the food they evolved eating, IE grass. Then it stands to reason that humans are healthier eating the food they evolved eating, IE plants.

    By applying the same logic to himself that he applies to his cows, and starts eating a plant based diet. Then he would have first person experiencial knowledge, not just anecdotes.

    He currently only knows one way and believes it is the only way. This is a common human trait, defined psychologically as a confirmation bias. When I see this behavior, especially in myself I am reminded of the Tolstoy quote:

    "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

    On Time to save our nation’s dairy farmers posted 5 months, 1 week ago 51 Responses

  • Bud the troll.

    How droll.

    I really like the ignore feature on this forum.

    On Time to save our nation’s dairy farmers posted 5 months, 1 week ago 51 Responses

  • The net energy yield is not great but it is positive. The carbon monoxide is burned to maintain the bed temperature. The hydrogen can be used to chargel fuel cells, that can also be used to store excess powerplant generation and balance the grid demand flux.

    I would like to develop a small scale system for use in multi unit dwellings that turns human waste into low temp charcoal fertilizer, that in turn can be used on roof top vegetable gardens.

     

    On A climate policy for agriculture that works posted 5 months, 1 week ago 7 Responses

  • Please forgive me Elkabong, I suffer from dailysex errrr. I mean dyslexia.


    The easy way to restore one's health is a whole foods, plant based diet. Heavy on the organics.

    On Time to save our nation’s dairy farmers posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 51 Responses

  • Tingo,

    There is a key on the right side of your keyboard that is labeled "Caps Lock'. It works as a toggle to toggle off and on the capital letters. Writing in all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Not only is it rude, it is the best way I know of to be ignored and dismissed as being mentally disturbed.

    Feed consisting of 20% casiene by calories, when fed to mice with with precancerous lesions on their kidneys results in a 1000% increase in tumor growth. When fed plant derived proteins the mice do not develop tumors.

    Casiene in the bloodstream stimulates the production of antibodies. In a developing immuner system these antibodies get confused and attack the pancreas. Homogenizing milk helps assure that these foreign proteins are absorbable through the intestinal wall directly into the bloodstream.


    Milk is great for growing a calf from 70 pounds to 700 very quickly. Compare it to human milk and the reason not to drink it is obvious. Your children are not cattle, don't feed them as if they were.

     

    On Time to save our nation’s dairy farmers posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 51 Responses

  • What better time for them to turn their CAFO dairies into organic vegetable farms.

    Humans are not designed to consume bovine excretions.

    Forcing children, especially black children (70% being lactose intolereant) to drink milk at school is what you get when industry invades government. The rise in type I diabetes is the direct result of government policy dictated by the dairy lobby.

    Here is a sample of what goes on in your government.

    Link

    On Time to save our nation’s dairy farmers posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 51 Responses

  • Why not put the carbon back in the soil?

    EPRIDA

    On A climate policy for agriculture that works posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

  • Solar Energy

    NanoSolar is producing utility panels at $0.30 a watt. That is competitive with conventional coal for generating electricity. AES, EDF and the Carlyle Group are now backing them. This technology can be licensed to expand production by an order of magnitude in a few short years. Each factory can produce one gigawatt of these panels a year!
    http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/?p=10
    And this is just the beginning. The .com boom will pale in comparison to the green energy boom.On What can greens expect from Obama? posted 1 year ago 8 Responses

  • Oxygen is the difference

    Lack of oxygen during the anerobic decomposition of organic material results in the production of CH4 as opposed to CO2. CH4 has 25 times the GWP (global warming potential) of CO2, most of that potential realized in the first 20 years.
    On Umbra on compost and climate posted 1 year ago 13 Responses

  • Milk=veal

    Whether it is organic or not is irrelevant.
    In order to keep cows producing milk they must be kept impregnated.
    If you drink milk at all you are supporting the veal industry.
    http://www.tomregan-animalrights.com/archive/veal.htmlOn USDA aims to tighten grazing standards for organic cows posted 1 year ago 6 Responses

  • Cherry Picked and/or Ignored

    Karsten,

    This is known as a confirmation bias , and is natural. I believed most of my life that I was an omnivore. When I finally investigated anatomy, I overcame my confirmation bias and adopted a diet that was correct for my anatomy and biology.

    Which facts are you cherry-picking, or ignoring?

    Which facts do you think I am cherry-picking and/or ignoring?On Umbra on meat eating and global warming posted 2 years, 2 months ago 41 Responses

  • Are Environmentalists Finally Awakening?

    I became a vegetarian Four years ago for two reasons.

    1. I had gained weight I could not lose.

    2. I discovered the environmental impact of my meat based diet.

    After about four months on a vegetarian diet and investigating anatomy, biology, and nutrition, I adopted a vegan diet. Since human anatomy is that of an herbivore, plant foods are not toxic to people like animal foods are.

    My BMI went from 26.5 to 23 in less than 6 months. I grew stronger and have the kind of energy that I once enjoyed as a child. There is no better change a person can make in their life than switching to a plant based diet. Not only for the planet, but for themselves, and the improvement in physical health is equaled only by the change in temperament. As Buddha said;

    "To become vegetarian is to step into the stream which leads to nirvana."

    The biggest problem with adopting a plant based diet is that nutritious food is not readily available in the supermarkets. Commercial, industrial, processeed food lacks the nutrients to keep us healthy. Fortunately the most nutritious food is organically grown plants, because the fields are mineralized as part of the certification process. As a consequence the plants grown in these fields have all the trace minerals in a form the human body can readily assimilate. The best solution is grow your own when you can and buy local organic when you cannot.
    On Umbra on meat eating and global warming posted 2 years, 2 months ago 41 Responses

  • Militant vegan

    I do not think meat eaters are evil. It is rumored that Hitler himself was a vegetarian.

    Greenengineer, I applaud your efforts to humanely subjugate other creatures for your personal dining pleasure. I know all about Joel Salatin and Polyface farms. I find myself in almost total agreement with Joel on most issues. (It is the killing I have a problem with.) What he has done with a farm that was destroyed by industrial ag practices is commendable.

    It reminds me of my childhood. I grew up in the country. Everyone I knew, except for the preacher, lived on a farm. I remember vividly the boyhood rite of passage, when I suppressed my compassion for another living creature, while I committed the act of taking it's life. Killing is learned it is not natural, at least not for me.

    I naturally liked animals better than people. Animals were always nice to me while people could sometimes be terribly cruel, I was in a quandary as a child. I guess in once sense it was like being homosexual. I had to suppress my natural instincts. In this case, my instinct for compassion.

    Becoming a vegan was similar to coming out of the closet. I no longer had to suppress my compassion and my temperament changed. Not completely, I am still a little aggressive. Especially when I feel someone is being condescending about my choice of lifestyle.

    I understand why people feel threatened by vegans. Everyone has to in someway disconnect, not think about the killing/cruelty part of their diet, or in your case Greenengineer, suppress your natural compassion. Compassion that I am sure you have, since you care about more than yourself.

    All humans are naturally compassionate beings.

    Do you salivate when you see an injured puppy?

    No. You feel the same compassion you would feel for an injured child, unless you have disconnected. The disconnect does not stop at animals, it is easy to use the same discipline learned when killing an animal to take the life of a human.

    I am so optimistic about the future. I believe that as humans become aware of the disconnect between ourselves and the environment, because of global warming, extinction of species, deforestation, etc., that human culture will adopt a plant based diet.

    Contrary to your assertion that humans are omnivores, there is no taxinomical definition of an omnivore. Most species are omnivorous. In other words most species can extract nourishment from plant or animal foods. Humans are especially well equipped to eat both plants and animals, although not as well as canines. (Whom I suspect taught us how to hunt more efficeintly.) However when more than 10% of our calories are derived from animals, we put our health at risk.

    Just because we can, does not mean that we should. There are many good reasons not to eat meat. There are scant few for a person living a reasonably affluent lifestyle to eat meat. The number one reason is, because it tastes good.

    I don't want my generation to be known as the most selfish generation.

    The reason that I decided to post was because of the "real world" comments directed toward those who choose a vegan lifestyle.

    First let me point out that being vegan means that you are in an extreme minority, a fast growing minority, but a minority never the less. To sit back and be open minded to those who believe that we are part of some out of touch with reality cult is not something that I care to do. One hundred and fifty years ago you could hear the same rhetoric about abolitionists. "They are self righteous", "they don't live in the real world", "slavery/sacrifice is sanctioned in the bible", etc. etc.

    I am not militant, but I am not going to passively sit back and let someone condescendingly infer that I don't live in the real world.

    I live in the real world. Most of the people I know eat meat. I personally believe that the best thing for the animals, the environment, and humans in general, is a plant based diet.

    I came to that conclusion on my own, as must everyone. I do not intend to argue the point further, I do not think less of anyone for eating meat, but I will never condone the practice. I look forward to the day when more people realize that it is not necessary for animals to die to satisfy their hunger. Until then I will eat gourmet vegan fare and "sigh".On Umbra on sustainable sushi posted 3 years ago 54 Responses

  • hypocrisy and self righteousness

    "Start where you are, use what you have, do what you can."

    Is a good mantra, one I use myself. Life evolves, individuals evolve.

    I was stating simple truths.

    If we want peace we must ourselves be peaceful.

    If one lives in the third world one eats whatever is available. Here in the first world we have a choice. Since their is no dietary requirement for us to slaughter and eat animals, the slaughter and consumption of animals is a choice.

    If we want to achieve a sustainable society, we must practice sustainability. If we continue to support environmentally unsustainable practices through our diet, we cannot legitimately claim to be environmentalists. If a person is not willing to make the personal changes in their lives then they are not truly committed. They are just standing behind a screen with just their face sticking through. Posing.

    Your diet has a greater impact on the environment than the car you drive.

    Always when one exposes hypocrisy, one must expect the usual accusation of self-righteousness.

    Wherever you are in the first world, you can choose the veggie burger over the beef patty.On Umbra on sustainable sushi posted 3 years ago 54 Responses

  • Meat eating environmentalist is an oxymoron

    Be the change you want to see in the world.

    By eating the flesh of animals you are condoning violence.

    By eating flesh you are contributing to unsustainable agricultural practices.

    By eating flesh you are harming the environment.

    By eating flesh you are harming your body.

    My body is a temple, not a mausoleum.

    A vegan diet is not difficult. If one is concerned about the environment they will change their diet. Otherwise they are just posing, deceiving themselves as well as others.On Umbra on sustainable sushi posted 3 years ago 54 Responses

  • Agricultural use of water

    The average person consumes about 300 gallons of water per day for bathing, washing clothes, cooking and drinking. It takes 10,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. Think about that the next time you order a quarter pounder.On Where's tomorrow's water? posted 3 years, 6 months ago 15 Responses

  • Sad reality

    The sad reality of the environmental movement is that it does not address the human activity that is causing the greatest amount of destruction to the environment. The massive amount of rescources that are spent to produce animal protein for people to eat is the single most contributer to global environmental destruction.

    Because I have always cared for the environment, when I discovered the true cost of the meat, dairy, and fishing industries, I could no longer call myself an environmentalist, so I switched to a plant based diet. It was the best thing I have ever done. Not only for the environment, but for myself as well.

    This quote is always associated with Einstein, however I have never seen it verified. Irregardless it is on the mark.

    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

    ~Albert Einstein

    How will the planet survive 2 billion more people converting to a western animal based diet?

    Here are a few more interesting quotes.

    "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral."

    Leo Tolstoy

    "In fact, if one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once large sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people."

    Ruth Harrison, author of Animal Machines

    How many of you otherwise intelligent people will defend such a practice and still call yourselves environmentalists?On Environmentalism and liberalism shouldn't be joined at the hip. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 61 Responses