It's burping. Cows burp. The cow fart is the meme that get's repeated by the deniers, but it's not true. The methane comes from burps. The rumen is closer to the mouth than it is to the anus...
69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
It's burping. Cows burp. The cow fart is the meme that get's repeated by the deniers, but it's not true. The methane comes from burps. The rumen is closer to the mouth than it is to the anus...
Correct, under the great big specter of doubt. Not to mention, when a source is found to be deceitful, a judge will oft trow out the evidence he/she presented.
I'm not talking about one specific account here Ton. I'm talking about all the underhanded crap.
What else are they supposed to think, when they see what appears to be underhanded Ton?
That kind of behavior is indicative of someone hiding something. Human nature dictates mistrust at that point.
That hasn't stopped these clowns from talking about it.
Aren't we all?
There's a reason I'm so critical of the media...the perceptions of underhandedness come from somewhere, and they aren't placed in context. I bet Rex Murphy never looked into the talking points any further. If he did, he's being deceitful by pulling the quotes from context in the manner that he has. All the media were doing it at the time, and still are.
That's good to know.
On a completely unrelated note you're on the west coast right? The opposite end of the country from where I live? Just askin'. Don't want to end up in the food chain.
Sure they do. Cows do as well, but that's not where the methane is coming from. Horses have no rumen, cows do.
You and I have been down this road Ton. You put it all into context for me.
The bottom line is, what they did and what they talked about doing, was underhanded, unscientific, and IMHO, places any and all evidence they collected, in serious doubt.
I'm not a scientist Ton, I have to really on people who are.
How can I place my trust, in people that would contemplate 'rewriting the definition of peer review'?
Cliffy;1459653[B said:
Easy for you to say, Cliff as your tough old hide probably couldn't be broken down with a jack hammer. :smile:
Do you understand what context that quote comes from? What was said before it go t to that point? What events lead up to that quote?
It was a mistake, no question about it. But I've had emails at work that were obviously written while someone was still hot about something. In the end they look bad for it, but it doesn't make me question the value of their work.
How are those polar bears doing? Still 5 times as many as 40 years ago?
Plant material and soil bacteria out fart all the living creatures and automobiles on the planet.
Plant material and soil bacteria out fart all the living creatures and automobiles on the planet.
Yep...and having been raised on a farm...this is not a scientific deduction....but from the smell when cleaning the hen house, I would deduce that chicken shyte probably contains more methane than any other..
Irrelevant. Their actions were deceitful and unethical. Period.
A drunk driver spent his life devoted to charity, wipes out a whole family, is still guilty of vehicular manslaughter.
It does when the message is to mess with the process.
Of course that is only compounded by the fact that some of the IPCC reports were peer reviewed by the very author of the section.
Come on Ton, stop trying to whitewash the situation. The people involved have lost their collective minds, and ruined their reputations. Acting like unethical petulant children.
Chicken **** gets the majority of it's stink from ammonia. I don't think there is a more heinous smell than fresh waft of ammonia while digging out the coop.Yep...and having been raised on a farm...this is not a scientific deduction....but from the smell when cleaning the hen house, I would deduce that chicken shyte probably contains more methane than any other..
Isn't that just as true of any issue the media gets their hands on? Politics, history, crime. The media is trying to sell more ad time on the evening news. Mostly they just seem take the shortest route to that goal. That's a little clearer and easier to understand when you understand the basics of the topic.
And that's why is so important to have people who understand the content of the work to help those of us that don't have that basic understanding put it into context.
It brings out the skeptic in me too. Which is why most of the time I end up not really knowing just what the hell to believe anymore.
How do we know the population level 40 years ago were healthy? We don't have any reliable data for the 50's and 60's. There was growing harvest numbers before restrictions were placed, and the population rebounded from that. But it's apples and oranges to compare rebounds from over-exploiting to habitat forced losses.
It's cherry pick and non-sequitur that polar bears must be doing OK because there are more now than 40 years ago.
The North Atlantic cod stocks in Newfoundland are more abundant now than a few decades ago. Should we start fishing them again because they are doing so well?
Nope.
You got it, just writing about it, it seems I can still smell it now.....I know it's amonia...I was just screwin' around
Yep...and having been raised on a farm...this is not a scientific deduction....but from the smell when cleaning the hen house, I would deduce that chicken shyte probably contains more methane than any other..
Nitrogen. Chicken **** contains lots of nitrogen, in the form of ammonia which the birds convert into uric acid. To make methane you need something to digest, like methanogenic bacteria found in the rumen!
And if the end of the world was happening as some idiots think, the Polar Bear population, wouldn't be rebounding as well as it has.
Yes...journalists like to tell stories. Having two sides is great for their dialogues, not great for informing people about reality.
That's the non-sequitur.