A review of 12,000 papers on climate change, in the May 15 issue of "Environmental Research Letters" found that 97 percent of scientists attribute climate change to human activities. Although we're unlikely to reverse climate change, we can mitigate its effects by reducing our driving, energy use, and meat consumption. Yes, meat consumption. A 2006 U.N. report estimated that meat consumption accounts for 18 percent of man-made greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, is generated by burning forests to create animal pastures and by combustion of fossil fuels to confine, feed, transport, and slaughter animals. The much more damaging methane and nitrous oxide are discharged from digestive tracts of cattle and from animal waste cesspools, respectively. Each of us has the power to reduce the devastating effects of climate change every time we eat. Our local supermarket offers a rich variety of soy-based lunch meats, hotdogs, veggie burgers and soy and nut-based dairy products, as well as an ample selection of vegetables, fruits, grains, and nuts. Product lists, easy recipes, and transition tips are at www.livevegan.org.
Preston Daniels, Santa Cruz
My response:
First, even if you accept that "97 percent of scientists attribute
climate change to human activities". 1) science by consensus is not
science 2) the vast majority of the scientist contacted are not
climatologist. Further C02 is at it's highest level in 100,000s of
years, yet there has been no global warming in 15 years and even
counting the recent tragedy in Oklahoma City (Oklahoma City lies in the
lower half of tornado alley), tornado activity is at a 60 year low. Man
Made Global Warming (MMGW) climate scientists are at a conundrum to
explain this lack of warming and the fact that all their computer models
have been wrong (regardless of what John Kerry says); the end result is new made up theories like the warm
weather is hiding in the ocean (I'm not making this up). MMGW is simply a
government tax scheme to control the means of world production.
Further I sent the following letter;
Preston Daniels' letter on Tues, May 21 touts a 97% consensus amongst scientific papers regarding global warming caused by humans (AGW) . This study was done by a AGW zealot by the name of John Cook. This study has not only been scientifically discredited, but had become the post child for the manipulation of information. One of the primary criticisms is most of the studies Cook claimed to support AGW, were actually neutral on the subject (8,000) or rejected it entirely (the 97% was based on a ranking system, not the actual number of studies). One researcher that critiqued the study said , "Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in. This study done by John Cook and others..., found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it".
