For Rinse... we won't need to eat the bugs... (Page 2/3)
rinselberg OCT 24, 03:00 AM

quote
Originally posted by Wichita:

Contrary to the anti-science rhetoric of leftists blaming all the methane release causing Climate Change comes from cattle burps and farts, the following from sources:

"The world's wetlands contribute about three-quarters (75%) of the enduring natural sources of methane. The rest are from near-surface hydrocarbon and clathrate hydrate deposits, volcanic releases, wildfires, and termite emissions account for much of the remainder. Contributions from the surviving wild populations of ruminant mammals are vastly overwhelmed by those of cattle, humans, and other livestock animals."


That's a scientific understanding of it. The only hiccup here is that it is not possible to understand what Wichita means by "leftists," since he constantly throws the word "leftist" around without making it clear who he's actually trying to reference. Many of these scientists who know about methane could well be "leftists," in Wichita's eyes, if or when he wants them to be leftists.

Who are the leftists who are actually blaming all methane releases on methane that is released directly from the digestive systems of cattle?

There's enough methane being released directly from the digestive systems of cattle to make it worthwhile, from a Climate Mitigation perspective, to look for cost-effective ways to curb it, even though it is only a fraction of the total methane that is going into the atmosphere from all the other sources of it. Or so it would seem, given the scientific interest in finding ways to curb the methane that is released directly from the digestive systems of cattle.
olejoedad OCT 24, 07:21 AM
The real question is this....

Which gas, methane or carbon dioxide, has a greater impact as a greenhouse gas?
82-T/A [At Work] OCT 24, 07:38 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

That's a scientific understanding of it. The only hiccup here is that it is not possible to understand what Wichita means by "leftists," since he constantly throws the word "leftist" around without making it clear who he's actually trying to reference. Many of these scientists who know about methane could well be "leftists," in Wichita's eyes, if or when he wants them to be leftists.

Who are the leftists who are actually blaming all methane releases on methane that is released directly from the digestive systems of cattle?

There's enough methane being released directly from the digestive systems of cattle to make it worthwhile, from a Climate Mitigation perspective, to look for cost-effective ways to curb it, even though it is only a fraction of the total methane that is going into the atmosphere from all the other sources of it. Or so it would seem, given the scientific interest in finding ways to curb the methane that is released directly from the digestive systems of cattle.




Dude, I made a post to share with you a paper that I read that shows we can capture carbon and use it for food while saving the environment, and you're focusing on the term leftist again. Bro...
cliffw OCT 24, 09:12 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
The only hiccup here is that it is not possible to understand what Wichita means by "leftists," since he constantly throws the word "leftist" around without making it clear who he's actually trying to reference. Many of these scientists who know about methane could well be "leftists," in Wichita's eyes, if or when he wants them to be leftists.



Not possible ? Not possible to understand what Wichita means by "leftist ? Don't play stupid. You know exactly what he means.

rinselberg, I have questioned your critical thinking skills. Now I question your thinking skills.


quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Who are the leftists who are actually blaming all methane releases on methane that is released directly from the digestive systems of cattle?



Every damb single leftoid who blame all methane releases on methane that is released directly from the digestive systems of cattle?


quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
There's enough methane being released directly from the digestive systems of cattle to make it worthwhile, from a Climate Mitigation perspective, to look for cost-effective ways to curb it, even though it is only a fraction of the total methane that is going into the atmosphere from all the other sources of it. Or so it would seem, given the scientific interest in finding ways to curb the methane that is released directly from the digestive systems of cattle.



My Wife wants to know if you can remove only a fraction of the dust in our home.
williegoat OCT 24, 10:59 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

Dude, I made a post to share with you a paper that I read that shows we can capture carbon and use it for food while saving the environment, and you're focusing on the term leftist again. Bro...


It is a sure sign that they have nothing of value to contribute. They have conceded defeat.
rinselberg OCT 24, 11:07 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Every [damn] single leftoid who blames all methane releases on methane that is released directly from the digestive systems of cattle?


Can you show me any? Has Greta Thunberg ever said that ALL methane emissions are methane that is released directly from the digestive systems of cattle.?

Having an interest in reducing methane from the digestive systems of cattle is not the same as saying that ALL methane emissions are from cattle. There are scientists who are working this idea. Scientists that are affiliated with Texas A&M or similar institutions. Are these scientists guilty of "anti-science leftist rhetoric" about methane emissions?

To take Wichita's remarks at face value, they could well be!

There could be some "bottom feeders" on social media and the like, that are saying that ALL methane emissions from cattle. Why didn't Wichita post any of their tweets, or bleats, or whatever he sees when he encounters this attitude?

The reason is that Wichita wants to conjure up the idea of some large group of people who say that ALL methane emissions are from cattle.

Why does he want to do this?

Because then he can indulge this fantasy that he harbors, about a "Wichita" that is intellectually superior to a large swathe of "anti-science leftists," which he conjures up out of whole cloth (so to speak.)

People who have been following his posts—and you know I've been following his posts—know the pattern. The last few pages of the "Carbon Dioxide Hysteria" thread which is currently active are sprinkled with evidence that I've highlighted, of just how out of his depth Wichita actually is on this topic.

Don't be taken in by this chintzy "confidence game." Wichita's theatrics have nothing to do with any science-related issues. It's all about "the Left."

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-24-2023).]

williegoat OCT 24, 11:40 AM
Sometimes, Google Ads crack me up:
82-T/A [At Work] OCT 24, 12:15 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

It is a sure sign that they have nothing of value to contribute. They have conceded defeat.




I guess he assumed my intent in the original post was non-genuine.
olejoedad OCT 24, 12:16 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

The real question is this....

Which gas, methane or carbon dioxide, has a greater impact as a greenhouse gas?



No one here has any of thoughts on this?
rinselberg OCT 24, 12:24 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
No one here has any of thoughts on this?


"Overview of Greenhouse Gases"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemis...iew-greenhouse-gases

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. "


quote
In 2021, methane (CH4) accounted for 12% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Human activities emitting methane include leaks from natural gas systems and the raising of livestock. Methane is also emitted by natural sources such as termites. In addition, natural processes in soil and chemical reactions in the atmosphere help remove CH4 from the atmosphere. Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 is 28 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.