Interesting information. Doubt we see much about this shoved down our throats as it would be to inconvenient:mj07:
http://www.glennbeck.com/steakoutourfuture/
http://www.glennbeck.com/steakoutourfuture/
Beef more responsible than cars for global warming??
- Thread starter UGA12
- Start date
yeah I did not figure information(not the humor) like this would get much attention. Seems people like to talk the talk, but not walk it. The funny part is it would be much easier for people to change their eating habits than buy new cars and such. Oh well I will bring this back to the top the next time one of those lovely congressmen tells me what I should be doing for the environment:jerkit:
Maybe (hopefully) people are sick of this subject.
Nobody can come close to proving it either way.
Just like religion.
Nobody can come close to proving it either way.
Just like religion.
Relax, dude. We're talking about Glenn Beck here - not a reliable scientific source by any means. In fact the guy is a partisan blowhard jackass.
He's taking the fact that cattle produce methane (as I guess every animal does?) and deciding that means that they are worse than autos. Yeah, I'm sure more beef cattle = more methane, but what is his point exactly? We already know most politicians are hypocrites.....is that all he's trying to say?
He's taking the fact that cattle produce methane (as I guess every animal does?) and deciding that means that they are worse than autos. Yeah, I'm sure more beef cattle = more methane, but what is his point exactly? We already know most politicians are hypocrites.....is that all he's trying to say?
no kosar - it's real - it's simple math. but it's probably not as extreme as the alarmists portray.
i'm certainly sick of the subject on this board. all it does is go incircles here. nobody ever convinces anyone of anything - it's just the same banter back and forth.
Actually he is only saying what the articles below do. Now I am sure that we can agree peta and the U.N. are not right-wing "partisan blowhard jackasses" Maybe some people on this board are tired of this topic but obviously Gore and his ilk dont plan on letting it go. Talk the talk then walk the walk. Just so you dont think this story came to glenn beck in a dream I will post the links below.
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2007/03/clearing_a_few.php
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment
http://goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp
spongy.... we have to start considering vegetarianism,my friend...the co2 from veggie "air bisquits" is much less toxic than say,a couple big mac "barking spiders"....:yup
Last edited:
DOCUMENTARY: The Great Global Warning Swindle..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...reat+sw indle
krc
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...reat+sw indle
krc
OK, I'm not disputing the actual facts. Those links are much more helpful than Glenn Beck's smug splashing of photios of celebrities eating and 3 vague sentences. That 10-1 energy ratio spent to raise cattle has been a long established fact. Of course, it is a sliding scale - chickens are a more efficient meat to raise for example.
I guess I'm just failing to see the point. I don't think your or Glenn Beck are vegetarians, or suggesting that we all become vegetarians, right? Quite the opposite I'd imagine We already know what a hypocrite Al Gore is - that's established and acknowledged - certainly by me anyway.
Are you saying that people in general need to be all-or-nothing? Even if someone uses less fossil fuels, all of their eforts are a waste if they don't become vegetarian? Iwould hope that's not the prevailing attitude. *IF* it's important for people to conserve, then aren't ANY efforts in that direction a good thing? ...or is it as Glenn Beck very smugly tries to put in everyone's face - that anyone making strides the right direction are completely worthless simply because they haven't made all the possible strides all at once? Like it's all just black and white, all or nothing.
