Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on July 19, 2007, 10:13:55 AM
-
So for all you Climate Warming cultists, better put your money where your mouth is. Give up eating beef!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/nbeef119.xml
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So for all you Climate Warming cultists, better put your money where your mouth is. Give up eating beef!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/nbeef119.xml
So what is worse...eating beef AND driving a car, or just eating beef?
What I dont get with you anti-environment types, is that you think this is a binary situation. You CAN do lots of small things, you dont HAVE to do everything at once.
Besides, legislation is the only way to go here, since there are so many lasz-type-guys out there. You wont laugh when we legislate against gasoline-type-cars. :cool:
-
Isn't this rag a BBC news orginization? The only thing comparable we have is the national enquirer... can't you find anything Boeing to post about today?
-
Well lets see here. The report said processing 2.2lbs of beef is = to driving 155 miles.
I only drive 8 miles to work round trip a day and the grocery store is only 3 blocks away so I don't put out much green house gas by my driving. I'll continue to make up for it by eating steak then.
I wonder when someone is going to realize that every single human being on this planet releases CO2 every time they take a breath. Don't forget all the methan people release evey time they fart.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the problem with man made global warming is man. There are too many people on this rock, and people say war is bad.:O
-
In honor of this report, I am going to have a nice rare steak for lunch and not use overdrive in the jeep.
Bigger Carbon foot print here I come!:D
-
Originally posted by VWE
Isn't this rag a BBC news orginization? The only thing comparable we have is the national enquirer... can't you find anything Boeing to post about today?
They're just reporting the findings of Akifumi Ogino from the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan. (Shrugs)
Would you prefer another source?
Here's a 1999 report, but it has SUV ranked #1 bad news for Mother Earth, and Cows #2. ;)
http://boston.earthsave.org/awareness/DrivingVsMeat.htm
-
If we gathered all the bunny huggers and dropped them into space, how much smaller would the carbon foot print be?
:t
-
Well, if we gathered all the anti-environment types instead, we would not only be rid of them, but also their cars.
-
Except for the "activists" who drive everywhere..........
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Except for the "activists" who drive everywhere..........
Yeah, all five of them. I think we can live with that.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
.....I wonder when someone is going to realize that every single human being on this planet releases CO2 every time they take a breath. Don't forget all the methan people release evey time they fart.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the problem with man made global warming is man. There are too many people on this rock, and people say war is bad.:O
Interesting how the world population has skyrocketed since the 1800's, isn't this the same timeframe they're talking about we're doing to the planet? Sounds like we should also be pushing for mandatory population limits to control global warming (or whatever the current buzzword is).
Year Population
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2000 6.1 billion
2005 6.45 billion
2006 6.5 billion
On topic, there's only so much you can do to help the climate without going back to the stone ages. Giving up beef is way over the top....that's where I draw my line.....good god am I going to have to live in a straw hut next?
-
Originally posted by Fury
Sounds like we should also be pushing for mandatory population limits to control global warming (or whatever the current buzzword is).
We're doing our part....In Iraq! :p
-
Ok that's it. Next time I see a McDonalds truck. I'm going to burn it.....errrr no, dispose of it in a ecologically friendly manner.
But I'm being silly, just like the whole global warming farce.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Ok that's it. Next time I see a McDonalds truck. I'm going to burn it.....errrr no, dispose of it in a ecologically friendly manner.
But I'm being silly, just like the whole global warming farce.
Please do! :aok
-
Originally posted by VWE
Isn't this rag a BBC news orginization? The only thing comparable we have is the national enquirer... can't you find anything Boeing to post about today?
The Telegraph is nothing to do with the BBC nor is it anything like the National Enquirer. More like the Washington Post or something.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The Telegraph is nothing to do with the BBC nor is it anything like the National Enquirer. More like the Washington Post or something.
I think VWE is thinking of The Sun.
-
So I guess it would be really bad to be eating beef while driving a car. :D
-
Sir Paul MCartney sais we should all be vegetarians for the cause, and actually he is a bit correct.
(I hate saying that as a beef farmer, but actually I belive he does have a point, - more vegetarians is better)
And from the beef that once farted, you also do ... :p
-
MMmmm..Beef
:D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Sir Paul MCartney sais we should all be vegetarians for the cause, and actually he is a bit correct.
(I hate saying that as a beef farmer, but actually I belive he does have a point, - more vegetarians is better)
And from the beef that once farted, you also do ... :p
That wouldn't be good for the environment ethier, you know how much land would need to be turned into farm land to grow enough vegetables to feed everyone on Earth. We would have to cut down a large amount of the forests, and alot of animals would lose there habitats because they would be turned into farm land. See the vegetarians don't mention this fact when they are trying to get everyone to be vegetarians.
-
Rather than bump one of the numerous old arguments about global warming climate change, I'm putting this here.
This article is a prime example (to me) of how confusing it all is.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/18/last.generation/index.html
Yes, he's got a new book and maybe it's all about sales. But in that link, an average Joe (say, me) reads what I consider to be conflicting statements from the same person about climate change. I don't know if it's the guy or if it's the way it is reported.
Yes I cherrypicked a few quotes, but these are the ones that have me confused.
On one hand, the guy appears to be saying that man is responsible for the current climate change, and we need to control it or the species may not survive.
Quote (any emphasis done by me): But it is his fear -- as the title of his new book, "The Last Generation: How Nature Will Take Her Revenge for Climate Change" (it is called "With Speed and Violence" in the U.S.), suggests -- that we still haven't fully realized the apocalyptic forces we have awoken and the reality of what is at stake if global warming continues untrammeled.
--
And quote: Now he warns, human activity in the space of less than 200 years threatens to re-awaken extreme climate change of the sort never experienced in the era of recorded history.
--
Yet in the same link, he says
Quote: "Past climate change has been more violent and extreme than we have been led to believe."
Quote: He highlights one such episode 11,000 years ago when temperatures in some parts of the Arctic warmed several degrees Celsius in the space of a decade: "Nature flicked the switch 10,000 years ago. We could be flipping the switch again."
And Quote: In the history of the planet, Pearce argues, the past 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age, in which humanity has established itself as the earth's dominant species, have been unusually benign in climatological terms. But that tranquility "looks like the exception rather than the rule."
--
So, which is it? Nature or Man? Nature has been "unusually benign" (his words). Maybe it's time for Nature again. Nature did it in the past (his own words). Who can prove Nature is not doing it now? Why does it have to be Man doing it now? And, if Nature is doing it now, as it has done in the past, who is arrogant enough to think that Man can stop it?
Confusing. Sure, I can lower my carbon footprint on the off chance it might actually do something (grain of sand on the beach), but it's the preachers that seem so convinced that Man is the culprit and are arrogant enough to think Man can control it that rub me the wrong way.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
What I dont get with you anti-environment types, is that you think this is a binary situation. You CAN do lots of small things, you dont HAVE to do everything at once.
Besides, legislation is the only way to go here, since there are so many lasz-type-guys out there. You wont laugh when we legislate against gasoline-type-cars. :cool:
With all due respect, Hortlund, you're the one being binary with your "anti-environment" label. You can dissagree with the dubious conclusion that man is causing global warming and still be very supportive of protecting the environment. With you, it appears that someone either believes man-made GW or they're out to destroy the environment. How binary is that? :huh
As far as legislation, see the second quote in my sig...
-
I'll make sure to order a really big burger at the drive through today.. :aok
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'll make sure to order a really big burger at the drive through today.. :aok
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Fury
And, if Nature is doing it now, as it has done in the past, who is arrogant enough to think that Man can stop it?
Answer: Hortlund
-
It's what's for supper!:aok
-
OH NO!!
THIS thread will SPELL THE END of the BEAN BURRITO!
THE HUMANITY!
68ROX
-
There is plenty of room for the beans, right next to the steak and tortilla on the plate. ;)
-
My Ribeye for lunch was very tasty.
Anyone who believes the planet is heating up due to man, should just go hang themselves. Its for the good of the planet after all.
-
This is very good news... the left wing "man made global warming" commies are finally getting the balls to tell us what they think we ought to do about it..
I have asked several times here but all I got was that we need to use more mercury based flouresent bulbs at home...
Now they say we have to stop eating beef...
Bet the debate gets a little more heated and the doom and gloomers have to come up with something better than the "proof" they have been pretending to have when they start shutting down meat eating... or try to..
It would be about as possible as hortlund taking my car away.
lazs
-
if we stop eating beef the steers will overrun the planet, i am trying to eliminate the beef by eating it one steak at a time. Help me here people, i can't do it all by myself.
-
If steers over run the planet, at least it will only be for a single generation.
-
I say stick with the beef. It may not be necessary but it's quite healthy in PROPER doses whereas we often as a society drive our cars too much.
If anything, buying foreign foods is more harmful than supporting the beef industry. Buy stuff from places closest to home. That way, you're not paying the guys transporting all this stuff all over the world.
-
Im all for helping out the environment. Not because of global warming Whos causes are still at best a theory.
But because its nice to have clean air to breath, the beaches and rivers around here look a hell of alot better since they stopped dumping in them and just for general overall health.
BUT!
I dont care if it causes the globe to warm up and toast like a marshmellow
I AINT GIVING UP MY BEEF
-
See Rule #4
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give up eating beef!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think so
I didnt make it to the top of the food chain to eat a carrot :aok
-
Originally posted by trax1
That wouldn't be good for the environment ethier, you know how much land would need to be turned into farm land to grow enough vegetables to feed everyone on Earth. We would have to cut down a large amount of the forests, and alot of animals would lose there habitats because they would be turned into farm land. See the vegetarians don't mention this fact when they are trying to get everyone to be vegetarians.
That's where you are disastrously wrong. You need very much less land to produce nutritionin vegetable and fruit as well as grain form than beef.
However, you are able to produce both meat and milk from land that is ill suited for growing vegetables.
But the main meat industry and the grain/hay used for the meat production is however grown on land that is perfectly useable for vegetables, - and much of the corn could be used straight for human consumption.
Normally about 5% of the calories coming from the land, deliver themselves on to the consumers plate as a steak. In the case of milk, much more though, 20% if my memory serves me.
It's true, but again, as a beef producer I hate saying it :D
-
But more than two thirds of the energy used goes towards producing and transporting cattle feed
wow...who would have thought transport creates carbon emissions...this thread has been so very informative
Tronsky
-
The car exhaust problem has been solved by an Icelandic farmboy and 3 Welshmen. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Now they say we have to stop eating beef...
Except no-one has said that.
-
Su Taylor, the press officer for the Vegetarian Society, told New Scientist: "Everybody is trying to come up with different ways to reduce carbon footprints, but one of the easiest things you can do is to euthanize a vagetarian."
That works for me
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Except no-one has said that.
Yet ;)
-
Lamb tastes better..often... ;)
-
I love how if you don't subscribe to "Man Made Global Warming" you're tagged "Anti Enviromental". Does that mean if you're "Pro Choice" you're "Anti Children"? I find it hard to believe anybody is anti-enviromental, or anti-children.
Nobody wants dirty water, dirty air, or global warming. Cheap shot Hortlund
-
How about if we just start eating our dead. That way the space we use for graveyards and cow pastures could be used for crops. That way we could get a nice balanced meal.
Next thing you know these Big Government type people will want to start taxing us on our Farts.
Think I'm going to grill a nice 20 ounce beef steak now.
-
skyrock.. sorry you feel that way. I have seen the evidence.. I have seen them reversing themselves and I will say that we will go into a cooling cycle soon enough no matter what we do as a people.
I think it is arrogant and idiotic in the extreme to think we can control the weather of the globe.
I am not anti environment. I simply feel that I am having smoke blown by the doom and gloomers and have been around long enough to recognize their style.
I find it amusing that those who are rabid acolytes of the "man made global warming" religion and who also like beef are saying that beef is too important to limit. They are unwilling to stop eating beef.
Does that make all beef eaters "anti environment"?
I use less energy than al gore. I use less than most of the euros who fly around in jets and boats just to see other countries and vacation. I am not wasteful in most things... far less than most... I am wasteful in others that I enjoy. I enjoy hot rods. My house is energy effiecient to a degree and I don't really waste a lot of energy like most. I have an electric mower for instance..
I eat beef... nothing about a theory on the climate will change that.. just like someones theory on cars won't change what I drive.
If you believe all the stuff the "scientists" are saying about our contribution or... what the weather will be in 100 years then I would put it to you that you are not only the idiot here but unable to use simple logic.... What prediction do you believe? yesterdays where the oceans will rise 3 inches in 100 years or last years where it was gonna rise 30 feet in two decades?
did you know that 98 was the peak and that 4 of 7 of the years since have all been cooler? even if you believe the stations that monitor temp that are all reading high because of urban sprawl and neglect to the care of the stations? (see surfacestations.org)
don't you feel a little stupid when they change their predictions every week?
When they can't predict next months weather or next years but they say they can tell you what will happen in decades?
Who is the moron here?
lazs
-
Uh, last time I checked they don't eat much beef in India (some) but they still have the world's largest cattle population. Sounds to me like not eating beef would be more harmful in the view of the GWA.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Uh, last time I checked they don't eat much beef in India (some) but they still have the world's largest cattle population. Sounds to me like not eating beef would be more harmful in the view of the GWA.
I say we invade India!
They have weapoons for mass consumption!
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I say we invade India!
They have weapoons for mass consumption!
:lol
We have already begun the invasion of India. Many of our jobs lead the assault. ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Sir Paul MCartney sais we should all be vegetarians for the cause, and actually he is a bit correct.
(I hate saying that as a beef farmer, but actually I belive he does have a point, - more vegetarians is better)
And from the beef that once farted, you also do ... :p
What part of the cow is the Angus anyhow? :p
-
This is all Bull!
-
heh..yeah it's bull alright, and it seems ridiculous to the point of being fuuny. But it would be unwise to dismiss it as harmless.
The US has traditionally been the biggest supplier of beef to Japan.. and its grain feed beef at that. The supposed beef with the higher carbon footprint because of the need to transport the grain to the cattle. So I don't think American beef farmers would find much to laugh about over this:
But more than two thirds of the energy used goes towards producing and transporting cattle feed, said the study, which was led by Akifumi Ogino from the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan
(the quote is straight up, I didn't dik with it this time)
That kind of claim can, and probably will build consumer resistance and ultimately maybe even lead to higher tariffs and trade barriers to beef imports (and especially grain feed beef) imported by Japan and other countries. And once the rot has set in from this type of manipulation it woud be hard to reverse. Consumers will believe they are doing their bit to save mother earth from global warming. Never mind that China is hooking up two new coal fired power stations two their grid every week. That's the BS of it.
And it's already starting to have an effect on trade. Case in point:
There is the "Food Miles" campaign that some countries are using to encourage their consumers to buy local produce and at the same time deter them from buying foreign produce because of the bigger carbon foot print made by the transportation of imported foreign produce. I know it's a big thing in Britain where it's propagated by British farmer lobby groups out of self interest...they don't want the competition. And it's making waves here amongst pissed off NZ exporters. NZ is an easy target since our exports to Britain have to be shipped 11k miles. It's nothing but bs and propaganda. Even if our produce that's sold in Britain had a larger carbon footprint inclusive of the 11k trip than the competing local produce- WHICH IT DOESN'T- it's a weasel way to try to restrict our access to what is an already highly protectionist market. British and Irish farmers have already forced one supermarket chain to replace NZ lamb with their own product because of "food miles"
-
If you really want to ride the fear train there are plenty of stations to climb aboard. Think of all the co2 released when a can of soda is opened.
-
so what if your food becomes bland and costs enough to put you in the poorhouse and there is no variety?
Isn't it enough to know that you are "doing something"
just in case?
I mean... what does it hurt to believe in man made global warming? What could it hurt?
and in the end....
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Next thing you know these Big Government type people will want to start taxing us on our Farts.
Time to bring in Sir Paul again, or at least his buddy George:
Let me tell you
How it will be.
There's one for you,
Nineteen for me,
'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
Should five percent
Appear too small,
Be thankful I don't
Take it all.
'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
If you drive a car,
I'll tax the street.
If you try to sit,
I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold,
I'll tax the heat.
If you take a walk,
I'll tax your feet.
Taxman!
'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
Don't ask me what I want it for,
(Uh-uh, Mr. Wilson.)
If you don't want to pay some more.
(Uh-uh, Mr. Heath.)
'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
And my advice to
Those who die.
(Taxman!)
Declare the pennies
On your eyes.
(Taxman!)
'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman,
And you're working for no one but me.
-
Originally posted by Excel1
heh..yeah it's bull alright, and it seems ridiculous to the point of being fuuny. But it would be unwise to dismiss it as harmless.
The US has traditionally been the biggest supplier of beef to Japan.. and its grain feed beef at that. The supposed beef with the higher carbon footprint because of the need to transport the grain to the cattle. So I don't think American beef farmers would find much to laugh about over this:
(the quote is straight up, I didn't dik with it this time)
That kind of claim can, and probably will build consumer resistance and ultimately maybe even lead to higher tariffs and trade barriers to beef imports (and especially grain feed beef) imported by Japan and other countries. And once the rot has set in from this type of manipulation it woud be hard to reverse. Consumers will believe they are doing their bit to save mother earth from global warming. Never mind that China is hooking up two new coal fired power stations two their grid every week. That's the BS of it.
And it's already starting to have an effect on trade. Case in point:
There is the "Food Miles" campaign that some countries are using to encourage their consumers to buy local produce and at the same time deter them from buying foreign produce because of the bigger carbon foot print made by the transportation of imported foreign produce. I know it's a big thing in Britain where it's propagated by British farmer lobby groups out of self interest...they don't want the competition. And it's making waves here amongst pissed off NZ exporters. NZ is an easy target since our exports to Britain have to be shipped 11k miles. It's nothing but bs and propaganda. Even if our produce that's sold in Britain had a larger carbon footprint inclusive of the 11k trip than the competing local produce- WHICH IT DOESN'T- it's a weasel way to try to restrict our access to what is an already highly protectionist market. British and Irish farmers have already forced one supermarket chain to replace NZ lamb with their own product because of "food miles"
So are you saying that this might hurt our beef exports?
to me this is good news.
Cause That means CHEAP BEEF!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So for all you Climate Warming cultists, better put your money where your mouth is. Give up eating beef!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/19/nbeef119.xml
It's a PETA scam.
:)
-
PETA is bull!
They fund terrorists.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
So are you saying that this might hurt our beef exports?
to me this is good news.
Cause That means CHEAP BEEF!
Yeah, as exported American beef is grain fed and with most of it being exported to the finicky asian markets this idea of grading beef by how "green" the product is and not by the usual standards of price and quality will likely hurt US beef exports. And even though the US can be mean and persuasive enough at times to force trade doors open that won’t be of much help if consumers have bought into the con and refuse to buy the beef.
I wouldn't be so sure that a decrease in the volume of beef that the US exports would automatically lead to a domestic over supply of beef and therefore lower supermarket prices. It may ultimately just lead to a reduction in the level of US beef production, with imported beef taking up any slack. Or maybe the increase in the amount of subsidies paid to beef farmers in order to keep production up with a corresponding reduction in the quotas for imported beef. But I don't really know. Regardless of what happens( if anything) with the way corn is rising in price US prime beef doesn't look like it's going to get cheaper any time soon.
-
I had to check the date of this thread after reading your post, Excel1. Where have you been the last few years? :)
You have to search far and wide to even find American beef in Japan any more. Australia took over the market a couple of years ago. Many Aussie producers are grain feeding their stock specifically for export.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock.. sorry you feel that way. I have seen the evidence.. I have seen them reversing themselves and I will say that we will go into a cooling cycle soon enough no matter what we do as a people.
I think it is arrogant and idiotic in the extreme to think we can control the weather of the globe.
I am not anti environment. I simply feel that I am having smoke blown by the doom and gloomers and have been around long enough to recognize their style.
I find it amusing that those who are rabid acolytes of the "man made global warming" religion and who also like beef are saying that beef is too important to limit. They are unwilling to stop eating beef.
Does that make all beef eaters "anti environment"?
I use less energy than al gore. I use less than most of the euros who fly around in jets and boats just to see other countries and vacation. I am not wasteful in most things... far less than most... I am wasteful in others that I enjoy. I enjoy hot rods. My house is energy effiecient to a degree and I don't really waste a lot of energy like most. I have an electric mower for instance..
I eat beef... nothing about a theory on the climate will change that.. just like someones theory on cars won't change what I drive.
If you believe all the stuff the "scientists" are saying about our contribution or... what the weather will be in 100 years then I would put it to you that you are not only the idiot here but unable to use simple logic.... What prediction do you believe? yesterdays where the oceans will rise 3 inches in 100 years or last years where it was gonna rise 30 feet in two decades?
did you know that 98 was the peak and that 4 of 7 of the years since have all been cooler? even if you believe the stations that monitor temp that are all reading high because of urban sprawl and neglect to the care of the stations? (see surfacestations.org)
don't you feel a little stupid when they change their predictions every week?
When they can't predict next months weather or next years but they say they can tell you what will happen in decades?
Who is the moron here?
lazs
Same goes with tension based earthquakes and volcanic eruptions Lazs. You can say it's gonna happen, and roughly when and how strong, but that's just about it.
Last big quake that hit us here was predicted to be 6+ on Richter, and to arrive within 12 days. It was 6.5 and came within 4 days. Not bad.
Now we have a volcanic forecast, - probably within 4 years. The final forecast will be a scramble warning, for 30 minutes.
Scientists base their forcasts and estimates on the data they have as well as the knowlege they have. (Some people on these boards make fun of their data gathering). This is how mankind gathered the knowledge to navigate, grow crops, tell the time, and even predict the tide with 100% accuracy!
And as for this:
"I think it is arrogant and idiotic in the extreme to think we can control the weather of the globe. "
I reply:
We can not yet control the weather of the globe, but to think we don't influence it at all is complete idiocy.
Oh, where's the "SUN STUPID" quote this time? Did you swap it out with "MORON"?
-
I know about the ban because of BSE Rolex. But it's not a permanent situation. Access for US beef in the Asian markets is being reopened. The Asians ( the Japanese and Koreans in particular) are tough nuts to trade with and know how to srcew down a good deal, so it's no real surprise they have milked the BSE thing for all it's worth but I don't have much doubt that the US will eventually get most of it's market share back. But the US is going to have to work hard as the Aussies and NZ aren’t going to roll over and easily give up the gains we made why you guys were made to go stand in a corner:)
But the premise I was working from in previous posts is that the US will again export beef in large quantities to asia before long.
Btw, NZ beef is grass fed and any trade restrictions or consumer resistance to buying grain fed beef would probably be very beneficial to us in the short term at least. But I think it's better to look at the bigger picture and the long term and for all producers to take a uniformed stance to try and combat what I see as a trend that is unjustified and a damaging threat to international trade.
-
Meat consumption in the far east is rising.
And the people are getting taller as well. (There is a connection)
As a result, more land is needing per feeding each person. They will later on buy meat, from USA and Canada as an addition to what they already buyng from Aussies and NZ.
The price will also go up, both because the law of business (demand-offer) as well as natural causes touching the law of business, - production capacity. Milk price on the market has been influenced by the same law, and the price has gone up some 30% within a year. Or more maybe?
So, better days ahead for beef farmers.
And here I will toss to you all a little fact of life.
I breed cattle on wild pastures in cool atmosphere. I also have potatoes on the dryer parts of the land.
A "production unit" of cattle consists of A cow, a calf, and the yearling, - 3 of them.
A thumb rule in this climate is to calculate about one ha (2.2 acres) for each. I's actually say that's a tad low but allright if you grow intensive, - good field and well fertilized will make that.
The production unit thereby has 3 ha. and will deliver one animal to the butcher every year, - that's going to be a bull of some 300 kg's deadweight.
(after that you have a loss of some 30% - bones etc)
On the same 3 ha. you would get some:
a) 9 tonnes of barley. or:
b) 40 tonnes of Potatoes. or:
c) 60 tonnes of carrots.
Numbers are rough, but good enough, and apply to this climate.
Then the fun starts calculating the nutrition. You need some 4 kg's of potatoes to match the kg of Barley for instance. And so and so much barley to match a kg of beef. But the difference is none the less, stunning.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
Remove the sun and there will be no weather or global warming because there will be no radiation for the atmosphere to trap. If you have no solar radiation, then you can change the atmosphere to whipped cream if you like, it wont matter. So yes, its definitively the sun.
However, if you remove the atmosphere of a planet you change how much heat the planet can trap. Similarly, if you change the composition of the atmosphere you can change how much heat it can trap. Depending on how you change it, the planet will be able to trap more or less heat.
This study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm) shows that the heat available from the sun is not corresponding with the increased heat on Earth. Or to put it in laymans terms. Its getting warmer on Earth without a corresponding increase in solar output.
Since the solar output is not increasing, and the temperature on Earth is increasing, that means that what has changed is how much heat from the sun is trapped by the Earths atmosphere and that is the cause of the increased temperature on Earth. And, like I said earlier, the amount of heat trapped is changed by the composition of the atmosphere.
Which brings us to our atmosphere. We know that the composition of the atmosphere has changed over the past years, we know that these changes mean that more heat gets captured, we know that the temperature on Earth is rising, and now we can also confirm that this is not caused by an increased solar output.
Now, there you have it lasz. There you have the explanation. Every time you say its the sun, I will post this little explanation as a reply to that post of yours. I will even include a little counter, so we can all see how many times you must read this reply before you understand it.
Counter = 1
-
Hi Excel,
I don't know enough about the Korean import market to make a comment. I don't share your opinion that the US will regain anything close to its previous market share in Japan. In other Asian countries, sure, but not in Japan. The distribution system changes and investment with (primarily) Australian producers won't change back to the US quickly. Since money is now made throughout the process, not just distribution and sales in Japan, it will take some heavy price dumping by the US to overcome that. It appears they are willing to do that, but there is still a deep consumer resistance that has to be overcome, and that's the main hurdle.
The advertising industry in Japan and the US will probably make more money than the beef producers will from the marketing money being spent to promote US beef. All the fast food chains in Japan are locked in to Australian sources, though, and no premium quality US beef is available at any supermarket. Japanese are not clamoring for US beef. I've only seen it twice and the store couldn't give it away.
There was, and is, a little diplomatic nose twisting going on with the BSE ban. The lessons being taught are do not take the market for granted, and it is not your "right" to sell into or bully a market. Distributors found it easy to work with Australian sources. Travel is easier now since buyers visiting Australia are not harassed and demeaned at immigration like they are in the US. That shouldn't be discounted. A substantial number of Australians in many industries have learned to speak Japanese and have business experience in Japan, so it was easy to get started without those barriers.
On a side note, there is still plenty of market room for you Kiwis to expand fruit exports to Japan... ;)
-
Angus, The growing demand for beef in Asia is predicted in NZ to be more of a boost for grass fed beef than grain fed. NZ has being sending an increasing and substantial amount of it's prime beef production to Korea, Taiwan and Japan for a few years now and less manufacturing beef to our biggest and traditional market, the US. The Asians are developing a taste for grass fed beef which is good for us and won't really hurt the Aussies either as they can supply both grain or grass fed beef. But like I said in my last post the Asian countries are tough to get a good deal out of, and with the US re entering the market competition among exporters will be fierce. But as you say better prices means better times for beef producers. From our perspective though the times would be even better if the trade was on a level playing field and our trading competitors were like us and didn't have the protection of those girly subsidies;)
-
Hi Rolex
Thanks for the overview on the Japanese scene.
I didn't know that Aussie beef was that entrenched in Japan. A few years ago the feeling here in NZ was that Aus and NZ should get in to the Asian market and make the most of it before the inevitable return of the US beef suppliers.
And your right about the risks of taking a market for granted. We have had some experience in that department. Up until some 35 or so years ago almost all of New Zealand's exported produce was sent to Britain. But when Britain joined the European Community in the early 1970s we lost most of that market in a short space of time which left the country virtually broke and floundering through out the 70's.
-
angus... predicting a quake is or volcano in not the same as telling us what the weather will be in a few decades based on co2. I can build an engine and predict it's hp within about 3%... does that mean I can predict the weather? What does predicting volcanoes or earthquakes have to do with weather?
More like hurricanes.. and we all know how well they do at that.
Hortlund.. interesting study... even more interesting graph.. it shows one measure of suns activity... and indicator at that.. not even real activity and... it shows a very tiny slice of time... If you look at a graph that shows hundreds of years and if you show it on a scale that is not hundredths of a degree (you couldn't on a large scale) you would see that the tiny little blip they show is just that.. a tiny little blip.
If you are saying that it can't be the sun because of the tiny little blip then how do you say it is co2 when there are huge areas where co2 is rising and temp is falling.... you can't have it both ways and... the suns activity is always leading the temp rise or fall.
I say the chart proves we are about to go into a global cooling cycle... I say the "scientists" know it and are panicked to get "something done" so that they can take credit for the sun...
In the end...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hortlund.. interesting study... even more interesting graph.. it shows one measure of suns activity... and indicator at that.. not even real activity and... it shows a very tiny slice of time... If you look at a graph that shows hundreds of years and if you show it on a scale that is not hundredths of a degree (you couldn't on a large scale) you would see that the tiny little blip they show is just that.. a tiny little blip.
[/b]
And still that tiny little blip disproves your preferred explanation model. Aint life a *****? Im not sure you understand that it does however, but thats probably something you should take up with the grade school you went to.
If you are saying that it can't be the sun because of the tiny little blip then how do you say it is co2 when there are huge areas where co2 is rising and temp is falling.... you can't have it both ways and... the suns activity is always leading the temp rise or fall.
[/b]
Now, Im not expecting you to understand the following, but I shall type it out anyway.
Among many other factors the ocean has an important control on CO2 concentrations which is why alag of a couple of hundred years is no surprise. During the change from cold glacial to warm interglacial conditions it’s not CO2 which is moving first and somehow driving primarily the system.
So, in laymans terms, CO2 does not trigger the warmings, but it contributes to them, and Greenhouse Gas forcing (thats the CO2) is the largest factor in the ultimate change.
Feel free not to understand what I just said, and just pull something out of context from my quote.
I say the chart proves we are about to go into a global cooling cycle... I say the "scientists" know it and are panicked to get "something done" so that they can take credit for the sun...
[/b]
Yeah, but you dont know what the heck you are talking about.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
Remove the sun and there will be no weather or global warming because there will be no radiation for the atmosphere to trap. If you have no solar radiation, then you can change the atmosphere to whipped cream if you like, it wont matter. So yes, its definitively the sun.
However, if you remove the atmosphere of a planet you change how much heat the planet can trap. Similarly, if you change the composition of the atmosphere you can change how much heat it can trap. Depending on how you change it, the planet will be able to trap more or less heat.
This study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm) shows that the heat available from the sun is not corresponding with the increased heat on Earth. Or to put it in laymans terms. Its getting warmer on Earth without a corresponding increase in solar output.
Since the solar output is not increasing, and the temperature on Earth is increasing, that means that what has changed is how much heat from the sun is trapped by the Earths atmosphere and that is the cause of the increased temperature on Earth. And, like I said earlier, the amount of heat trapped is changed by the composition of the atmosphere.
Which brings us to our atmosphere. We know that the composition of the atmosphere has changed over the past years, we know that these changes mean that more heat gets captured, we know that the temperature on Earth is rising, and now we can also confirm that this is not caused by an increased solar output.
Now, there you have it lasz. There you have the explanation. Every time you say its the sun, I will post this little explanation as a reply to that post of yours. I will even include a little counter, so we can all see how many times you must read this reply before you understand it.
Counter = 2
-
again hortlund... there is a tiny little blip... when co2 lags temp for eons... or when the temp goes down for decades and co2 is going up... well.. that is simply an "anomaly" huh?
You can't have it both ways... a tiny blip is less than a huge dip. solar activity leads climate change... co2 lags it. co2 is a result not a cause.
Solar activity seems to be going down.. it is a leader.. we will begin to see a lowering of temp globally.. then.. co2 will follow.. there may be hundreds of years involved since co2 is such a weak player and so laggy.
In the US we use USHCN for all of our climate change info.
It is a series of about 1200 weather stations throughout the US
Go to surfacestation.org and you will see that all of them are in pretty bad shape.. reading higher than they should in almost every case... to close to industry or cement or otherwise badly placed. We are already seeing a cooling.
It is cooler here this year than last so far. The whole US we can all feel it.
in the end tho...
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
sorry your doomsday scenario is falling apart. but then....
think about it.. what doomsday scenario has ever really played out? even a little bit? they are batting zero your "scientists" in the "end of the world game"
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus... predicting a quake is or volcano in not the same as telling us what the weather will be in a few decades based on co2. I can build an engine and predict it's hp within about 3%... does that mean I can predict the weather? What does predicting volcanoes or earthquakes have to do with weather?
In the end...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
No it isn't. Read up on it, I belive Straffo gave you a link :D
Weather, as fluid as it is is actually very hard to predict, untill it comes to the longer scale. Same to the Volcanoes and quakes.
And CO2 or methane....you can test their effects in the lab. There is no question about HOW they work in the atmosphere.
It's not just the sun. (I'm skipping the stupid word because I am trying to improve my ways)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
again hortlund... there is a tiny little blip... when co2 lags temp for eons... or when the temp goes down for decades and co2 is going up... well.. that is simply an "anomaly" huh?
You can't have it both ways... a tiny blip is less than a huge dip. solar activity leads climate change... co2 lags it. co2 is a result not a cause.
No, actually I just explained to you why there is a lag. Apparently you didnt read that part...or perhaps you merely didnt understand it?
Solar activity seems to be going down.. it is a leader.. we will begin to see a lowering of temp globally.. then.. co2 will follow.. there may be hundreds of years involved since co2 is such a weak player and so laggy.
LOL I find it amusing to no end to see you make statements as if you knew the first thing about what you're talking. Its like watching a 10 yrold kid from Idaho who has never left his hometown trying to tell a retired sailor about the best way to get laid in Bangkok.
In the US we use USHCN for all of our climate change info.
It is a series of about 1200 weather stations throughout the US
Go to surfacestation.org and you will see that all of them are in pretty bad shape.. reading higher than they should in almost every case... to close to industry or cement or otherwise badly placed. We are already seeing a cooling.
Heh, I find it funny when the anti-environment types reach for this argument. Because its excellent proof that they dont know **** all about what they are talking. My guess is that old lasz here is just pulling talking points from some retarded anti-environment site somewhere on the web.
See there is another direct measurement record that can tell us things about temperature over the last 500 years, and that is borehole measurements. Basically, this involves drilling a deep hole and measuring the temperature at various depths. This gives us information about century scale temperature trends as warmer or cooler pulses from surface changes propogate down through the earth's crust. This way of inferring surface temperatures smooths out short term or yearly flucuations so we can not know anything about individual years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
Remove the sun and there will be no weather or global warming because there will be no radiation for the atmosphere to trap. If you have no solar radiation, then you can change the atmosphere to whipped cream if you like, it wont matter. So yes, its definitively the sun.
However, if you remove the atmosphere of a planet you change how much heat the planet can trap. Similarly, if you change the composition of the atmosphere you can change how much heat it can trap. Depending on how you change it, the planet will be able to trap more or less heat.
This study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm) shows that the heat available from the sun is not corresponding with the increased heat on Earth. Or to put it in laymans terms. Its getting warmer on Earth without a corresponding increase in solar output.
Since the solar output is not increasing, and the temperature on Earth is increasing, that means that what has changed is how much heat from the sun is trapped by the Earths atmosphere and that is the cause of the increased temperature on Earth. And, like I said earlier, the amount of heat trapped is changed by the composition of the atmosphere.
Which brings us to our atmosphere. We know that the composition of the atmosphere has changed over the past years, we know that these changes mean that more heat gets captured, we know that the temperature on Earth is rising, and now we can also confirm that this is not caused by an increased solar output.
Now, there you have it lasz. There you have the explanation. Every time you say its the sun, I will post this little explanation as a reply to that post of yours. I will even include a little counter, so we can all see how many times you must read this reply before you understand it.
Counter = 3
-
Hehe.
The counter is going to tick and tick....
As for this:
"LOL I find it amusing to no end to see you make statements as if you knew the first thing about what you're talking. Its like watching a 10 yrold kid from Idaho who has never left his hometown trying to tell a retired sailor about the best way to get laid in Bangkok. "
Hehe. I am saving this little gem :D
-
ah... so you have nothing then hortlund? I tell you that a more representitive graph... one that shows solar activity for hundreds of years and temp change shows that solar activity always leads temp change.. I point out that co2 always lags temp change and the now they are claiming that it is leading and you simply say... of course... but it is different now.
I point out that the data being used is from stations that are wrong... I point out that the temp has risen and fallen much more in over the span of the planet and that solar activity always led the way..
You point to one tiny study hastily thrown together to counter the very real arguement that...
ITS THE SUN STUPID
face it... you are in a panic cause your religion is about to collapse... it is gonna get cooler you want to cash in on it by saying that you and your scientists and socialists and big government "did something"... you can do nothing and... face it.. people are smarter than you guys think... they won't suffer over your unfounded theories.
Angus... be honest... if the temp rises and falls 1 whole degree every 100 years or so and you know these clowns can't even predict next years weather..
Do you really think that they are being honest when they give these 100 year predictions? Honestly... aren't you the tinniest bit uncomfortable that they change their predictions almost monthly? what happened to the 30' rise in the ocean in the next few decades? now it is maybe 3" in the next 100 years... be honest... they don't know crap and you know it.
lazs
-
Lazs: the long time swings (who's researching such as ice core drills have been critisized by ... you) are in many ways easier to predict than tomorrow.
Kind of like the waves vs the tide. You can foresay the tide, but not how big the waves will be.
BTW, I just read a very interesting article about the climate in ancient times. Turns out that a greenhouse gas disaster is not a new thing, - happened like 4 times before, just not so recently. In all cases it almost wiped out life on the planet, but luckily it never went into the vicious circle that Venus caught.
Bottom line: Mankind does have an impact on the climate, and if it's the sun (stupid...ehh) on top of it, that's even worse.
:(
-
angus... I believe that man has an effect on climate. If natural factors are not too prevelant.. then we can probly affect the climate by 1-3% at most... if we are in a time of very heavy solar activity or volcano activity tho say... we have almost no effect.
The point is that when we were in a cooling trend from the 40's to the late 70's.. the scientists predicted a "man made" ice age for thirty years in the future... they did not take into account solar activity and we ended up getting hotter. They really can't predict long range because nature always gets in the way of their "man made" model... If you were to use co2 as a predictor at any time in history you would have been able to predict nothing... no long range forcast would have been accurate.
but now... based only on co2 they are predicting all sorts of things all the way into 100 years from now... And... you seem to be buying it.
You bought it when they said the oceans would rise 30' and still buy it when they say 3"... you buy it when they predict 5 degrees warmer in 100 years and you buy it when they drop back to 1 degree.
You admit that the rate of change is within historical limits but still claim it is man doing the lions share. No time in any recent history has their been more solar activity.
and yet.. no matter how much they change their minds or their predictions you refuse to even show any doubt.
lazs
-
Lazs:
"The point is that when we were in a cooling trend from the 40's to the late 70's.. the scientists predicted a "man made" ice age for thirty years in the future"
Our scientists predicted warming due to emissions. And turned out right.
(that was the early 1980's, and since we had some cool years the prediction was met with a grin)
-
Oh, when the globe flushed itself:
443 million years ago. uncertain cause. 60% of ocean species extinct.
374 million years ago. Possibly due to meteor and/or greenhouse effect.
251 million years ago. Greenhouse effect. 90% of land species extinct.
200 million years ago. Eruptions->Greenhouse effect. (sulphur related).
65 million years ago. Earth activity and/or meteor(s).
Are we going to do the next one?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ah... so you have nothing then hortlund? I tell you that a more representitive graph... one that shows solar activity for hundreds of years and temp change shows that solar activity always leads temp change.. I point out that co2 always lags temp change and the now they are claiming that it is leading and you simply say... of course... but it is different now.
[/b]
Actually I have all the science on my side. What you have on your side is your inability to understand the science.
No one has ever said that CO2 triggers the warmings, but everyone agrees that it contributes to them, and that greenhouse gas forcing is the largest factor in the ultimate change.
Which brings us to the sun yet again. A 2006 study (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml) determined that there has been no net increase in solar brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming.
So, we can conclusively prove that the sun is not the driver behind global warming.
I point out that the data being used is from stations that are wrong... I point out that the temp has risen and fallen much more in over the span of the planet and that solar activity always led the way..
You claim that the data being used from the stations in the US are wrong. To that I replied by giving you borehole data, which is not wrong. Your reply to that is to say "so you have nothing then Hortlund?" Your reply tells me you are completely unable to understand what we are talking about.
You point to one tiny study hastily thrown together to counter the very real arguement that...
Well, see, here is where you have to accept the pesky fact that the "one tiny study" effectively sinks the entire "its the sun"-theory. In some cases, with some theories, all you need is ONE observation that disproves the theory to have the entire theory falsified. Im sure you dont understand this, but still there you have it. To further your knowledge on this part I sugges you read a book by a guy named Popper.
Besides, the two links in this post are both to solar studies, and both show that the sun is not responsible for the global warming. Sucks to be you eh?
ITS THE SUN STUPID
Remove the sun and there will be no weather or global warming because there will be no radiation for the atmosphere to trap. If you have no solar radiation, then you can change the atmosphere to whipped cream if you like, it wont matter. So yes, its definitively the sun.
However, if you remove the atmosphere of a planet you change how much heat the planet can trap. Similarly, if you change the composition of the atmosphere you can change how much heat it can trap. Depending on how you change it, the planet will be able to trap more or less heat.
This study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm) shows that the heat available from the sun is not corresponding with the increased heat on Earth. Or to put it in laymans terms. Its getting warmer on Earth without a corresponding increase in solar output.
Since the solar output is not increasing, and the temperature on Earth is increasing, that means that what has changed is how much heat from the sun is trapped by the Earths atmosphere and that is the cause of the increased temperature on Earth. And, like I said earlier, the amount of heat trapped is changed by the composition of the atmosphere.
Which brings us to our atmosphere. We know that the composition of the atmosphere has changed over the past years, we know that these changes mean that more heat gets captured, we know that the temperature on Earth is rising, and now we can also confirm that this is not caused by an increased solar output.
Now, there you have it lasz. There you have the explanation. Every time you say its the sun, I will post this little explanation as a reply to that post of yours. I will even include a little counter, so we can all see how many times you must read this reply before you understand it.
Counter = 4
face it... you are in a panic cause your religion is about to collapse... it is gonna get cooler you want to cash in on it by saying that you and your scientists and socialists and big government "did something"... you can do nothing and... face it.. people are smarter than you guys think... they won't suffer over your unfounded theories.
Im a Christian, global warming is not my religion. Actually I think you are the guy in a panic here. Because you know that if global warming is true, we must try to counter it, and by doing that, we will have to change our way of life in many many areas. But you dont want to change your way of life. So tis scares the hell out of you, and therefore you are desperately trying to pretend that global warming isnt true.
-
hortlund... if one tiny little blip in one tiny little measure of suns activity sinks the whole "the sun changes temp" theory then... what have you got?
The co2 theory is really flawed by that logic. Co2 has always followed global warming not lead it. There are also huge periods of higher c02 and lower temps.
Solar activity is at it's highest.. the entire solar system is heating up... mars is doing exactly what we are doing.. how the hell does that have anything to do with co2 which at best is a result of global warming not a cause?
the oceans are heating due to the sun.. they release co2... when the suns activity and solar wind and cloud cover all come together to cool the planet... guess what?
The oceans will cool... they will absorb more co2.
In the mean time.. enjoy the weather (much better than freezing) and the increased crop yeald caused by more co2 in the air.
lazs
-
Well, like I said before, if we are ourselves increasing co2 as well as the sun adding up on it, we are in trouble.
-
angus... that is not such an insane position to take...
The problem is that most of the more sane scientists agree that we are maybe adding 1-3% to the increase. We won't add anything at all to the normal decrease that will happen soon enough.
I think that all the hysteria is just going to cause a lot of problems.. I think the dishonesty and deception is so rooted that no real solutions or causes can be looked at anymore. It is simply not allowed.
I think more harm that good is being done and will be done if we allow it, by the doomsday alarmists with their "do something now" cry.
It matters not to these folks how many sink into starvation or poverty to get their way... how many die from ill thought out bans on things like DDT or how much or our water is poisoned by them telling us that MTBE is too important to do real research on... "we need to add MTBE right now to avert the disaster!!!!!"
lazs
-
I think that many politicians are using this as a distraction, and don't know squat about what they're talking about.
But there are also some that have looked into it, and get shocked.
So, hopefully there is a point somewhere between ignoring as well as being ignorant, and hysterical.