Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Cat Fight

Should we ban the methane polluting moose and incur the wrath of PETA, or should the moose be sacrificed for the sake of the planet just because?

Norway is concerned that its national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting an estimated 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year through its belching and farting.

Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.

8 comments:

Fenris Badwulf said...

Before we rush into the decision making process, we need to have a study and a report at least two inches thick. Funding, and a reasearcher with a staff and an expense account and a car, will clear the air of the doubt.

Elaine said...

I am trying to keep track of mine, and that of my co-workers, carbon foot prints. I have this feeling that the glowtardians are working towards paying us in carbon credits to produce...well to produce nothing that causes a carbon footprint.

Now it seems they want us to keep track of our carbon fart prints.

eng, could you clarify for me if it is best to have little farts every few hours, or save it for one big fart at the end of the day? Which expels the most carbon?

I was going to buy the book by, Dr. U.R. Stupid, on calculating your carbon footprint, but I got thinking that to make the money to purchase the book would take carbon, and then the book itself, you know deforestation and all that jazz, and I decided I better not contribute to it.

To think at one time in history that farting was just considered a social faux pas, and now it will be considered a crime that will be punishable by the glowtardian warlords.

mariposa said...

Norway is concerned about moose farts!? And what do they want to do about it?

Just when I think it's impossible, the ecoborg mentality actually shrinks to a new low once again.

eng said...

It was funny watching Der Spiegel find an excuse to say "fart", just like I would when I was 8 years old. Even though the main emission, at least in cows, is from burps, not farts.

But the funniest was watching you go nuts over something in the German version of "the onion".

Where does the methane from moose come from? Do they drink crude oil, and release carbon that has collected over a million years?

No, they eat plants, which fixed the carbon within the past one year or so. So their burps and farts will be fixed back into other plants, which they or their offspring will eat next year, continuing the natural carbon cycle that has gone on for a long time.

It is only when you release millions of years worth of carbon over a couple of centuries that you overload the natural carbon sinks and cause problems.

So fart with impunity, unless you are on a petroleum diet.

mariposa said...

But if a single moose spews the same amount of C02 in one year as one car driven 13,000 kilometres...

However, you're missing the point of this research study, which makes it amusing - the Norwegian researchers are concerned about the harmful effect on the climate.

If, like you say, the moose are continuing the natural carbon cycle, then why are these idiot researchers so concerned and what do they want to do about it? Once again, ecofreaks want to control NATURE - that's why this is amusing!

I don't get people who worry about things they can't change. Like death for instance. Nobody gets out alive so why waste time fearing something that you have zero control over.

eng said...

Why are these idiot researchers so concerned and what do they want to do about it?

The article does not say that. It says "Norway" is concerned, then cites a few newspaper articles, but never backs up its assertion.

It sounds like some research was done, but the results are cherry picked. It is well known that about half the methane is from natural sources. At some point, people research these things. The report may well describe the natural carbon sinks that balance the moose. The IPCC has never claimed humans are causing more than half the observed warming.

You'd think your "sceptics" would notice that. But you're not really sceptics, just pawns.


I don't get people who worry about things they can't change.
Me neither. I question science, but I can't change it so I don't worry much about it. You, however, seem to think you can change science by shouting it down, or smirking and ridiculing it enough.

Like death for instance. Nobody gets out alive so why waste time fearing something that you have zero control over.
Well shades of Jim Morrison!
If you are over about 45 years old, you would have been dead at most places and times in human history. Science has made people live longer, and more importantly live better.

mariposa said...

Science has made people live longer, and more importantly live better.
Yes, science has, but NOT the science fiction being promoted by the doomsdayers which only terrorizes gullible people for no good reason.

eng said...

but NOT the science fiction being promoted by the doomsdayers which only terrorizes gullible people for no good reason

Oops, you're off your talking point. The doomsayers have a very good reason don't they? They are in it for the money, or power or something like that.

Who decides which is science and which is science fiction?

Usually scientists look at data, arrive at conclusions, and compare notes.

It would be great if the body of evidence grows to demonstrate that there is no global warming problem. I would be very pleased to see that. Right now, the consensus of thousands of scientists is that we do have a problem. I think it is prudent to research it further, and try to find ways to do something about it. I'd rather have spent billions, then find out things will be fine without further action, than do nothing and face a preventable disaster.

I am open minded about the science, but we need to take precautions, be watchful, and make this a priority. It's the conservative in me that says let's not just stick our heads in the sand.

You seem to be quite certain that the science is wrong, and you consider the debate closed. You are not open minded about it, and would prefer to pretend the possible problem doesn't exist. That sounds more like the radical communists back in university, totally convinced they are right, and unwilling to listen to anyone disagreeing.