Tuesday, July 22, 2014
What's New in the New West
Home » Environment » Global Warming, Western Ranching, and the Bovine Curtain
Just like the old Iron Curtain that squelched any critical discussion of Communism’s failures, we in the West live behind a “Bovine Curtain.” The Bovine Curtain is—like the Iron Curtain—operated by the state, using taxpayer dollars to continuously broadcast propaganda about the virtues of ranching in the West and suppressing any negative or critical information. The mantra “cows are good” is repeated so often that it has attained cult status, even among many conservation groups—who should know better. Eating meat (domestic livestock), particularly beef, has one of the biggest environmental impacts on the planet. In many ways making a change from a livestock based diet to plants (or wild game) is one of the easiest things that most of us can modify in our personal behavior to lessen our collective burden upon the planet. Producing one calorie of animal protein requires more than 10 times as much fossil fuel input—releasing more than 10 times as much carbon dioxide—than does a calorie of plant protein.

Global Warming, Western Ranching, and the Bovine Curtain

Just like the old Iron Curtain that squelched any critical discussion of Communism’s failures, we in the West live behind a “Bovine Curtain.” The Bovine Curtain is—like the Iron Curtain—operated by the state, using taxpayer dollars to continuously broadcast propaganda about the virtues of ranching in the West and suppressing any negative or critical information. The mantra “cows are good” is repeated so often that it has attained cult status, even among many conservation groups—who should know better.

Eating meat (domestic livestock), particularly beef, has one of the biggest environmental impacts on the planet. In many ways making a change from a livestock based diet to plants (or wild game) is one of the easiest things that most of us can modify in our personal behavior to lessen our collective burden upon the planet. Producing one calorie of animal protein requires more than 10 times as much fossil fuel input—releasing more than 10 times as much carbon dioxide—than does a calorie of plant protein.

In the summer 2007 report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, UN researchers concluded that livestock production is one of the … most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” According to the UN, livestock contributes to “problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.” But few environmental groups mention this report or its findings, particularly if they are located in the cowboy West behind the Bovine Curtain. They would have to admit that the findings conclusions apply equally as well to the western U.S.

In particular the report singled out livestock production as a major contributor to global warming emissions, yet even Al Gore ignored livestock’s role in global warming during his Live Earth Concert. I don’t want to denigrate Gore’s efforts for he has brought much needed attention to global climate change. Nevertheless, while it’s well and good to ask people to screw in florescent light bulbs to reduce energy demands, the single biggest change that anyone could do to immediately reduce their contribution to greenhouse gases is to eat less meat.

Eating less meat has a surprisingly big bang for effort. Ranch and farm raised livestock produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane annually. These two gases account for 90 percent of US greenhouse emissions. For instance, all the trucks, SUVs, cars, airplanes, trains and other transportation combined accounts for 13 percent of global warming emissions, while livestock production is responsible for an astounding 18 percent of all US greenhouse gases.

Not only are there the carbon dioxide emissions from livestock production, but livestock, particularly cattle, are responsible for the majority of emissions of several other greenhouse causing gases. According to the U.N., animal agriculture is responsible for an whopping 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions. Bear in mind that nitrous oxide is about 300 times more effective as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide.

Methane is another gas produced by livestock. Methane traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide. The EPA reports that livestock production is the single greatest source of methane emissions in the US.

But when you live behind the Bovine Curtain most people are afraid to speak the truth or have internalized group think so completely that it does not even occur to people to ponder livestock’s central role in a host of environmental and health problems. Given their role as obsequious hand maidens to the livestock industry, it’s not surprising that federal and state governments hide the connection between meat production and global warming. But it’s totally unacceptable for environmental organizations to ignore this inconvenient truth.

For instance I recently checked the Sierra Club’s global climate change web site. They list ten things one can do to reduce global warming, from driving a more energy efficient auto to supporting renewable energy sources—but eating less meat is not one of them. It’s hard to believe that the Sierra Club is not aware of the UN report or other recent research linking livestock production with global warming, but one must assume that saying anything about livestock production is off limits when you live behind the Bovine Curtain. Worse yet, some Sierra Club chapters even promote ranching, despite the obvious impacts on global climate. A recent article the Sierra Club’s California/Nevada desert newsletter extolled the virtues of livestock grazing in the Great Basin—a region that is likely to suffer greatly from global climate change.

Similarly I reviewed National Parks and Conservation Association’s new report, “Unnatural Disaster,” which describes the multiple ways that global warming will impact our national parks. The report suggests a host of solutions that range from more efficient energy use to adoption of renewable energy, but I could not locate any mention of eating less meat in the 48 page report. And the Wilderness Society, while advising members to support carbon sequestration, mileage efficiency for vehicles, and other common remedies, did not mention of the role of livestock production and a meat diet in contributing to global warming.

Given that these national groups do not appear to see or more likely wish to avoid talking about a connection between diet and environmental issues, it’s not surprising that many regional or local environmental groups seldom mention livestock production as a global warming issue. They may express great concern about the decline of whitebark pine or large wildfires due to higher global temperatures, but they don’t go the next step to tie these issues to ranching and livestock production. Try to raise any linkage to ranching and livestock and the Bovine Curtain slams down. In the West, we don’t talk about cows except to laud the ranchers for being “good stewards of the land” or some other fawning palaver.

Global warming is only one reason to end livestock production, particularly western ranching. Production of livestock is the single greatest source of non-point pollution in the West. Livestock are among the prime reasons for the spread of invasive plants like cheatgrass. Producing hay and other irrigated forage for livestock is the reason our rivers are dewatered each summer. Livestock are the reason bison and wolves are killed outside of national parks. Livestock spread disease to wildlife. Livestock are the reason native wildlife like prairie dogs are being slaughtered. The list goes on, but few groups are willing to even list these impacts, much less tackle the source of the problem—cows.

The obvious omission of diet preferences among the proposed solutions to global warming is particularly noteworthy, especially when it involves no new technologies, no major policy changes in government, and no significant investment in new infrastructure. Eating less meat won’t cure global warming, but it’s the easiest and more cost effective mechanism available to ordinary citizens to start us on a new pathway towards global sustainability.

If you can’t afford a Prius, you can afford to eat less meat. Even if you can’t switch to solar energy, you can switch to a reduced meat diet. While most of us can’t design a wind mill, we can design a better diet. Eating less meat is not only good for the planet’s health, it‘s good for your health. It’s time for all of us to begin to view eating and our choice of diet as more than a culinary decision, but as an environmental act.

About George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner has published 36 books, including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy

Comments

  1. C. Scott says:

    Craig,

    I disagree. George’s arguments, among others, against public lands welfare ranching have been both eye opening and deeply persuasive. I’ve proudly been beef free for over 5 years and counting after I realized that I really do not want to reward the drainers of my rivers and the degraders of my range and wildlife. Now its time to take a long hard look at the corporate pork and chicken conglomerates that degrade rivers, landscapes and ultimately the earth. The bovine curtain is real and very well connected.

    Keep up the great work George.

  2. ktmesa says:

    Great article, George. Livestock are destroying the West, and the federal agencies (BLM and Forest Service) are turning a blind eye. Bring up climate change to them, and they stare blankly … like cows could not possibly have anything to do with it.

  3. Marion says:

    Sorry, Jill, I can’t resist.
    Let me get this straight, a few million head of cattle in half a dozen states in the United States of american are causing global warming, which in turn caused the hurricane in New orleans, is that what you guys believe? Not millions of people driving cars in NY and California, just cows, not millions of huge RVs and SUVs coming to the west from the east, just cows.
    Can you really believe that getting rid of the ranchers and turning that land into mega homes for the rich is going to have a positive effect on the world? and believe me when I say thsoe ranchers are not going to jsut give their ranches to enviros becaue they are such nice guys, they are going to recoup every dime they can out of a lifetime investment.
    I just read that a blue whale eats 4-6 tons of krill per day, what do you think they are doing to the environment?
    Why is it that anything that is a benefit to mankind is supposed to be bad to environmentalists?
    By the way we reached 47 degrees today for a high.

  4. C. Scott says:

    I would hardly call less than 3% of Americas beef production at the expense of nearly every other living thing on our range and in our rivers a “benefit to mankind”. A benefit to a small fraction of the residents (ranchers) sure.

    According to George “livestock production is responsible for an astounding 18 percent of all US greenhouse gases.”

    The above fact is something that cannot be ignored.

    No one said cows are causing global warming just contributing greatly to it.

    http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm

  5. rusl says:

    As you don’t want to denigrate AL I don’t want to denigrate this signifigant article. But I do need to take issue with the numbers as one can just let them stand. Transportation issues can only be as small as 13% if you don’t count input productions: steel, rubber, asphalt, aluminum, plastic…(to name just a few and ignore other outputs) And I’ll bet you are using a more broad measure of food input/output in order to get than 18%. In other words, the reason the numbers defy common sensibility is that they are not really comparable.

    That said, the point made here is essential and the transportation issues don’t detract from it. We should eat less meat. We dn’t even have to be purist about it – the idea is LESS not NONE. If we were to reduce the amount it would drive producers to more sustainable practices like organic and bio-dynamic methods. It’s a really big issue and it is easier in many ways to eat less meat than it is to continue using it as an unlimited staple. Meat costs a lot. As do gas and cars. Riding a bike, taking the bus and walking will all save you money. Don’t buy a hybrid, the benefits of these greenwashed products are myths – more energy goes into production of them, electricity is NOT a clean fuel (overall). Hybrids are only a good idea where new cars are going to be purchased anyway. But if you are not cutting down on driving – or are using the hybrid as an excuse to use the car – then the hybrid is worse for the environment than re-using (or continuing to use) what is already on the road. Ride a bike and eat less meat! The obstacles are not cost or convienience or health – but education and imagination. People are told these alternatives are unfeasibe. In truth, vegetarian diets are more healthy and make you strong. Gorillas and elephants are vegetarian – both super strong active animals. Crocodiles eat meat and they are sedate. If you want to be strong and active – eat less meat!

  6. Craig Moore says:

    So, which state will be the first to outlaw the sale or consumption of animal parts and when should we expect this to occur?

    As I said before, arguing against cows is as effective as attempting to catch moonbeams with a butterfly net. McDonald’s will not be going out of business anytime soon.

  7. Marion says:

    Once they outlaw the cows & eating meat, and I suppose drinking milk since it comes from cows too, they still will need another project to control folks and will have to have their methane police checking houses to see who is eating beans to get their protein, and put a stop to that too.

  8. Craig Moore says:

    Marion, those taking swings at cows with butterfly nets have no chance of outlawing cows. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, the US had, as of July 1, 2007, a
    total of 104.8 million head of cattle. During 2006 Americans consumed 28.0 billion pounds of beef. For that same year the retail equivalent value of our beef industry was $71 billion.

    The market for moonbeam butterfly nets is vastly smaller and have no appeal at the Golden Arches.

  9. MT Wilderness Hunter says:

    “By the way we reached 47 degrees today for a high.”

    Marion: I just love how you use day by day weather variations to discount the considerable consensus that has been reached regarding global warming by the world’s top scientists and researchers. Didn’t last week you talk about having frost in your garden at the end of September as proof against global warming?

  10. Marion says:

    Yep, I isn’t the temperature in one area as important as the temp in another? You see I came of age in a day and time when folks talked about the weather, but didnt’ try to change the weather. I raised my kids during the years when time was running out before we all turned into an ice sheet. Besides you forget I live right in the heart of all of that bovine pollution, so this should be tropical right?
    The whole idea of changing the weather over the entire world is so ridiculous that I cannot imagine how anyone was sold on it even by the very best snake oil salesman. There were tens of millions of buffalo when the white man came, and I believe they were having winters even then.

  11. John says:

    Much of the global warming hysteria continues, and there continues to be this belief that CO2 is leading temperature rise. Is nobody paying attention? Al Gore lied. In his movie and the book by Laurie David and Cambria Gordon, the graph that showed the relationship between CO2 and temperature was labeled wrong, the switched the labels of temperature and CO2. Why did they do this? Probably because if the truth were known, they would have no way to cause panic enough to get the masses to agree to the drastic changes and controls they want to impose. If I had done this in high school, I would have gotten an F, instead – Al Gore lies and gets an Oscar. And, if you repeat the lie often enough, foolish people like George here write articles saying that bovines are the cause of CO2. And the nonsense continues…

    Check out

    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070204_idso.pdf

    for another view. Of course, those who have already made up their minds need not change their feelings, after all, they are right to believe, Al wouldn’t lie… Nor would people who get money to work on global warming projects, they would not lie to get more money, nah, never happens

  12. Cindy Kessler says:

    I find it hard to believe that intelligent people get their daily dose of Rush Limberger and then challenge the life work of people like Al Gore with real dumb comments–We do know where you all get your news and talking points!!!!
    The last I checked we all have a few things that we can not live without–clean air, clean water and food that we can trust is good for us to consume.
    The many recalls on items like ground beef, salad stuff and peanut butter tells any thinking person that we are in trouble on multiple fronts.
    As much as you may think that saying it isn’t so will make it go away, their are NO scientists denying the truth of Global Warming.
    Climatologist said last week–that when a piece of Greenland the size of Texas and New Mexico combined–falls into the sea–the fact that we will have a nightmare on our coasts will not be the worst affect-it will be the fact that the ocean currents will change and that will change the worlds climate.
    We are already feeling Global Warming in the torrential rains and flooding–look at Texas!!!
    I got bit by a tick which gave me Lyme Disease this year in an area of Florida that has had a sudden influx of ticks that give you bad stuff!!! I blame Global Warming for my bad spring.
    We eat beef–but only organic beef –and once you eat organic you can’t tolerate the GRAIN-FED hormone and pesticide polluted meat that is sold to us as beef.
    So part of learning to live with the world we have made will be the great opportunities for farmers and ranchers to serve up a product that is actually good for us.

  13. john says:

    Cindy, you are wrong, dead wrong and you won’t believe it. No, I got my news from the BBC actually. I don’t listen to Rush. Your problem is you did not pay attention to what I wrote. I never denied that there was climate change. Go back and re-read it since your comprehension is a bit on the low side.

    What I am saying is that the real inconvenient truth is that Al Gore lied to you and me and everyone else about why the climate is changing. He fudged the chart. He lied. You wish to believe Al Gore because you want to believe he has good intentions. Nonsense, and you won’t open your mind to see. There are a whole bunch of people who are trying to figure out how to make money off of “global warming”. Al is one of them. He made millions off a movie. They want to tax us more. And, to make this one easier to get across, they will just say it is good for the planet. Mindless lemmings will follow along and the real thinking people, the people who do actual research on both sides of a topic, will try to get you to think and you just won’t do it.

    You “blame Global Warming for your bad spring”? You know, they have ticks in lots of places to the north of you and all over the country. Get over your self importance, the climate does not change for or against you.

    Also, I have to one-up you, I raise and eat only grass-fed bison. Bison are much easier on the land, grain is bad for them and you. And I do it because I care about the environment. I don’t spray weeds, I chop and clip – better exercise and cheaper. And if I miss a few and the buffies don’t want to eat them – too bad, maybe next year.

    Here is a fact – the climate is changing.

    Here is another – The climate has been changing for millions and millions of years, long before man.

    Be a good steward of the planet, but get over the notion that a bunch of people who want to tell you how to live your life know the answers (because after all, they are smarter than you are and they know what is best for you) and keep the freedom you have by setting an example of good stewardship and encourage others to think and not just follow blindly along the fool’s way.

  14. C. Scott says:

    “Al is one of them. He made millions off a movie.” john

    Mr. Gore donated all his profits to an educational campaign to address the effects of this juggernaut.

  15. Marion says:

    I believe one reason so many folks believe so deeply in global warming is because they want to feel important. And it is pretty powerful to think we can change the climate world wide on the whole earth.
    Right now that good feeling is enhanced by the idea that they can prevent “big oil” from drilling here, there, or anywhere. they can rise up and keep coal fired electric plants from being built. They can feel a part of the demand that auto makers make more fuel efficient cars, and show their power.
    But the chickens will come home to roost, we will have oil and gas shortages, only the wealthy will be able to drive or fly their private jets around, we’ll have gas lines, and their little plastic cars that had to have as much weight as possible removed from them will be crumpling in the most minor accident. Power will go off when lines are overloaded. Unfortunately no one will realize they have caused the problems themselves. They will want insist that someone should have been producing power that was clean, cheap, didn’t hamper the view, didn’t make noise, didn’t injure a bird, etc, etc.
    It is really sad that so many are creating so many problems trying to create a utopia that only exists in their dreams, and they have been suckered in by the feeling that they are controlling everything.

  16. Cindy Kessler says:

    Hey Guys,
    Sorry that you all can’t see the truth yet–but I think you all will soon–Tonight on BBC they showed the NEW NorthWest passage through the Arctic–for those of you who watch BBC it was pretty awesome!!!Global Warming!!!
    I read several London Newspapers every AM as well as the really really scary New York Times, Boston Globe,Miami Herald, Albuquerque Journal and Denver Post online–OK–I skim them and read what catches my limited comprehension–then I try to catch BBC and The News Hour on The Dish every night–I do try to really know what is going on in this good old world of ours—
    I also love Bison and we eat it often, and we just butchered 13 chickens from our flock.
    I just go beyond my own backyard to educate myself.
    Global Warming is real and those of us who know how to survive will.
    Read your news and watch the real stuff on BBC–the London Independent is free Mon. thru Fri. and I learn what HAS happened in the US from the Independent several days before our papers carry it–We are in scary times when we hear what’s going on here in foreign news outlets’

  17. Marion says:

    Cindy, if you are truly worried about global warming have you: parked your vehicle, turned down the heat or up the air conditioner, moved into a very small house, less than 1000 sq feet, stopped recreational travel? If not you aren’t very worried. Al Gore’s continued high consumption of natural resources tells me he is not at all worried.

  18. John says:

    It truly does appear that Al Gore has promised to give his profits from the “Convenient Lie” to organizations that he controls. Gosh – I wish a better scheme for fraud could be found. Perhaps Al Gore should set up a company to control the trading of carbon credits. Oh – he did that too! Well, maybe he could get some of his buddies to offer up carbon credits for sale so he could get his buddies to make money off of the liberal elitists, who want to tell everyone how to live. Oh, he did that too. Well, I guess that has it covered. Interesting how the folks in Britain have caught onto the fraud.

    BTW, have you folks checked out the scam on the carbon credit trading in the EU? It seems that a whole bunch of countries are trading more credits than they really have. Imagine that! Gee, shouldn’t you be honest when printing fake money? Shouldn’t you make sure you sacrifice just to be honest? Gee – I wonder how soon it will be before I can take my land and get some money for my carbon credits? Seems like a gravy train to me. Fake a crisis, fake the cause, fake the solution, repeat the message over and over and over again, raise the taxes, raise the cost of doing business, raise the cost of living, raise the prices on the average man, make a fraud movie, tell more lies, repeat and repeat.

  19. Rose Mary says:

    Yes, Marion, “Al Gore’s continued high consumption of natural resources …” is the under-statement of the year. Those of you who like to worship the guy should check out his *many* mansions (none that preserve energy in ANY way) and his private jets … and/and/and … before you get too many calluses on your knees worshiping the man and paying for his many destructive toys.

    Although today I have not yet had time to do anything other than “skim” many of these comments, I was unable to find a single reference to what is right now going on in China … who is having to literally SHUT DOWN an entire city in order to get their air clean enough to host the Olympics. Are we to think if we kill all the cows this type *international* pollution around the globe will disappear?

    And where are the comments regarding all that is impacting us that originates within the entire universe, the cosmos?

    As long as many of you wish to believe everything that escapes from the armpits of gorgeous George ~ our EarthFirst! hero who hates mankind on an equal level with his long-lived hatred of cattle ~ you will be missing MUCH that is true, MUCH that is important to each and every one of us, and MUCH that is scientifically ACCURATE.

    But that IS your choice to make!!!

    Just be sure to ENJOY every minute of it … since YOU are one of his most despised animals AKA “mankind” and YOU, too, are on his hit list.

    Air fresheners will never kill
    The stench of ink in pen he’ll fill
    Whenever it’s exposed to air
    Without intent for “right” OR “fair”.

    But that is CHOICE that YOU must make;
    A CHOICE selected for YOUR sake.
    A mind that’s closed and wanders not
    Is ripe for filling with his snot.

    I know not why New West promotes
    Or publishes, upon him dotes.
    That is a CHOICE New West has made.
    He should be buried with a spade.

    On other hand, should they forego
    Allowing him to come and show
    His ignorance for us to see
    Would that cure-all for you or me?

    A mind that’s closed and wanders not
    Would just be filled by OTHER snot!!!

    But YOU can CHOOSE to read and learn
    From other books before they burn.

    … or so it seems to me …

  20. jerry says:

    And the question for the day is………
    Whose payroll are Marion and Rose Mary(probably the same person)on?????

  21. Rose Mary says:

    I don’t know where in this nation or some other nation you might live, “jerry” … but isn’t it awfully early in the day to be tippin’ that jug of moonshine?

    What kind of brew
    Appeals to you?
    Perhaps that home-grown “corn”?

    Or does your fill
    Come from the still
    Of someplace far and foreign?

  22. C. Scott says:

    Rose Mary,

    You didn’t answer the question. The current administration has a well documented track record of paying people to write positive things about them in the media from no child left behind to global warming. It is a fair question.

  23. Marion says:

    Ahhh, Jerry, I have never met Rose Mary, but would love to. I see so many on the left obsessed with the idea that we on the right are paid for the way we think. It makes me wonder if they think everyone is paid to think because they are or something.
    Big Al screams the “the sky is falling, the sky is falling, send me your money and I’ll fly over in my private jet and bless you and stop it”.

  24. Rose Mary says:

    You’re right, C. Scott … I guess I didn’t answer the question but perhaps Marion has shed a little light on the answer in her last posting, above ~ and that “..would love to” meet goes double for me! Marion has demonstrated repeatedly by her postings on this site that she is very well educated about the history and the issues of the West, looks far beyond her own personal interests and laces her comments always with that substance called “common sense” which is MUCH too rare in today’s world.

    Not only am I not paid by “The current administration…..”, I am also not paid, as gorgeous George always likes to feed into feeble brains, “… taxpayer dollars to continuously broadcast propaganda … “. He is quite the promoter, though, and I do take note that you nor others have EVER asked him who is paying him HOW MUCH to rant and rave with little, if any, science to back him up and a mission forevermore of eliminating BOTH cattle *&* people from the face of this earth.

    If you are a “people” that should concern you a great deal. If you think his “inches” will not stretch for MILES you have totally lost your perspective and have failed to evaluate the history of gorgeous George.

    Unlike gorgeous George, my roots are and have always been deeply planted in The West. Also unlike gorgeous George, I’ve worked a whole bunch of those 48 hour days in order to provide a FREE view of The West I love “for the public good” with NOT ONE CENT of contribution from any taxpayer EVER.

    Additionally, I provide FREE of charge TO the taxpayers both room and board for THEIR livestock, with NO reciprocal benefit from those same taxpayers for my own livestock.

    Yet, instead of any taxpayer such as yourself extending a grateful hand or a kind word to me for doing so, you have the total lack of foresight to even understand “what happens next” when I do give up the ship and turn every acre I own into a concrete jungle … at which time “the rest of you” who are charging the gates into The West will certainly have more townhouses and condominiums and single family homes on small lots where you can sit and pass judgment on each other and then will only have to worry about which coyote ate your dog ~ as recently happened in Colorado and is “a BIG issue” in one more urban neighborhood. That vantage point changes drastically when it is YOUR backyard at stake, does it not?

    So spit and whittle, if you must,
    Condemning all who own
    A ranch or livestock in The West;
    Just tear their flesh from bone.

    But when your kids or grandkids ask,
    “What happened to The West?”
    You need to have your speech prepared
    To tell the lie that’s best.

    That day will come and much too soon
    If urban dwellers buy
    The rhetoric that gorgeous George
    Dispenses, every lie.

    This Nation is not “blue” or “red”,
    It is not “left” or “right”.
    It’s future is dependent on
    Our *SEEING* what’s in sight.

    And if you fail to understand
    Those values that are here,
    The West that we all know and love
    Will crumble, disappear.

    Every CHOICE is yours to make.
    Be careful what you do.
    Be careful what you say and think.
    The West belongs to YOU.

    If YOU are prone to kill the goose
    That laid the golden egg,
    Just be prepared for gorgeous George
    To laugh and p*ss YOUR leg.

    … or so it seems to me …

  25. Drover says:

    I hope that these good resources on reasoning and critical thinking can help ALL of us improve our ability to have productive dialogue. I’m sure everyone will pore over these and reflect on the validity of their own arguments.

  26. Rose Mary says:

    Although no one ~ including “..Marion and her pals ..” who you wish to bash with your comments here ~ has ever said that “.. Al Gore can’t tell us anything about climate change ..” and you have been rather selective in the portions of the websites you’ve quoted here, Drover, I would agree that many of your points are valid … as far as they go.

    Addressing “the rest of the story” was apparently not your intent.

    One can not make the assumption that anything Al Gore has published or promoted is either (1) dependent upon his own contribution to The Cause; or, (2) the entirety of the subject of Global Warming, either pro or con.

    Of greater importance ~ on this particular page ~ is the fact that in spite of gorgeous George’s choice of the words “Global Warming” as the first two words in the title of his ramblings this article is FIRST & FOREMOST about ridding The West of cattle and ranching. He’s been working on that goal for a great many years before he even thought to mention Global Warming in any regard.

    In spite of himself, he acknowledges that “…even Al Gore ignored livestock’s role in global warming …”.

    That could, of course, create quite a quandary for anyone who wants to worship BOTH gorgeous George AND Al Gore.

    So this particular article and discussion is not reeeaaallllly about Al Gore whether or not one might believe his personal behavior is hypocritical.

    However, if it is Al Gore’s intent and desire to teach and/or to influence the thoughts and beliefs or actions of other people, one might presume offering up a GOOD EXAMPLE sure wouldn’t hurt his cause.

    “Do as I say ~ not as I do” carries a lot less impact me-thinks … although it certainly does not seem to have clouded either his fame or fortune.

  27. Marion says:

    Methinks Georges Bovine curtain is actually Bovine excrement and he is afraid he will step in it.

  28. John says:

    Yo – Drover – the hypocrisy fallacy is not really part of this argument as most of what was written argues that Al Gore lied about what is happening with climate change and that they (Al and pals) keep telling the lies. Throwing in the hypocrisy fallacy is another form of irrelevant argument, meant to distract from the truth, an unwillingness perhaps to face the truth.

    However, I guess I will take the bait. Al Gore’s hypocrisy is important and the argument is not a hypocrisy fallacy. Why? Simply because the argument presented by Al is that (1) it is the moral obligation of humanity to “do something” and (2) here are the changes _WE_ urgently need to make to “do something” and (3) if _WE_ don’t “do something” right now, _WE_ will have big consequences. Al is part of the _WE_. He is telling the rest of the _WE_ what the problem is, how to solve it, and what the penalty is. It is framed as a moral imperative. Those of us that disagree with Al’s moral leadership are not saying that Al is wrong because he does not practice what he preaches, but rather we point out that his is a bad moral leader because he does not practice what he preaches and the conclusion is that Al can not be trusted to be a moral leader. Now, if he can not be trusted as a moral leader, that means we should not accept as fact things that are not backed up by research.

  29. Cindy Kessler says:

    Where do you all get your so called FACTS????Al Gore is a rich man and has the American right to live as one—his home in Tennessee is big BUT he has bought at considerable cost energy from wind and solar sources. He could be flying all over the world on private jets but chooses to fly on commercial airlines–you all deny getting your talking points from the radical radio jocks who lead you all around by nose rings.
    The UK judge who denigrated “An Inconvenient Truth” did not site where he got the info used in making his decision–because it was HIS view on this issue–so by all means–use the ONLY source that you “Ditto Heads” have hand fed to you as a piece of TRUTH????
    Grow up boys—read and study before you start foaming at the mouth.
    FYI—Al Gore won the Nobel—Now you need to figure what illiterate source to use to prove your misguided TRUTH!!!

  30. John says:

    Cindy, we get our facts from the scientists. Since you have obviously not been paying attention, lets review the case from the UK.

    A truck driver in the UK filed suit against the government regarding the presentation of the film to students. This is what the judge found:

    In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

    * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
    * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
    * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
    * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
    * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
    * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
    * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
    * The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
    * The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
    * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
    * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

    The judge told the government to back up specific claims in the film and they could not present evidence that supported the claim. You will note that the court has the duty to judge whether a claim is true or false and in the above listed cases, the judge found the claim to be false because the government could not present any evidence that it was true.

    As for Al being green energy, he has since he was called on it.

    And since you brought it up, a Nobel Peace prize… what a crock. At least he is giving his money to the company he controls. Oh, you did not know that he is the founder and chairman of the board of Alliance for Climate Protection. Oh, and he is also the chairman of the investment management. I’ll bet real money he does not do the job for free. What you don’t believe me? Why not look it up yourself – it was a quick google search… http://www.climateprotect.org/board

    And Cindy, if you think a peace prize makes Al a more Noble figure, listen to the quote he gave regarding the prize:

    “I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize,” Gore said. “We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

    I stand behind all of the statements that Al is a liar because science has proven him to be one, because the court in the UK has proven him to be one. He is a LIAR. He is not a moral leader, he can not be trusted. He states in his own words that this is a moral challenge. I refuse to believe in the religion of Al, no matter how much he is anointed by the liberal wackjobs. Cindy – you are an idiot to believe what you wrote…

  31. Rose Mary says:

    Your stated so-called-”facts” regarding Al Gore are incorrect, Cindy, and I do not believe his wealth is the issue being discussed although it does allow him more latitude in every regard than most of us have. Just in case it is any of your business, I do not even have a radio in my house, the one in the ranch pickup is broken, and my car radio is constantly tuned to the public radio station where I anticipate hearing opinions that I might NOT share. That station is far more “liberal” than it is “conservative” but I have yet to notice “radical radio jocks” interviewing any of the guests. Perhaps they are? You, of course, would know?

    Nobel &/or other “awards” can often do nothing more than lead folks astray. That “nose ring” seems to be firmly implanted in your nose, Cindy. Enjoy the journey if you must. Independent thinking and evaluation is another fork in the road. Try it sometime.

    The British judge, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film’s suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Gore makes nine statements in the film that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus. Teachers, the judge concluded, could show the film but must alert students to what the judge called errors. If you would like a complete list of references and all the testimony that was presented in court for the judge to have arrived at his verdict I am sure that information is available if you would like to reinvent an inquiring mind so you could seek-to-find all that information.

    Judge Burton’s ruling said that there is “now common ground that it is not simply a science film — although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion — but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political.” Burton said Gore’s errors “arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.”

    Earlier this year, British education officials began distributing DVDs of Gore’s film to state schools as part of a package designed to educate 3 million secondary school students on climate change.
    According to the WA Post, the lawsuit was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a local school official who has two sons in state schools, in an attempt to block the education department’s program. He claimed the film was inaccurate, politically biased and “sentimental mush” and therefore unsuitable for schools.

    Dimmock, who belongs to the tiny New Party, told reporters he was “elated” at the ruling. He said guidance and context that teachers now must give along with the film means that students will not be “indoctrinated with this political spin” although he was disappointed the film wasn’t banned outright from schools.

    Obviously, it is my own personal opinion that it is a GREAT injustice to society everywhere when SCIENCE is presented with a “spin” ~ political or otherwise. All scientists do not agree on any *INTERPRETED* issue and there are MANY of them being studied world-wide on a daily basis. To date, issues regarding Global Warming have NOT reached a *scientific* consensus … as even gorgeous George has admitted in this article.

  32. Drover says:

    Rosemary – I’m not bashing Marion, I’m helping her improve her arguments. Sorry if my Al-Gore-in-a-peat-bog statement came off as hostile. People from all over the political spectrum could stand a little improvement in their critical thinking skills.

    And yes, this article and comment thread are about cows, but surely you’ve seen threads veer further off topic than this before? And I’m not the one who brought up Al Gore.

    I’m unclear on how Al Gore is really setting a BAD example. Many folks may not like him (his association with Clinton? disputing [yet conceding] the 2000 election? — I’m at a loss to name what he ever did that was so awful) and thus don’t want to listen to him.

    But, like U2′s Bono, the Pope, Bridget Bardot, and other international celebrities, Nobel Laureate Al Gore is using his fame, name recognition, and communication skills to promote a cause he believes in.

    For many folks, he is engaging and inspiring, and motivates them to act. So, flying around the country, using computers, breathing air . . . all the things he does that may contribute to climate change . . . there’s a trade-off there I would argue because he is especially talented at motivating people to act.

    Nobel Laureate Al Gore would be unlikely to accomplish what he is accomplishing had he moved into a bark shack in Tennessee and only traveled afoot, don’t you think?

    Of course, if you simply reject the notion of climate change, then none of this matters because you then believe that Al Gore is out promoting falsehoods. I’m not here to debate that premise.

    Now, John, I don’t think my pointing out the “hypocrisy fallacy” is a red herring (irrelevant argument). Logical fallacies are fair game. The hypocrisy fallacy is regarded as a case of “ad hominen,” or attacking the person instead of their argument.

    Search through the argument you laid out in your comment — Al Gore “is a bad moral leader because he does not practice what he preaches and the conclusion is that Al can not be trusted to be a moral leader.” That sure looks like an ad hominen argument to me, especially since you don’t really establish why Al Gore is a bad moral leader.

    It’s still a hypocrisy fallacy-ad hominen attack: we reject what Al Gore says about climate change because we think he sets a bad example (& I reject that argument because as I said above, it’s a trade-off for Gore to get himself around the world to promote a cause he believes in).

    If you’ve got some FACTUAL argument that refutes climate change, great. But don’t put all your eggs in the Gore-is-a-hypocrite basket, because you’re thereby committing a logical fallacy.

    Not that you will ever pay any penalty outside a philosophy seminar for committing fallacies, so don’t sweat it . . . just a good friendly donnybrook amongst concerned, literate citizens here, courtesy of Thomas Jefferson et al. =)

    Really, when you think about it, isn’t everyone on the planet spewing out CO2 in some amount? If you make a reductio ad absurdum argument, shouldn’t everyone go bury themselves alive in a peat bog if they really want to be non-hypocritical about climate change?

    Maybe we should come up with a ranking scheme to weigh the good a person is doing versus their CO2 emissions? Those whose emissions outweigh their good have to bury themselves in a peat bog?

    Of course, maybe we could just get on with the business of taking some very practical and very effective steps to turn this thing around. Ask the ski resort operators, ask the ranchers whether the climate is changing. It’s not just Nobel Laureate Al Gore who believes this stuff.

    By the way, I walk to work, I have no children, I keep the house at around 61F in the winter and don’t use air conditioning at all.

  33. Drover says:

    John – your comment came in while I was writing mine. Thank you for posting all that information. I will dig into it and — as you would support — judge for myself.

  34. Drover says:

    I really don’t want to keep taking this thread further from the cows, but this UK judgement against “An Inconvenient Truth” is fascinating.

    Check out this analysis over at the respected science journal, Nature:

    http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2007/10/nine_slaps_on_the_wrist_for_al_1.html

  35. John says:

    Drover – just read some of the comments on the Nature blog, interesting and I find it fascinating that both sides declare victory.

    As for my argument that regarding Al being a bad moral leader, it is based on using changed information to make a claim, in other words, using a lie to promote his cause. The specific item which I use to establish that Al is a bad moral leader is the relationship between CO2 and temperature. It is now established that the graph used by Al had the labels reversed and the truth is that CO2 lags temperature by 400+ years and therefore CO2 increases do not cause temperature increases. A good moral leader would not use a falsehood to prove his point. Of course, now, it seems Al wants to make it a moral and spiritual . His own words: “We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”

    This CO2/temperature relationship , by the way, is one of the points in the UK suit. It was also shown in a BBC documentary. This CO2/temperature relationship is the foundation of the argument that man is causing climate change. I don’t disagree that there is climate change and as a matter of fact, I agree there is climate change. I dispute that man is the cause. My conclusion is based on the competing theories and the scientific data to back them up. The underpinnings of the man caused global warming theory are tested and rejected scientifically (or facts are corrected). First the hockey stick graph is discredited because of fundamental statistical analysis errors. The “warmest years” are revised due to errors computing the data. The CO2/temperature graph is discovered to have been modified from the actual graph data set.

    So again, Al is a bad moral leader because he uses a falsehood as the main point to back his argument.

    As for cows, It is my opinion that mankind could probably do a much better job managing beef production. To me, if you can smell it, it is wasting inputs and the microbes are completing the job the cow didn’t do. Microbes make CO2 and Methane. So, we could probably do a better job of beef and dairy production and reduce emissions.

  36. Rose Mary says:

    Yes, I too found the blog interesting. But an “interesting blog” is NOT the equivalent of proven Science.

    You are right, John, when you say that mankind could probably do a much better job managing beef production. This is true with *everything* mankind does, is it not?

    But when you mention “… smell it …” I must assume that you are talking about the FEEDLOT portion of the beef production business which is an entirely different subject than ranching! On a ranch you purdy well have to “step in a pile of it” before that “smell” comes home to roost! ;-)

  37. Brian Ertz says:

    i have been visiting watersheds in idaho following cattle utilization on public lands this fall ~ in one unnamed tributary of Wet Creek (Bull Trout fishery) FS calls ‘Pine Creek’ in the Lost River Range, the creek was so blown out by livestock that the wreak of cow feces was everywhere. i stuck a stick into the creek to get an unscientific offhand measurement of fine sediment that had built up. 8 inches of fine sediment – and by the smell of the stick (cow feces) much of the sediment in the creek was manure.

    Wet creek was the same. walking along a system of beaver dams that had been abandoned (or beaver was trapped), the cattle manure was so prevelant as to emit an omni-present wreak along a watershed in a range many consider to be among the most scenic in the West. it is sad considering the potential for wildlife that was obviously being denuded.

    Fox Creek, Steve’s Creek, etc. in Copper Basin was the same. The smell is everywhere right along the water (that’s where the cattle congregate).

    All of these watersheds were absent their potential wildlife numbers following livestock utilization. – wildlife was no-where to be found.

    water-tables were lowering following incised streams etc. and the willows, aspen, etc. were dying. the hummocked seeps and wet meadows = desertification which certainly contributes to the heat absorption potential spiraling into more loss of habitat and lessening moist conditions which cool watersheds for wildlife.

    also, consider the fuel it takes to move livestock into these critical wildlife watersheds is woefully innefficient and contributes much to global warming emissions.

    good article George ~ thanks for it

  38. Rose Mary says:

    WOW! Are you tellin’ me that you have just as much trouble in Idaho with COWS goin’ potty as you do with your politicians?

    Now let me see if I got this right …
    You took your nose into the night
    And with a stick you found some poop,
    You swooned and fainted like a dupe?

    There weren’t NO sand in that thar creek?
    Suppose a COW just took a leak
    And zapped it up-up-up away?
    MY! ~ what a time you had that day!!!

    And ~ mercy BE! ~ do my eyes see
    Those dadgumed COWS mowed down a tree?
    In fact they stripped the forest BARE?
    What SIZE are all those COWS up there??!

    That’s sure some comment that you wrote!!!
    By-golly even got MY goat!!!
    uh … er … if I’ve got “goat” to get …
    … sure hope that COW ain’t fate it met!!!

    Now tell me while you’re on a roll …
    … how many WOLVES are on COW’s toll?
    Did you just stop to look around
    And see COW wrestle WOLF to ground?

    If so, that’s IT!!! ~ that’s all-she-wrote!!!
    I thought that WOLF would get my goat!!!
    For after all is said and done …
    … George promised me the WOLF had won!!!

    George promised me erZtwhile, you know,
    That everywhere a COW would go
    He’d send a wolf for COW to eat.
    You tellin’ me COW had THAT treat?

    But, Brian ErZt-while: THANKS SOOOOO MUCH!
    It’s obvious I’m out of touch
    With all YOU know and all YOU see!!!
    All I can say is: PARDON ME!!!

    Strange things in Idaho I’m told …
    … which I guess means a COW must hold
    Elimination of ALL kinds
    While you drill lessons in their minds?

    But PLEASE PLEASE pardon COW today!
    COW called me earlier to say
    COW’s takin’ classes as we speak …
    … from Craig re HOW to take a leak.

    “I cannot tell how the truth may be; I say the tale as it was said to me”
    — Sir Walter Scott —

  39. Marion says:

    Ahh, Brian you revealed how much you know when you mentioned the fuel to move cows. Ever seen a cattle drive? The horse power has a saddle and a cow hand on it and the cows provide the bovine power…..at least that is the way it is done in Wyoming
    Drover and Cindy, my concern with gore not doing what he says needs to be done shows he isn’t nearly as concerned as he says he is. He is a talk-a-lot, not a do-a-lot. If he truly believes the world is at a crisis, then he surely would not believe because he is rich it doesn’t apply to him. What good does it do if he expects a thousand folks to sacrifice so he doesn’t have to? He can make the greatest impact by showing how easy it is to live in a small house without a pool, and scrape by with one home, no plane, etc.
    Rush said it best (and yes I do listen to him from time to time), if one carried the idea of carbon credits forward to other things he could pay for someone else to eat less so he didn’t have to cut down but lose weight. It just does not work that way. Neither does carbon credits.

  40. Cindy Kessler says:

    I choose to live in a small 1100 sq ft house. I am retired and don’t have to do anything I don’t want to do–and I don’t impose my lifestyle choices on anyone else–some of you guys sure seem full of yourselves!!!
    I hope you are right and we don’t have Global Warming to deal with in the coming years.
    But I am convinced that it is a reality and I plan on speaking up about this REAL problem that faces us all.
    Al Gore has had the guts to go around the world and speak out about an issue that he has been studying since his college days—he is convinced that this IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE of our times.
    The misguided policies of our current administration mean zero when placed next to the reality of Global Warming’
    I am glad that you care enough to write about your views and I really hope that you learn more about this issue.
    Al Gore is not using this as a political matter–as some of you are doing–he is just trying to help us all come to the table and talk about it–and then follow your own belief based on educating yourself.
    I have followed the UK story and hope that those of you quoting it will follow up by researching each of these issues’
    Everyday new very scary things are reported about weather and related activities.
    The Northwest Passage is a real happening. This year is the first year EVER that it is a flowing river—no ice–this is real!!!So get over your silly fear of a man who is trying to save a BIT of our world for our children–Why are yo so scared of him???

  41. John says:

    Rose Mary – great post!!! Love how you wove Larry into it!!!

  42. John says:

    Cindy – the only lifestyle choice I wish to impose on you is your choice to live your life as you please. No more, no less. I am willing to defend, with whatever it will take, your right to freedom. I fear not the man Al, but the reduction in freedom that he proposes. I don’t fear climate change, I rejoice that it is happening. That Northwest Passage opening up will be a good thing for shipping, will cut out long distances which will save lots of fuel. The smart money will be buying up Canada, which will be warmer.

    Cindy, the climate is changing, the world is getting warmer, are you not listening? That is not in dispute. Sure there are those who don’t believe, but there are loonies who believe that aliens are living among us (you can read about it in the Enquirer). The UK story is not about whether there is climate change, it is about WHY there is climate change.

    You should also drop the notion that Al Gore has no motive for speaking out other than the goodness of his heart. His motive is not likely political, he stands to make much more money off of fear mongering than he can make as President. He does not have a political motive, he has a financial incentive. Remember, he did not give the money away, he gave it to an organization that he is the head of. That is a potential shell game. I can’t find out how Al is paid by this organization, nor do I have access to the financial arrangements Al has with other like entities. Kind of smells like that cow poop, you get a wiff and you just know.

  43. Drover says:

    Marion –

    [warning: more complaints from me about poor critical thinking!]

    What does Rush Limbaugh weigh these days? I hear he’s lost a lot of weight. Probably makes his back feel so much better, he doesn’t need to score prescription painkillers anymore.

    Surely he feels better than in his bad ol’ days of morbid obesity?

    Surely, then, he can get his head around the idea that no, you can’t have someone lose weight for you, anymore than you can have someone else eat for you or take a bath for you. But you CAN have someone else reduce greenhouse gas emissions for you.

    A person’s body is their own, and for the most part (let’s not get graphic about exceptions) the pleasures and pains of that well-defined collection of tissue and bone and fluids belong to that person.

    Because my body is a well-defined physical entity that primarily affects my person, then it doesn’t really directly affect others if I drink lard, don’t do yoga, and sit slumped in front of the computer all day long.

    Maybe a few folks right around me would be affected if I stopped bathing. Folks who try to have relationships with me or rely on me would be affected if I got all unhealthy and grouchy and unable to work. And if I irresponsibly then expect society to take care of me in spite of my bad choices, I affect people.

    But, for the most part, what I do to my body primarily affects me.

    It doesn’t hurt poor people in low-lying areas like Bangladesh, or former fishermen on the Aral Sea, or ski town workers in Crested Butte.

    Contrast those characteristics with what we do to the climate. The climate is something we all share, and what we individuals choose to do to that shared resource affects people far away who we’ve never met before.

    Get familiar with the concept of fungibility:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility

    Greenhouse gases — and reductions thereof — are fungible. Pounds of excess mass on my own body — for purposes of my own health and happiness — are not.

    [If we were trying to fly into the wilds of the Yukon on a small plane and had to keep total weight under a certain limit, then those pounds MIGHT be fungible, in that I could pay another member of our party to lose ten pounds instead of both of us losing five]

    I don’t know what more to tell you about emissions trading, except that you should check out the Chicago Climate Exchange:

    http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

    There’s big money changing hands. Although we live in the mad mad world where scandals like Enron have shaken our faith, I tend to believe that these trades are legitimate and independently verified.

    http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=102

    You still trust that you’re getting a gallon of gas — and not .98 of a gallon, or something watered down — when you fill up at the Conoco, don’t you? If so, then you still believe in independent verification.

    I haven’t done a google search to see if there’s an exchange market for getting people to lose weight for you . . . probably because — aside from my bush plane example — no one would ever pay for that.

  44. Marion says:

    And I never thought anyone whould pay themselves (Gore does buy the Carbon credits from himself you know) so they could pollute at will. A lot of the carbon credits go to “buy trees”; where, and how many, and who plants them?
    Like it or lump it, when that gallon of gas is used, it is gone irregardless of who burns it, when the carbon from it is kicked into the air, it is there. Asking poor people to cut back so the important rich people can use more is not cutting it. By the way that may be why Mr. Gore is getting so portly he ahs also been buying and selling calorie credits, and it doesn’t work.
    This article will give you an idea of what the third world countries living in very poor conditions think of the rich who want them to continue.

    http://rangemagazine.com/features/summer-06/su-sr-06-enemies-of-conservation.pdf

  45. Rose Mary says:

    George has stated that ” … most people are afraid to speak the truth or have internalized group think so completely that it does not even occur to people to ponder livestock’s central role in a host of environmental and health problems.”

    Therefore ~ as my GOOD deed for the day ~ I thought I’d try to help him rectify that matter so that from this day forward it WILL “… occur to people to ponder livestock’s central role …” in our daily lives.

    This list of Medical, Food, and General/Industrial categories might facilitate a grasp of the enormity of the use of animal products in our lives. It is not necessarily complete; there are some consumables which are not listed in FOOD, for example.

    But the general point of the list is simple: just because one doesn’t eat meat or dairy, doesn’t mean one should ignore the benefits of animal production on ranches throughout the West. We have injected ~ and benefited from ~ animal products from cattle, sheep, and hogs into nearly every corner of our lives.

    BEHOLD … then go thank a rancher near you:

    *** GENERAL MEDICAL & HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS ***
    antibodies (immunoglobins)
    beef insulin
    bovine collagen – used as injections to fill in scars
    bovine fibrinolysin (brand name- Elase) ointment for necrotic tissue
    bovine super oxide – dismutase cream (Orgotein) – cosmetic skin cream to prevent tissue aging.
    bovine thrombin (brand name- Thrombinar) clotting agent for blood culture medium – diagnosis fetal bovine serum – tissue cultures
    Hyaluronidase – efficient drug use
    PTH – control tetany
    pegademase – bovine derivative (brand name- Adagen) – for patients who are immuno-compromised…helps prevent white blood cells from breaking down.
    pill capsules – GELATIN
    whole serum – vaccine manufacturing
    *** PRODUCTS FROM OVARIES ***
    estrogen
    progesterone – a reproductive hormone
    *** PRODUCT FROM STOMACHS ***
    pepsin – aid in protein digestion
    rennet – aid in milk digestion
    *** PRODUCTS FROM THYROIDS ***
    bovine thyroid (Thyrar) a thyroid replacement
    TSH – thyroid diagnosis
    thyroid extract – hypothrodism
    thyroid hormones
    myxedema
    cretinism
    *** PRODUCTS FROM ADRENALS ***
    cortisone – for arthritis, skin allergies, anti-inflammatory medicine
    epinephrine – aid in raising blood pressure, heart disorders, and allergies
    *** PRODUCTS FROM LIVERS ***
    heparin – anti-coagulant, prevents gangrene
    liver extract – treatment of anemia
    intrinsic factor – pernicious anemia
    Vitamin B12 – prevention of B-complex deficiencies
    *** PRODUCTS FROM LUNGS ***
    heparin – anti-coagulant, prevents gangrene
    *** PRODUCTS FROM BLOOD ***
    plasma protein
    blood albumin – RH factor typing
    Fraction I – hemophilia
    Fraction V – kills viruses
    iron for anemia
    thrombin – blood coagulant
    protein extracts
    diagnostic microbiology
    *** PRODUCTS FROM HOG HEARTS ***
    heart valves for human transplant
    *** PRODUCTS FROM INTESTINES ***
    medical sutures – surgery
    *** PRODUCTS FROM BONES ***
    bone marrow – blood disorders
    bone meal – calcium and phosphorous source
    mineral source in supplements
    collagen and bone for plastic surgery
    soft cartilage – plastic surgery
    xiphisternal cartilage (breastbone) plastic surgery
    *** PRODUCTS FROM PANCREAS ***
    chymotrypsin – contact surgery
    diastase – aid in starch digestion
    glucagon – treat hypoglycemia
    insulin – diabetes mellitus
    pancreatin – aid digestion
    trypsin – for burns, wounds, and infection – promotes healing – aid in protein digestion and in cleaning wounds
    *** PRODUCTS FROM PITUITARY GLANDS ***
    ACTH – arthritis, allergies, rheumatic fever, skin and eye inflammations
    pressor hormone – regulates blood pressure
    prolactin – promotes lactation
    vasopressin – controls intestinal and renal functions
    *** PRODUCTS FROM SPINAL CORDS ***
    cholesterol – hormone products
    *** OTHER MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS ***
    nitroglycerine
    antibodies (immunoglobins)
    beef insulin
    bovine collagen – used as injections to fill in scars
    bovine fibrinolysin (Elase – brand name) ointment for use on necrotic
    tissue
    bovine super oxide – dismutase cream (Orgotein) – cosmetic skin cream to
    prevent tissue aging
    bovine thrombin (Thrombinar – brand name) clotting agent for blood
    culture medium – diagnosis
    fetal bovine serum – tissue cultures
    Hyaluronidase – efficient drug use
    PTH – control tetany
    pegademase – bovine derivative (Adagen – brand name) –
    - for patients who are immuno-compromised
    - helps prevent white blood cells from breaking down.
    pill capsules – GELATIN
    whole serum – vaccine manufacturing

    *** GENERAL FOOD PRODUCTS ***

    *** PRODUCTS FROM CATTLE, SHEEP, HOG FLESH ***
    a huge variety of fresh, frozen, and pre-cooked meats
    and prepared and processed meat products
    *** PRODUCTS FROM MILK/DAIRY ***
    butter
    casein (proteins)
    cheese and cheese products
    cream
    food ethanol
    ice cream and ice cream mixes
    lactose (carbohydrates)
    milk powder
    sherbet
    whey (proteins)
    fats (lipids)
    yogurt
    *** PRODUCTS FROM FATS AND FATTY ACIDS (edible) ***
    chewing gum
    lard
    oleo margarine
    oleo shortening
    oleostearin
    pharmaceuticals
    rennet for cheese (sheep)
    rennet for cheese (sheep)
    shortening
    *** PRODUCTS FROM BLOOD ***
    blood sausage
    bone meal
    cake mixes
    deep-fry batters
    egg substitute
    gravy mixes
    imitation seafood
    pasta
    whipped toppings and coffee whiteners
    *** PRODUCTS FROM BONES ***
    whitener in refined sugar
    *** PRODUCTS FROM BONE, HORNS, AND HOOVES ***
    gelatin capsules
    gelatin deserts
    ice cream, malts and shakes
    marshmallow
    potted meats
    *** PRODUCTS FROM INTESTINES ***
    sausage casings
    *** PRODUCTS FROM HIDES and SKINS ***
    sausage casings
    gelatin
    candies and confectionery
    flavorings
    foods
    gelatin desserts
    ice cream
    marshmallows
    mayonnaise
    yogurt

    *** INDUSTRIAL AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS ***

    *** PRODUCTS FROM MILK ***
    adhesives
    animal feed
    buttons
    carriers for human medicine
    cosmetics
    glue
    pharmaceuticals
    sizing
    specialty plastics
    veterinary medicines
    *** PRODUCTS FROM BLOOD ***
    adhesives
    bone marrow
    bone meal
    fabric printing and dyeing
    leather-treating agents
    livestock feed
    minerals
    plaster retardant
    plywood adhesive
    diagnostic microbiology
    from colloidal proteins – glue for automobile bodies
    protein source in feeds
    sticking agent
    textile sizing
    *** PRODUCTS FROM BONES ***
    bone charcoal
    pencils
    high grade steel
    bone handles
    bone jewelry
    mineral source in feed
    fertilizer
    dried bones
    buttons
    bone china
    glass
    porcelain enamel
    water filters
    whitener in refined sugar
    *** PRODUCTS FROM BONE, HORNS, AND HOOVES ***
    adhesives
    bandage strips
    collagen cold cream
    cellophane wrap and tape
    crochet needles
    dice
    dog biscuits
    emery boards and cloth
    fertilizer
    glycerine
    laminated wood products
    neatsfoot oil
    photographic film
    plywood and paneling
    shampoo and conditioner
    wallpaper and wallpaper paste
    syringes
    PRODUCTS FROM BRAINS
    anti-aging cream
    cholesterol
    *** PRODUCTS FROM FATS AND FATTY ACIDS (edible and inedible) ***
    animal foods
    biodegradable detergents
    biodiesel
    cellophane
    cement
    ceramics
    chalk
    chemicals
    cosmetics
    crayons
    creams and lotions (sheep)
    deodorants
    detergents
    explosives
    fertilizer
    fiber softeners
    floor wax
    glycerin
    glycerol
    antifreeze
    herbicides
    horse and livestock feeds
    industrial oils and lubricants
    insecticides
    insulation
    linoleum
    livestock feed
    lubricants
    makeup
    matches
    medicines
    mink oil
    nitroglycerine
    oil polishes
    ointment bases
    oleostearin
    paints
    paraffin
    perfumes
    pet foods
    pharmaceuticals
    plasticizers
    plastics
    printing rollers
    protein hair conditioner
    protein hair shampoo
    putty
    rubber products
    shaving cream
    shoe cream
    soaps
    solvents
    stearic acid (sheep)
    tallow for tanning
    textiles
    tires
    water proofing agents
    weed killers
    *** PRODUCTS FROM GALLSTONES ***
    ornaments
    *** PRODUCTS FROM HAIR ***
    air filters
    artist’s paint brush
    felt and rug padding
    insulation material
    non-wovens
    plastering material
    textiles
    upholstering material
    *** PRODUCTS FROM HIDES and SKINS ***
    belts
    collagen-based adhesives (from trimmings)
    bandages
    emery boards
    glues -for papermaking, bookbinding, cabinetmaking
    sheetrock
    wallpaper
    drum head (sheep)
    pharmaceuticals
    photographic materials
    leather sporting goods
    leather wearing apparel
    luggage
    pigskin garments, gloves, and shoes
    porcine burn dressings for burn victims
    shoes and boots
    upholstery
    wallets
    *** PRODUCTS FROM HOOVES AND HORNS ***
    chessmen
    combs
    buttons
    fertilizer
    horn handles
    imitation ivory
    inedible bone meal
    livestock feeds
    ornaments
    piano keys
    plant food
    *** PRODUCTS FROM INTESTINES ***
    instrument strings
    sausage casings
    tennis racquet strings
    *** PRODUCTS FROM MANURE ***
    fertilizer – used in gardens, lawns and farm cropland
    nitrogen
    potash
    phosphorus
    minor minerals
    *** OTHER PRODUCTS FROM CATTLE SOURCES ***
    airplane lubricants and runway foam
    car polishes and waxes
    hydraulic brake fluid
    Stearic acid – helps rubber in tires hold shape under steady surface
    friction
    steel ball bearings containing bone charcoal
    textiles for car upholstery
    various machine oils and viscous fluids
    *** PRODUCTS FROM WOOL ***
    asphalt binder
    carpet
    clothing
    cosmetics
    fabrics
    felt
    insulation
    lanolin
    medical ointments
    paint and plaster binder
    pelt products
    rouge base
    rug pads
    upholstery
    woolen goods
    worsted fabric
    yarns

  46. Cindy Kessler says:

    Rosemary-I for one do realize that the good things in life come from our relationship with the natural world in which we are playing such a significant part–the thing is–what if we suddenly have a HUGE influx of refugees from Global warming–Katrina was nothing compared to what we will likely see in the coming DECADE–we no longer have time to day dream about what it should be or could be when what it will be stares us all in the face.

    Life as we knew it will be changed in the next few years and those of us who acknowledge that single fact and thus prepare to meet the coming challenges will survive.

    I hope to be able to meet these events with my eyes wide open and guide my family through the beginning of this global crisis.

    And i know enough to know that I need the guidance of mentors who have spent their lives studying this issue–and for now i am following Al Gore.

  47. Marion says:

    Global warming is going to cause an influx of refugees???? From where and why? Are you refering to the last 2 years with the terrible hurricane seasons?
    I do not think anyone objects to you living as frugally as you wish, we do object to the idea that we have to kill off all of the cattle to suit George, quit mining, drilling, manufacturing, etc.
    Following Mr. Gore is fine, but I suggest you do as he says, not as he does if you want to conserve anything.

  48. Cindy Kessler says:

    Marion–when ice sheets that are IN the water melt–water levels do not change–when land based ice melts or cascades into the sea–what happens?????
    The coastal areas of our globe will change. After Katrina the New Orleans poor were moved all over this country and caused a great burden on the states that received them–that was one city–Are you not able to consider what is coming???
    No one credible denies Global Warming–If it is man made or natural is the only question.
    Land based ice in Greenland the size of Texas and New Mexico is being undermined by a process called Pooling–that happens when water melts on top of Glaciers–and runs down crevices in the ice–flowing beneath the Glacier and running out to sea between the ice and land–this is happening now and the fellows over there studying this now say that the EVENT will happen in the next seven years.
    When this occurs we will have refugees from all our coasts.

    What manufacturing was being killed off in George’s article??
    Last time I looked we no longer build cars in the USA–we are proud consumers of outsourced food, clothes and all most everything we buy is made in China. Manufacturing was killed off when Clinton signed those first free trade agreements and left the door open for all that has happened in the last 6 years.

  49. Rose Mary says:

    WOW, Cindy, do you actually believe your statement saying, “Last time I looked we no longer build cars in the USA–we are proud consumers of outsourced food, clothes and all most everything we buy is made in China.” ???

    YOU may be a “… proud consumer(s) of outsourced food, clothes and all most everything we buy (that) is made in China” but there are a good many of us that are NOT. Are you also proud of the fact that China is BUYING our Nation with FAR-ranging investments from coast to coast?

    Would you mind telling us if you are the same “Cindy Kessler” who is soliciting donations for the Draft Al Gore campaign, AKA “Socorro for Gore ’08″ located in Socorro, New Mexico?

    If so, then declaring your POLITICAL motives with your postings would have been “interesting” and “fair”, don’t you think?

    If that IS you, I also have noted the strategy base of that so-called-”movement” has stated:

    “So why doesn’t Gore show more interest in 2008? Partly … because he’s one of the few potential candidates who can wait to decide. David Moorehouse, Gore’s 2000 Senior Counselor asserts, ‘Gore can wait longer than other candidates, because he can raise money on the Internet…. Should he decide to run, he can raise $15 million in two days.’

    “Finally, it wouldn’t be smart for Gore to signal an interest in 2008 too soon. Donna Brazile, his campaign manager in 2000, believes that the best way for Gore to win in 2008 is to continue his work off the campaign trail for as long as possible. In an article for Roll Call entitled ‘The Best Thing Al Gore Can Do Is Not Run — for Now,” she observes: ‘Throughout our history, Americans have been known to fall deeply in love with non-candidates for president.’ ”

    That “… $15 million in two days” ain’t a bad START me-thinks.

    A politician is a politician IS a politician ~ and there is no politician who does not base their “stand” on stacks of MONEY. I have yet to notice a one of ‘em that bases their “stand” on SCIENCE ~ beyond the point where the MONEY subsides.

    I could care less if you do or do not want to walk-the-walk POLITICALLY for Al Gore.

    To each his own … which is the foundation of this Great Nation in which we live.

    But if he is your “mentor” in the field of SCIENCE your quest for actual for-real ALL INCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC knowledge has come to a screeching halt.

    And THAT is a sad thing ~ for you or for any other person.

  50. Cindy Kessler says:

    Craig–I think the term Messiah would be better used addressing our present Liar -IN -Chief and his mindless followers!!!

    You need to spend some time researching other celebrity’s carbon expenditures and then write about Al Gore’s clay feet– anyone within his economic strata and with an agenda like he has–in the world we live in today–will be leaving a much greater footprint.

    I hope your view of solving a problem like this is wrong–I do realize that until the events unfold in the coming decade–we each have to review what facts we feel are best speaking to the truth.

    I voted for Clinton/Gore twice because of Gore’s stance on the environment. And I voted for him in 2000 because of his life work.

    I became aware of the environmental issue in the early ’60s when I read Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”. And I remember her words when we travel from coast to coast and our windshield needs to be cleaned once or twice rather than having to stop because we couldn’t see through the bug smeared window as we did even 20 years ago. I also know from personal observation that in most of the USA it is too often only one or two lonely birds sitting on the fences and utility lines rather than the flocks that not that long ago inhabited our land.

    I would gladly support Al Gore if he decided to run for President–not because I feel he is a Messiah but because I care about our natural world and know that he has proven since his college days that he cares even more than I do–and has made it his life work.

  51. Cindy Kessler says:

    Yes Rosemary,I post using my full name because I stand behind who and what I am. A concerned citizen first and foremost.

    As for China–I am not a free trader–I believe in buying American made products and go to great lengths to do so.

    I am aghast at where we are today in terms of quality and safety in our food supply. I refuse to accept shoddy workmanship in what I purchase and so have become an activist against the corporate generated consumer driven society that exists today!!!

  52. Rose Mary says:

    Seeeeeee!!! ~ there ARE things that we do agree on, Cindy!

    I, too, “am aghast at where we are today in terms of quality and safety in our food supply”.

    I just don’t happen to think that attacking and/or eliminating our American producers of that food supply will result in anything other than a catastrophe for all of us.

    George’s constant and historic desire to eliminate cattle is only one threat among many ~ shortsighted at best ~ but it is one that he has spent years trying to accomplish and I suspect will spend many more years doing in the future. In my previous posting I inserted that *enormous* list of benefits beyond meat-eating that our society derives from livestock because I think there are MANY within our society who just have no idea whatsoever how far-reaching those benefits are.

    I think it is also important to remember, as far as our American home-grown food supply is concerned, that there are an enormous number of entities between the producer and the consumer; and, that the producer does NOT reap the profits of any one of those in-between entities. Quite the contrary. They are often the victims of them. Like all sectors of society ~ you and me included ~ producers can certainly be guilty of contributing to what ails ‘em. But we should NOT look to George for guidance in solving those problems.

    Thanks for the link, John. I did get it “loaded” and a quick “skim” but will look forward to returning to read it all ~ looks interesting, for sure ~ and I, too, will look forward to reading any forthcoming comments about it.

  53. Craig Moore says:

    Cindy, you wrote: “I care about our natural world and know that he has proven since his college days that he cares even more than I do–and has made it his life work.”

    During the 8 years that Al Gore was VP he did virtually nothing about climate change or the environment.

    Cindy, you overlook Gore’s failings and his elastic use of the ‘truth.’
    In my opinion, when a person, such as yourself does that, and steadfastly praises and follows their leader without acknowledging those human frailties, they have elevated that leader to messiah status. A prime example is what happened in Antelope Oregon a few years back. Interjecting a “what about Bush” remark doesn’t change that or elevate Gore to walk on water. Investing in GIM is not equivalent to buying carbon offset credits.

  54. Cindy Kessler says:

    John–Thanks for the link–for my part, I am most interested in your comments and others on this issue.
    I have a copy of “Silent Spring” and I was pleased to read the opening passages of this thesis pointing out so clearly what impact this little book had on young women in the 60′s.
    I guess my thoughts are how similar the Noisy Response to Global Warming seems to me!!!
    But this time it is our whole beautiful planet that is at risk from what I see as corporate greed!!!
    Of course I have many concerns that have to do with the poisoning of our county over the last 50 some years.
    And I did stand up once to Union Carbide to no avail–so I guess I just have to continue speaking out against what I feel has been the true selling the people of this country a bill of goods.
    It all begins and ends with our government failing to protect us from practices that are harmful to humans and the natural world.
    It is clear to me that the false statements that are made again and again about issues like Global Warming are believed by many because they have fallen for the drum beat of unsubstantiated claims that began in 1962 propagated by the greed of big business

  55. Rose Mary says:

    Carson is quoted as summarizing her view saying: “Now this doesn’t mean, of course, that we must never interfere, that we must not attempt to tilt the balance of nature in our favor. But when we make this attempt, we must know what we’re doing, we must know the consequences.”

    But that “… know the consequences” business is not an easy task and is, perhaps, where our waterloo begins.

    “Firing the imagination of the layman ..” was certainly a talent that Carson possessed in abundance. Perhaps that was her greatest contribution to society? Ignorance is never bliss me-thinks.

    Opinions can vary widely when it comes to the subject of cause-and-effect. That is most particularly true when the human animal in any guise is attempting to forecast the future.

    Trying to guess how far a frog will jump is risky. Historians can document many instances of error in that regard.

    Even hindsight can lead us astray. Do we value most the lives saved or the lives lost when DDT was banned? … the lives saved when we vaccinate our children or the lives of children who may have been negatively effected by vaccinations? The list is endless.

    And every day of our lives when we pick up the morning paper we learn that what we were told to FEAR yesterday is not the way it is today ~ for better OR for worse.

  56. John says:

    Rose Mary – kudos on your review, I think you very well summed up the piece.

    If you look at the period in which Rachel’s book was written, it was when science and industry were in the cocksure, ever gleaming view of the benefits man will see once let science and industry just take over. This was the era of the nuclear testing above ground. The world was a real big place. Then there was DDT, the chemical industries weapon against bugs. In the mindset of world back then, it was wipe those nasty bugs out and if we take out the beneficial ones as well, well, that is a small price to pay.

    If you read Rachel’s book, she will say that using these chemicals is not necessarily a bad thing, but we must do a better job, and not indiscriminately. She does not say we should forgo using DDT. However, when the pendulum swings, it can swing too far. There are reports that many died because DDT was banned. Consider other mosquito born illnesses (West Nile for example, which has killed countless birds and mammals) and you can see how some might say man should do something to prevent the loss of endangered species, man needs to do something to prevent an ecological catastrophe. Do you see the parallel with climate change? (I’ll bet some get it and others won’t)

    One could also argue that there is a parallel in the environmental movement and the period in the early 60′s Back then, the power was held by the chemical companies and those that felt science and chemistry held all the answers. The ones who fought against DDT railed against the establishment and warned of an apocalypse. And, those that fought for the establishment warned of equally dire consequences. Now, the IPCC is the establishment, the Kyoto accords is the establishment (note, just because the US does not sign up does not mean it is not the establishment), the EU ROHS is the establishment, China’s version of ROHS is the establishment. There are a voices out there saying there are dire consequences in accepting the view of the establishment.

    Yes, the environmental movement is the establishment. Land use planning is one example (what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine to control, it is for the good of everyone after all, and it is also good for the children), the Endangered Species Act is another (how many critters have been saved versus how many dolars have been spent), Universal Healthcare is another (name a major political candidate that does not have a universal health care proposal), but perhaps the best example is how the NIMBY movement has shut down so many things (try to put up a Nuclear power plant, or a wind power plant, or a landfill, or a Walmart). The Environmental movement looks at times to be hell bent on making sure nothing happens and if happy to tied people up endlessly in hopes they will give up. The wacko PETA (not the People Eating Tasty Animals group) stand on farming and animal husbandry, and George’s (remember him, he is the moron who wants rid us of all those pesky cows) are more examples of that which must be fought.

    One has to wonder where this all leads. We are in an age where the risk of dying from ingesting Alar is less than the number of people who die each year from eating broccoli, and yet Alar is completely unacceptable. We are in an age where the fast food places are evil because they make you eat there and you get fat. We are in an age where each year 6500 people die in traffic accidents but there is a group that says we must make all cars smaller and lighter and therefore less likely to survive a crash. Now, we have no tolerance and no risk is acceptable.

    George is still an idiot, I vote to keep the cows and ban George…

  57. John says:

    So George makes a few claims and I decided to research them.

    George says: “Ranch and farm raised livestock produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane annually. These two gases account for 90 percent of US greenhouse emissions. For instance, all the trucks, SUVs, cars, airplanes, trains and other transportation combined accounts for 13 percent of global warming emissions, while livestock production is responsible for an astounding 18 percent of all US greenhouse gases.”

    And the verdict – George is wrong. According to fairly recent figures (and in looking at the trends, ag is holding steady while other categories are increasing over the years) ag accounts for 5% to 6% of US GHG emissions and transportation accounts for 28%. My source is http://cait.wri.org/ (and you need to create an account to access the info, their rules, not mine) And, before anyone says that this is some right wing data, do your homework and check out cait.wri.org and wri.org.

    So, once again, George is an idiot, I vote to keep the cows again…

  58. Cindy Kessler says:

    Thank you for reading Carson with an open mind–her work deserves it–She died with cancer and under what we now would call a swift boat attack–she never knew what an impact she had on those of us who love the natural world. She was reviled by men because she was a woman–that is what is was like back then.
    When my high school had a “Career Day” (in the 50′s) I signed up for two presentations–one with a local attorney and the other with a newspaper reporter–I was called to the office and told that those talks were for boys only and I was given a choice of nursing or teaching to attend. I was absent that day rather then be limited in my choices.
    There are a lot of things wrong in this country and because we had people like Rachel Carson and,yes, Al Gore who get out there in the world and let us examine every facet of their life because they believe that much–makes me think we just may make it through all that is coming.
    Global Warming is a fact and none of the so called leaders in this too early and too costly Presidential Race seem to be able to step up to the plate.
    So my hope still lays in Gore.
    Thank you John for the link to this thesis, I read it and downloaded it for future use.And I enjoyed reading your comments.
    As for cows I vote to keep them but eliminate the middleman–let the ranchers deliver them to the meat packers, if they weren’t fattened up in the feed lots they wouldn’t need all the antibiotics and hormones that upset consumers.

  59. John says:

    George – just because the LA Times got it wrong is no excuse for you to get it wrong. You are still wrong. I did a bunch of research on this and there are a number of errors. First, there appears to be a conversion error (getting the units wrong, not understanding the process). Unfortunately, you repeat crap and you get people to believe crap.

    You quote the LA Times saying cows emit 25 to 130 gallons of methane per day. The truth is that they burp 200 to 400 liters per day and it is not 100% methane. Many of the source that quote a cow burp put the figure at 280 liters per day, which if you do the math is 74 gallons. The next problem is the conversion of volume of methane into weight, so, guess what, we can do the math here and see what it comes out to. Before we get started, CAIT (remember that link I gave earlier) reports that there is about 165Mt of methane produced by agriculture each year in the US.

    Most of this is simple grade school math with very little high school chemistry, so follow along. To convert liters of a gas we can use this reference http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html which tells us that one mole of a gas will be 22.4 liters. Methane, which is CH4 has an atomic weight of 16, so that means one mole weighs 16 grams. So, from this we can now say (and I will give you all the burp being methane) that a single cow will burp 74*16/22.4 grams of methane per day. We can convert that to tons by multiplying by 0.0000011023113109 and to tons per year by multiplying by 365 and we get: 0.0213 tons per cow per year. Now, lets multiply by the world cattle population http://cattle-today.com/ of 1.3 billion and we get 27.6Mt of methane produced by all the cattle in the world. And remember that figure I gave for methane for the US (165Mt)? That means that all the cattle in the world produce only 1/6th of the methane the US produces.

    Going back to the CAIT figures, the world produces 5,854.9Mt of methane per year as Green House Gases. So, that means that cattle produce less than 1/200th of the green house methane. George, do the research.

    And oh, by the way, there are many more problems with the article you posted, but if you would do some research, you would learn the truth.

    Once again, George is an idiot, I vote to keep the cows and ban George…

  60. Brian Ertz says:

    no matter the absurd attacks on personality that get thrown, the facts and science speak for themselves. George, you parsed through the politicized BS and found yourself on the edge of an important story that will continue to be brought more and more to the fore-front because of your laborious efforts. thank you.

  61. John says:

    Brian are you an idiot as well? How did he parse anything? He repeated crap and therefore he said nothing of value. The fawning is sickening…

  62. Brian Ertz says:

    John,

    I realize that it must be frustrating watching your delusional construct about the natural world and the romanticized cowboy West come crashing down. The spear-head of the livestock industry’s grip over Washington, Craig, got busted in a dirty Minneapolis bathroom and with it he blew critical influence over policy that has kept management of our public lands in the dark ages.

    Research and science continue to demonstrate further and further the extend to which welfare ranching is an inappropriate and destructive use of our public lands, water, and atmosphere ~ inherently contrary to the public environmental interest.

    John, it don’t matter how loud you scream or how many you draw into character assassination anymore ~

  63. John says:

    Brian – you are the one who is delusional, and it is proven when you fail to look at the research. Frankly, you and George and others are taking at face value lies in the guise of truth. If you truly believe the lies, then you meet the definition of delusional.

    I, on the other hand question much of what I see and read. I use critical thinking to examine the facts, do independent research when possible, verify sources. I don’t accept the view of George or you for that matter, because neither of you have demonstrated a grasp of reality or facts. You can dismiss me because you follow a belief that you are superior, but you have only your delusion to give you that stand.

    So Brian – if I am so far off, why don’t you poke a hole in my analysis of methane and cows? If you could, I would publicly acknowledge any errors you would find and I would shut up. Bet you can’t… Actually, I bet you won’t even try…

    So, Brian, you and George are both idiots, and we keep the cows…

  64. Marion says:

    Actually Brian and george have something, if every single living thing on earth quit eating, we would all cease to exist. The worms would be in great shape unless they stopped eating to prevent methane too.
    I have heard some idiotic arguments, but wanting to get rid of cows or other mammals is top of the chart. What ever happened to common sense? Does that also include dairy cows? How about buffalo?

  65. Craig Moore says:

    See: http://www.westernwatersheds.org/wwpinfo/aboutwwp.html

    George and Brian are joined at the hip.

  66. John says:

    Craig – that is amazing! It turns out that George and Brian are joined at the hip because they are on the advisory board of an organization that likes to sue people to get rid of grazing animals on public (BLM) land, among other things.

    Fascinating. I was not aware that George was a member of such a vile organization. I am shocked that New West would let someone who so hates the western people and the things that made the west what it is today be a guest commentator. I am not too surprised that George’s lackey Brian would come out of the shadows to defend the lies and errors and mistakes of George.

    They think I am name calling, but they can’t answer to the truth. They can’t counter the facts. They repeat false statements, hoping everyone will tire of it and forget. And they think that I deny the inevitable. Hmmm…. pretty damn arrogant to make a lie and then say that it is inevitable. That is why we stand against you.

  67. Rose Mary says:

    You goooooo, Craig! Thanks for the “disclosure” which obviously has NEVER been one of gorgeous George’s outstanding traits. Disclosure/disclosure/disclosure eludes the man and always will.

    John, this is only one of the many vile organizations gorgeous George has been, or is, a member of ~ and in more than one of them he has been a Founder as well as a financial supporter ~ tin cup always in hand to attract money from the ignorant amongst us.

    As for you, Brian … since you are not ONLY “joined at the hip” to George but you are actually his Media Director … should it not be some sort of cardinal sin that you would not inform all of THIS “Media” that you are riding shotgun for him? Of course, I guess it would be unrealistic to expect a Media Director would rise to a level of integrity above or beyond the lowest common denominator of those he represents.

    Deception/deception/deception their stock in trade ~ yesterday, today and tomorrow.

    I have frequently suggested that New West readers research gorgeous George’s history before they buy his rhetoric ~ with good cause.

    We know a snake will defecate
    When shedding off his skin.
    We also know a snake like George
    Will then “renew” again
    To slink and crawl with tongue that’s forked
    Just like it’s always been.

    ‘Twas not ONE day that gorgeous George
    Did not HATE cows AND men.
    ‘Twas not ONE day that gorgeous George
    Disclosed all he has been.
    He seeks to sell what YOU will buy;
    Each lie and all akin.

    He counts on YOU to never know,
    To crown him your kingpin.
    They say another fool’s born
    As each new day begins.
    So step right up and pay YOUR coins
    If YOU believe his “spin”!!!

    JUST NEVER SAY
    ON ANY DAY
    YOU NEVER KNEW ANOTHER WAY.

  68. Marion says:

    A very big high five Craig! I never read any of WW propaganda, so I would never have know that ol Georgie has a professional interest in getting rid of the livestock.
    Amazing what some will do for money, even going to the point of being willing to get rid of the food producers for money. I guess they figure they can find a judge somewhere to take away other people’s food when supplies get short. Nice people.

  69. daryl says:

    More unadulterated bovine excrement from cattle-phobic Georgie W. Yeah, let’s ban all cows from the countryside so that the defunct ranches can be sold to the moneyed elite. That way, they can build their massive trophy homes on some prominent hillside on the former rangeland, and fly in on their private jets from the Coast for a nice weekend getaway. But don’t worry about the greenhouses gases that are emitted to support the lavish lifestyle of these privileged folks. They’ll get carbon offsets by bussing the local redneck population in to trim the bushes and scrub the toilets around their fancy digs.

    One thing I’ve never heard ole George and his cow-loathing lot explain; how is it that well-managed rangeland is capable of supporting the full complement of native vegetation in an area? I know of no other agriculturally-utilized land that can make this claim. Vegetable fields, of course, contain little or no native vegetation. You can run cattle, if you do it right, and still have native grasses and trees flourishing, along with expanding ungulate populations and blue-ribbon trout streams.

    Of course, I don’t think George is so much anti-cow as he is anti-people. His stated dream is to eliminate all agriculture in the western United States; not only livestock but also crop production. He certainly won’t mind if the common folk go hungry as long as he can sell his glossy pictures to his wealthy benefactors.

  70. John says:

    It has been very interesting to look at the web site for the WWP. There is a document which is the lawsuit they filed against the change in status of Grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area. I read it, I guess I was curious to see if I could find more false statements and guess what I found another.

    The lie in the lawsuit regards what is happening to the bison population in Yellowstone which is listed as a critical food source for the bear. It states:

    “Finally, Yellowstone bison and elk populations face a decline due to brucellosis control efforts that involve capturing and slaughtering infected animals, combined with a threat of chronic wasting disease in elk that is invariably fatal.”

    Now, bison are something I know quite a bit about and have been watching what has been happening in Yellowstone for many years. Here is the truth. The population of bison in Yellowstone is not under decline from control efforts. As a matter of fact, every population control effort seems to be met with enormous resistance from the save the bison crowd. It is true that animals that escape the park are hazed back and likely those animals are highly stressed and probably have a harder time surviving but we are talking about a few percent of all animals for the entire season. The reality is that the herd size in Yellowstone over the winter is considered to be at the max of the sustainable level.

    It is unclear when, if ever, the park will capture and kill the infected animals. To date, it ain’t happening. It has not happened in the past.

    More lies, George and his media boy Brian are liars…

  71. John says:

    Here is an older article, but it sheds more light on the piece of work that is WWP.

    http://www.rangemagazine.com/archives/spring2004/amadteaparty.htm

  72. Brian Ertz says:

    you folk are fun… good luck ya’ll

  73. Buff says:

    1. I live on a ranch.
    2. I grow and eat beef
    3. I believe global warming is a product of modern civilization, a non-trivial component of which is industrial agriculture.
    4. I will stop growing and eating beef and will stop driving a diesel pickup when Al Gore stops flying around in a G-5 and moves to a house less than 4500 sf.
    5. I can’t stand the hypocrisy of limousine liberals.
    6. The real cause of all of the environmental and social problems in the world today, including the nonsense in the middle east and southwest asia are a consequence of over-population. In short, we have exceeded the carrying capacity of this big blue mudball.
    7. The salvation of Europe was the black plague. It resulted in a die off of 1/3 of the population. That led to the Renaissance. That led to the Age of Enlightenment, without which you wouldn’t have the technology to carry-on this nattering casuistry and sophistry.
    8. I am not a hypocrite. If the next plague takes me, so be it.
    9. Until then I will grow and eat beef and drive my diesel pickup.
    10. Buying a Prius won’t help, so don’t bother.

  74. Geo. says:

    Dear Buff:

    I won’t argue with you about overpopulation. That certainly is the ultimate cause of many problems, including greenhouse gases.

    However, whether you like to believe it or not, livestock production is a key factor in greenhouse gases–greater than that diesel truck you drive and my gasoline powered pick up.

    Whether someone like Al Gore is a hypocrite or not does not change the fact that global warming is occurring, livestock production is an important component, and eating beef is one thing the average person can most easily do without.

  75. julie s. says:

    Why can’t people just eat less beef? It’s really not a difficult life change, it’s not like beef is even that good for you. Greenhouse gases aside, why is it so difficult for people to accept that cattle are not good for natural ecosystems for a multitude of reasons?

  76. Todd says:

    Quite frankly Julie, it is not up to you to decide what I should or should not eat. Manage your life the way you wish and please allow the rest of us the same privilege.