Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted December 10, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted December 10, 2016 5 hours ago, Catman said: You don't know when to quit. Your friends friend is dumb, you can be a vegetarian and be as healthy or healthy than a beef eater. I digress I never even mentioned vegetarianism. I'd never stop eating Animals. chicKen is far less expensive, better for you, uses far less land to raise, and produces far less emissions to raise than cattle. There and plenty of other foods you can supplement your diet with as well. Seems like you should look into it with how brain dead you are. I love how guys like you who think you know everything and have all the answers just make stuff up through self rationalization and never bother to look into the facts or consider people who have studies these topics immensely. NO NO 02sled on ole freedomsledder has ALL the answers! Some facts: -Livestock take up 25% of land not covered by ice -260 million acres of usa forests have been cut for livestock feed -80% of the deforestation in the amazon is due to beef production -one acre of beef production land producing 250lbs of beef could product over 130,000 lbs of vegatables. -1 lb of beef uses 1800 gallons of water to produce while chicken is 470 gal and 357 gal for 3 pounds of potatoes Get some rest, its been a long day for you. There is more forest in the US now than there was 100 years ago. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true The numbers are in. In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted December 10, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted December 10, 2016 I seen where you got those statistics. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/03/04/eating-meat-destruction-of-environment/ You honestly aren't this gullible are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 29 minutes ago, Highmark said: I seen where you got those statistics. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/03/04/eating-meat-destruction-of-environment/ You honestly aren't this gullible are you? He needs to up his game to play... Quoting ethically dubious sources like it is the gospel. Some people are that dumb to buy it though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catman Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 52 minutes ago, Highmark said: There is more forest in the US now than there was 100 years ago. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true The numbers are in. In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival. Never said there weren't. note the 100 years. the land use is but 1 part of the equation. Why not research to learn more and not jump to conclusions becasue its all you know, instead of trying to disprove me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, Catman said: Never said there weren't. note the 100 years. the land use is but 1 part of the equation. Why not research to learn more and not jump to conclusions becasue its all you know, instead of trying to disprove me? He did research. From reputable sources at that. You know, instead of posting half truths, exaggerations, and unsubstantiated bs from meat is the devil blogs... You might want to polish off rhetoric 101 if you plan on playing this role here. Not to mention it is 2016, we all have google and can see where you posted from. It is also site policy to post a link if you are going to quote word for word from another site. Most people with integrity already do that... Get your narratives straight guy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boered Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Catman said: Never mentioned anything related how much 1 cow produces. you can grow numerous cycles of vegetables in 18 months, which was entirely my point. Most of the food we consume in Canada is produced in regions which grow year round. the numbers are accurate and I challenge you to refute them with more than a efernce to some arms length friend of yours. lol This is no theory moron. thsee are facts at end yiur opinion is not a faCT it's pure fantasy. if you pulled your head out of your ass yoI'd relize how realis to it is http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/ one acre of beef production land producing 250lbs of beef could product over 130,000 lbs of vegatables. One acre produces 250 lbs of beef does it? really, where is this? not here in Canada you fucking dolt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Highmark said: I seen where you got those statistics. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/03/04/eating-meat-destruction-of-environment/ You honestly aren't this gullible are you? Poor warming cultist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 9 hours ago, Highmark said: There is more forest in the US now than there was 100 years ago. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true The numbers are in. In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival. Warming and CO2 help the green canopy. Perhaps this dolt would prefer another ice age? Then the environmentalists would be complaining about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catman Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: He did research. From reputable sources at that. You know, instead of posting half truths, exaggerations, and unsubstantiated bs from meat is the devil blogs... You might want to polish off rhetoric 101 if you plan on playing this role here. Not to mention it is 2016, we all have google and can see where you posted from. It is also site policy to post a link if you are going to quote word for word from another site. Most people with integrity already do that... Get your narratives straight guy... We clear cut for hundreds of years, hence why they go back 100. my stat is accurate and my narratives are dead straight. Keep in mind the fucking OP shared an outrageously false statement and that's why we're talking. I'm dealing with a level of imbecile here that would give a 3rd grade science class a good run, but not likely 4th grade. The usa is 1 country in the world, that stat focuses on it becaie thats the audience, deforestation today is a bigger issue in places like Brazil and Indonesia. Just like pollution Is a bigger issue in China than the usa today but that doesn't discount the pollution we already caused and continue to in North america, its just less than China. Animal agriculture is a huge issue, and an environmental disaster. it likely contributes over 1/5th of all harmful greenhouse gas emisions and is a major contributor to climate change overall, but I realize I'm dealing with people here who would prefer to bury their head because it's cold outside. Edited December 10, 2016 by Catman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catman Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 57 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Warming and CO2 help the green canopy. Perhaps this dolt would prefer another ice age? Then the environmentalists would be complaining about that. Wrong stupid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, Catman said: We clear cut for hundreds of years, hence why they go back 100. my stat is accurate and my narratives are dead straight. Keep in mind the fucking OP shared an outrageously false statement and that's why we're talking. I'm dealing with a level of imbecile here that would give a 3rd grade science class a good run, but not likely 4th grade. The usa is 1 country in the world, that stat focuses on it becaie thats the audience, deforestation today is a bigger issue in places like Brazil and Indonesia. Just like pollution Is a bigger issue in China than the usa today but that doesn't discount the pollution we already caused and continue to in North america, its just less than China. Animal agriculture is a huge issue, and an environmental disaster. it likely contributes over 1/5th of all harmful greenhouse gas emisions and is a major contributor to climate change overall, but I realize I'm dealing with people here who would prefer to bury their head because it's cold outside. Your grammer is at a grade 3 level. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catman Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 9 hours ago, Boered said: one acre of beef production land producing 250lbs of beef could product over 130,000 lbs of vegatables. One acre produces 250 lbs of beef does it? really, where is this? not here in Canada you fucking dolt. One acre producing 250lb. read it 10 times and maybe you'll understand. carrots take 8 weeks to grow and cows need 1 acre or 2 for a cow calf pair. Carl Sagan wrote: “We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements—transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting—profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” So true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoughnut Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Catman said: One acre producing 250lb. read it 10 times and maybe you'll understand. carrots take 8 weeks to grow and cows need 1 acre or 2 for a cow calf pair. Carl Sagan wrote: “We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements—transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting—profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” So true Plenty of ethical scientists out there who are not in it for the money that can disprove MMGW The combustible mixture in MMGW is money and greed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catman Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, snoughnut said: Plenty of ethical scientists out there who are not in it for the money that can disprove MMGW The combustible mixture in MMGW is money and greed. Disprove? No. A handful disagree and have differing theories and there are many quesions that will always exist but the evidence is overwhelming and consensus is reached. Every major climate related institute, that deals with climate-related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous. I love how you day it's greed but cant think to look at the elephant in the room. laughable. greedy scientists. ya that's it! Edited December 10, 2016 by Catman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted December 10, 2016 Author Share Posted December 10, 2016 11 hours ago, sledderj said: Do you realize that in Canada, 99% of the land used to graze cattle is used for that purpose because it's unable to productively grow anything else? If it was productive, it would be used for higher value grain crops and sure as hell would never be able to grow vegetables. More FACTS, have mercy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEFF Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 4 hours ago, Catman said: Disprove? No. A handful disagree and have differing theories and there are many quesions that will always exist but the evidence is overwhelming and consensus is reached. Every major climate related institute, that deals with climate-related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous. I love how you day it's greed but cant think to look at the elephant in the room. laughable. greedy scientists. ya that's it! Neal, is that you? Care to talk about lug heights relationship to overall drive ratio on a snowmobile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 5 hours ago, Catman said: One acre producing 250lb. read it 10 times and maybe you'll understand. carrots take 8 weeks to grow and cows need 1 acre or 2 for a cow calf pair. Really.... I better call my friend who has been raising beef cattle for the last 30 years and tell him he's doing it all wrong because you say so. On average he has 100 head on a 100 acre property. Of that hundred he has about 1.5 acres for his house. Probably another 2 for the barn and the equipment yard. Then about 1/2 of what is left over is dedicated as hay fields so he can bale it for the winter months. So that leaves about 50 acres or less for 100 head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 22 minutes ago, JEFF said: Neal, is that you? Care to talk about lug heights relationship to overall drive ratio on a snowmobile? I would have guessed Cropduster has made a return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKIQPilot Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 21 hours ago, Catman said: You don't know when to quit. Your friends friend is dumb, you can be a vegetarian and be as healthy or healthy than a beef eater. I digress I never even mentioned vegetarianism. I'd never stop eating Animals. chicKen is far less expensive, better for you, uses far less land to raise, and produces far less emissions to raise than cattle. There and plenty of other foods you can supplement your diet with as well. Seems like you should look into it with how brain dead you are. I love how guys like you who think you know everything and have all the answers just make stuff up through self rationalization and never bother to look into the facts or consider people who have studies these topics immensely. NO NO 02sled on ole freedomsledder has ALL the answers! Some facts: -Livestock take up 25% of land not covered by ice -260 million acres of usa forests have been cut for livestock feed -80% of the deforestation in the amazon is due to beef production -one acre of beef production land producing 250lbs of beef could product over 130,000 lbs of vegatables. -1 lb of beef uses 1800 gallons of water to produce while chicken is 470 gal and 357 gal for 3 pounds of potatoes Get some rest, its been a long day for you. Where do you come up with this load of crap. My god son. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted December 10, 2016 Author Share Posted December 10, 2016 21 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: I would have guessed Cropduster has made a return. Cropduster got outed as Killer the metrosexual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boered Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 If anyone actually believed that reducing their carbon output could stop the climate from changing and avoid the horrible things they keep telling us will certainly happen, you would think they would start living like a Mennonite. yet all those preaching the ills of carbon are flying in planes, driving cars, living in air conditioned homes, staying warm in winter etc. etc....Global warming is a farce created to redistribute wealth, nothing more. Is the climate changing? 100% true it is, and so fucking what. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 31 minutes ago, Boered said: If anyone actually believed that reducing their carbon output could stop the climate from changing and avoid the horrible things they keep telling us will certainly happen, you would think they would start living like a Mennonite. yet all those preaching the ills of carbon are flying in planes, driving cars, living in air conditioned homes, staying warm in winter etc. etc....Global warming is a farce created to redistribute wealth, nothing more. Is the climate changing? 100% true it is, and so fucking what. Well apparently even Mennonite living is no good since they grow livestock and travel by horse and buggy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02sled Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) 37 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said: Well apparently even Mennonite living is no good since they grow livestock and travel by horse and buggy. and raise cattle for beef and dairy.... gotta control those cattle farts Edited December 10, 2016 by 02sled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCR1250 Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 2 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said: Well apparently even Mennonite living is no good since they grow livestock and travel by horse and buggy. Lots of Mennonites here, they use all modern conveniences, the Amish on the other hand don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.