Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by kramer » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:48 am

This is a good TED video on how some scientists are using cattle (and other animals) to reverse desertification.

I give the guy credit for saying that the science was wrong when it claimed that cattle on land causes desertification.

It's a good video and the results (if true and I see no reason why the wouldn't be) are amazing.


Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change
[BBvideo 425,350][/BBvideo]


He also claims that desertification could be as bad or worse than climate change (If he's referring to AGW, I'm guessing he hasn't read the climategate emails or is unaware of the temperature data adjusting and re-adjusting or the PNAS paper that shows half the recent warming was caused by nature or all the other inconsistencies in the 'science'...)
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by Fordama » Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:15 pm

Which also said that it was also still also caused by human activity. You always seem to miss those parts of articles you post. It makes me chuckle.

Fordama
Last edited by John Q. Public on Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed the pointless quote
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by kramer » Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:17 pm

Fordama wrote:Which also said that it was also still also caused by human activity. You always seem to miss those parts of articles you post. It makes me chuckle.
kramer wrote:
He also claims that desertification could be as bad or worse than climate change (If he's referring to AGW, I'm guessing he hasn't read the climategate emails or is unaware of the temperature data adjusting and re-adjusting or the PNAS paper that shows half the recent warming was caused by nature or all the other inconsistencies in the 'science'...)
I addressed it, see the bolded part above along with some of my reasons why I don't trust their 'science.' Now the question is, how did you miss it?

And I'm still waiting for a response from you on that PNAS paper that says half of the recent warming in the second half of the 1900's was probably natural caused....
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by Fordama » Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:25 pm

kramer wrote: I addressed it...
Not really, based on the latter part of your post where you show your complete obliviousness to what I stated.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by kramer » Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:10 pm

Of course I addressed it. That's why I made the comment about the temperature adjusting and the PNAS paper that said half of the recent warming is probably from natural causes. These facts neutralize the human CO2 caused comments he makes in the video.
Last edited by John Q. Public on Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed the pointless quote
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by Fordama » Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:27 am

Wow, you still don't understand the issue!

Fordama
Last edited by John Q. Public on Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed the pointless quote
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by kramer » Sun Mar 10, 2013 4:03 pm

Fordama wrote:Wow, you still don't understand the issue!

Fordama
I completely understand the issue. In a quick nutshell America, uses too many resources, has amassed too much wealth via colonization, and is too free.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by Fordama » Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:10 pm

kramer wrote:
I completely understand the issue.
Nope. Otherwise you wouldn't keep bringing in article after article stating that CO2 is playing a part in the climate change yet continue to blather that CO2 doesn't contribute to climate change. That's because you're a denialist who has no cogent scientific view of the issue, just a political view.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by kramer » Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:57 pm

kramer wrote:
I completely understand the issue.
Fordama wrote:Nope. Otherwise you wouldn't keep bringing in article after article stating that CO2 is playing a part in the climate change yet continue to blather that CO2 doesn't contribute to climate change.
"Assuming my math is correct, this much smaller amount of human CO2 caused warming of just 20% looks more reasonable to me."
- Kramer, Feb 9, 2013

By the way, we've all noticed that you haven't yet gotten the balls to comment in that thread... What's the matter, does the fact that that PNAS paper in that thread supports my skepticism wad your panties up the crack of your democrat? Does the fact that Gore has said scientists are now saying that CO2 is only responsible for about 40% of the warming bother you? Does the fact that these two science points show that CO2 is more likely responsible for 20% or less of the warming bother you because if they turn out to be correct, it means my skepticism was right all along?

Heh heh heh....


Fordama wrote: That's because you're a denialist who has no cogent scientific view of the issue, just a political view.
Apparently you still haven't learned the difference between what a skeptic is and what denial is. I can give you a hint...You're a denier because you keep denying the fact that I'm a skeptic.

Some reading for you...
The ‘denier’ label: bad for science, bad for policy

By labelling opponents as climate deniers, advocates of strong climate policy move the territory for the argument from politics to science. It depicts opponents to climate policy as irrational characters who cannot be debated with rationally. Helpful in the short term, perhaps, for policy advocates, but in the longer term this threatens to have a corrosive effect on science and will almost certainly be unsuccessful in keeping politics out of climate change, which has been creeping back into the issue since the near-unanimous passing of the 2008 Climate Change Act. My advice to those supporting climate policies is to make strong political arguments for their implementation, rather than relying on painting your opponents as irrational and anti-science, for two simple reasons: it isn’t true, and it won’t work.

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsci ... -politics/
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by Fordama » Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:14 pm

kramer wrote: By the way, we've all noticed that you haven't yet gotten the balls to comment in that thread..
I don't need any balls to remind you yet again that it was an article that you brought in that states that CO2 contributes to global warming. Sure, it's fun to repeatedly point out your basically flawed thinking, but I can pass on it occasionally.

Especially when I can get you to dance like a monkey bumping your own thread!!!

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by kramer » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:30 pm

Fordama wrote: I don't need any balls to remind you yet again that it was an article that you brought in that states that CO2 contributes to global warming.
I've brought in lots of articles that say CO2 contributes to global warming. And just about all of them haven't heard about that PNAS paper because they were published before that study that says half of the warming we've had since the second half of the 1900s was most likely natural.

Combine this with Gore's claim that scientists say CO2 only contributes around 40% of the warming, then we see that CO2 is really only responsible for 20% or less of the warming.
Fordama wrote: Sure, it's fun to repeatedly point out your basically flawed thinking, but I can pass on it occasionally.
It's not as fun as looking like us skeptics were right about our skepticism... (Oh, and its also enjoyable to repeatedly point out to you that 20% of the warming or less is most likely from CO2 which if it turns out to be true then is a BIG reduction in the claims of the consensus settled political science.) :D
Fordama wrote: Especially when I can get you to dance like a monkey bumping your own thread!!!

Fordama
Yet you acted like a monkey with his eyes and mouth closed because it wads your panties up the crack of your dem. Believe me, it was a lot more fun for me to see you hide from the discomforting information...

Cowardice:
noun
lack of bravery.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by Fordama » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:57 pm

kramer wrote:
I've brought in lots of articles that say CO2 contributes to global warming.
Indeed. Then you turn around and say it doesn't matter and blather on about it being plant food and that excesss carbon isn't bad. You just don't get it.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by kramer » Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:13 am

kramer wrote:
I've brought in lots of articles that say CO2 contributes to global warming.
Fordama wrote:Indeed. Then you turn around and say it doesn't matter...
I say "it doesn't matter?" No I don't. I say the claims of the warming are exaggerated as well as the claims of the consequences of AGW.
Fordama wrote:...and blather on about it being plant food and that excesss carbon isn't bad.
Well, that PNAS paper shows half the warming we've had since the second half of the 1900s is most likely from nature which means the claims of 'scientists' that most or all of that warming was from plant and tree food is wrong. And then I used science again to show that scientists say that CO2 is only responsible for around 40% of the warming because black soot and other things are contributing more to the warming. If you take these two points and do the math, you come up with CO2 contributing to a mere 20% of the warming.

Fordama wrote:You just don't get it.
I do get it... America uses too many resources, has amassed too much wealth via colonization, and is too free.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by Fordama » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:02 pm

kramer wrote:?" No I don't.
Yep, you've been trying to convince for years that the extra CO2 is good--and that global warming isn't happening anyway. Well, a while ago you were trying to convince that it wasn't happening, but finally the mountains of evidence forced you to concede that point.

Sooner or later you'll have to concede that too much carbon is bad, too. I'll wait patiently.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by kramer » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:00 am

Fordama wrote:Yep, you've been trying to convince for years that the extra CO2 is good--and that global warming isn't happening anyway. Well, a while ago you were trying to convince that it wasn't happening, but finally the mountains of evidence forced you to concede that point.

Sooner or later you'll have to concede that too much carbon is bad, too. I'll wait patiently.

Fordama
I already know too much of it is bad. Where we disagree is, at what ppm.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by Fordama » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:32 pm

kramer wrote: I've brought in lots of articles that say CO2 contributes to global warming.
And some day it will sink in. It will even sink in that the one PNAS paper that you keep twisting your nipples over also says that CO2 contributes to global warming.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by kramer » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:25 pm

kramer wrote: I've brought in lots of articles that say CO2 contributes to global warming.
Fordama wrote:And some day it will sink in.
I've said it contributes to global warming. The difference is, you think it's responsible for 100% of the warming we've had. I think it's responsible for more like 10% of the warming we've had.
kramer wrote: It will even sink in that the one PNAS paper that you keep twisting your nipples over also says that CO2 contributes to global warming.
Actually, that PNAS paper that you keep avoiding like the plague backs up my claims that it's only responsible for a fraction of the warming. Some day when you get some balls, go there and read what I posted. You'll see that I have two links, one for the PNAS paper that cuts the amount of warming we've had from CO2 by half, and another link to an article that says CO2 is only responsible for less than 40% of the warming.

If my math is right, 40%*50% is 20% which is more likely the amount of warming we've had from CO2. When the climate 'scientists' say CO2 is only responsible for about 10% of the warming, then I'll finally agree with them and won't be skeptical anymore of how much warming they say we are going to get.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by Fordama » Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:11 pm

kramer wrote:[
I've said it contributes to global warming.
It's about time.First you used to argue that global warming wasn't happening. Then you argued that CO2 doesn't cause it.

Now we also have to get you to realize that excess CO2 has other negative consequences. I'm sure in time you'll have to concede that as well.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by kramer » Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:13 pm

kramer wrote: I've said it contributes to global warming.
Fordama wrote:It's about time.
Really?

"As far as water vapor compared to CO2, water vapor is over 700x more powerful than CO2 as a GHG. In addition, when there is water vapor in the air, CO2 doesn't matter as far as warming. Only when the air is dry does CO2 have some warming affect."
- Kramer, Nov 4, 2009

Nov 2009 was almost 4 years ago.

Fordama wrote:Now we also have to get you to realize that excess CO2 has other negative consequences.
Why don't you tell us what the "safe level" of CO2 is?

Fordama wrote: I'm sure in time you'll have to concede that as well.
I'm sure in time you won't ever tell us what you think the safe ppm level of CO2 is.


(logged in today. This is the 5th time since March 11th. Anybody else have to re-log in 5 times since Mar 11th?)
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Scientist: Use cattle to 'reverse' desertification

Post by Fordama » Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:57 pm

kramer wrote: Only when the air is dry does CO2 have some warming affect.[/i]"
Yep, I remember you trying to say it didn't have the warming effect right there.

Good catch.

Fordama
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

Post Reply