Verified answer

It's so preposterous that they'd even have this discussion.

If aliens visited here from another planet, I'd be embarrassed for the stupidity of my own species.

I think I would lump all the "gates" together as "climate gate."

And I think the point is that they kept piling on without much, if any, due diligence - - if someone suggested that something that crowd already disliked (e.g., red meat) contributed to global warming, the suggestion was adopted. There were several reasons why this particular allegation made no sense from the start - - - the fact that we have to eat SOMETHING produced by agriculture, the fact that the vegetation that the cattle eat would otherwise die naturally and give off the same gases, the fact that where there are now cattle there were other ruminants for thousands of years, etc....

At the core of it there is an interesting but unproven theory. It has morphed into a political agenda.

It fairly does not have something to do with the easily reason. whether that's 2035 or 2020 or 2090 has little to do with the debate to whether or no longer the warming is organic or brought about via CO2. inspite of each and every thing, the earth has been on a organic warming trend for over sixteen,000 years, so whether it keeps, the ice will soften in some unspecified time interior the destiny. they might soften off and advance advance tomatoes on them and that still does no longer mean guy had something to do with it. guy truthfully had no longer something to do with the 1st sixteen,000 years of warming.

This was always a crock - evangelical vegetarian bullshit. If God had meant us to be vegetarians he would have given us a working appendix, and he wouldn't have made animals out of meat!

I have decided to meeet the vegetarians half way - I am now a vegetarian once removed; that is, I only eat animals that are vegetarians! In order to appease vegan wimpiness I have foregone eating tigers, wolves and lions. Now can they stop whining about it when I enjoy a good medium rare steak?

BGS, don't be so foolish. If you have a vegetarian getting food from across the world, because they need variety and compare that to someone eating chicken that had been packaged in the same state, then clearly the veggie diet would use more CO2. This is just a stupid method for the greeners to pretend like being a vegan is so much better. You libs are just on your annoying holier-than-thou trip that I used to only associate with the religiously devout. Now you have become more annoying than the bible thumpers. Good job.

BTW I am not willing to give up my beef, chicken and bacon (mmmm bacon). I will fight and kill everyone one of you stupid greeners for my right to eat bacon. You idiots start trying to take away that from us meat eaters, don't be surprised if you become the next on the menu.

I don't care what you call it. This nonsense will only end once the flawed AGW science of 'radiative forcing', which this whole scare is based on, is admitted to be false.

Radical leftists want everyone to be vegans that's why they came up with the bogus claim that meat eaters are a drain on the planets resources.

Easy, remember for climate change just like a lot of the socialist claims the ends justify the means.

They would eliminate meat as a source for food and this kind of makes them look silly -- again.

First, notice this wasn't from the IPCC.

Second, there is no evidence for your claim "that the UN is being forced to re-evaluate biased claims that a vegetarian diet is more "climate change friendly" than one that includes meat as the comparisons made were hopelessly lopsided." It is the *degree* to which a vegetarian diet produces less emissions that is at stake, not whether eating requires more emissions than vegetarianism.

Third, what this shows is that we don't simply need isolated lifestyle changes (eat less meat, drive less, stop buying unnecessary junk), but connected thinking that is aware of the systems behind these products. Eating meat encourages deforestation. Addressing deforestation (one of the major ecological disasters of our time in its own right, as well as a significant contributor to climate change) will include needing to address the level of meat consumption in western diets. In a similar way, once the re-evaluation of transport is made, then it will be clearer how that too is a system, and the benefits of public transport will only become clearer, as well as the shortsightedness of an obsession of automobile fuel efficiency without also considering the embodied energy in the design and production of the vehicles, as well as the unsustainable expectations built into the demand for private transport, and the design of suburbia.

It isn't the scandals that I find so appalling, but that people feel compelled to add the useless suffix -gate to any supposed scandal. An homage to Watergate? It's annoying useless and asinine