Eat kangaroo to 'save the planet'

[Notebook]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7551125.stm

Where does that leave the Emu?

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

N.

 

[Cobalt]

From the article:

The methane gas produced by sheep and cows through belching and flatulence is more potent than carbon dioxide in the damage it can cause to the environment.

I try to help this by eating the cows.

 

[Moonwalker]

The methane content within the earth atmosphere is 1.75 parts per million or 0.000175%. Some scientists seriously even don't consider methane as a real greenhouse gas anymore because of its rather low amount. Methane certainly is not a threat concerning global warming. Also, it is not for sure if CO2 is a basic threat concerning global warming. And we don't have to save the planet because we're not facing an armageddon.

 

[Andy44]

Still, I'm going to eat cows just to make sure.

 

[Arrowstar]

Me as well. You can never be too careful with those bovine creatures.

 

[adamb193]

I eat people, they seem to have a larger impact. Silly earthlings, yet so tasty.

 

[RangerPL]

Mmmm kangburgers my favorite :rofl:

 

[Kyle]

Mmmm kangburgers my favorite :rofl:

L0L

 

[Quick_Nick]

Mmmm kangburgers my favorite :rofl:

I knew there was something different about the burgers at Outback Steakhouse. :lol:

 

[Deke]

So instead of veal cutlets we get joey cutlets?

 

[Andy44]

Soylent Green is KANGAROOS!!!!!

 

[Donamy]

At least they did'nt say, it tasted like chicken.

 

[Tex]

Interesting, never had kangaroo before, but I love our cows in Texas!

*Off-topic* -- LMAO at your custom title Andy! :rofl:

 

[Linguofreak]

This is one global warming solution I wouldn't mind. I'd at least like to *try* kangaroo.

 

[simonpro]

The methane content within the earth atmosphere is 1.75 parts per million or 0.000175%.

You got this sentence right.

Some scientists seriously even don't consider methane as a real greenhouse gas anymore because of its rather low amount.

Name some.

Methane certainly is not a threat concerning global warming.

Completely wrong, it's a serious issue with regards to global warming. The current consensus is that it's much worse (even at the lower concentration) than CO2 in terms of acting as a greenhouse gas. At the very least it's an issue.

Also, it is not for sure if CO2 is a basic threat concerning global warming.

Yes, it is for sure. It's been years since any serious scientist challenged this consensus, the only challengers at the moment are people outside their area of expertise, and hence can't be relied on for detailed scientific knowledge of the subject area.

And we don't have to save the planet because we're not facing an armageddon.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested we are. What we're facing is a severe problem, it won't be the end of the world, but it could be the end of the ease-of-living that we're currently used to.

 

[Jarvitä]

Kangaroos? Cows? I'll stick to rabbits, pigs and horses, thank you very much.

 

[Moonwalker]

@simonpro

Professor Sherwood Rowland as well as Professor Donald R. Blake and their team of the University of California (Irvine) don't assume methane as a threat concerning global warming for example. Scientists of the Max Planck Institute even say that global warming is going to have a break for the next 10 to 15 years ("we may have to think global warming over").

But it doesn't really matter which scientist thinks this and that and if some claim a consensus or not. Climate driving factors as well as ice ages and global climate changes in general are not understood suitable yet. It is not for sure that CO2 or CH4 is the ultimate climate driver. There is a lot on paper and computer models which show likelihoods and assumptions concerning the future climate. But computer models and paper doesn't make CO2, CH4 or other things the cause of a catastrophic climate change.

In fact there is some political and scientific propaganda already to ensure jobs, political programs and money.

 

[ryan]

As an Aussie i think that idea is crazy, how would the Americans think if we started eating the bald eagle or something.

 

[Notebook]

Thats the problem when you start putting wildlife on your coat-of arms, or as a national symbol.

We're ok in the UK, we ate the last lion years ago, and I haven't seen a unicorn in donkeys years.

N.

 

[Quick_Nick]

As an Aussie i think that idea is crazy, how would the Americans think if we started eating the bald eagle or something.

Probably wouldn't care much. Just a bird. Only a problem if you do it IN America.