Eat kangaroo to 'save the planet'

Eating kangaroo would also help solve the kangaroo problem.

Re the emu, it is often on the same menu ;). Emu farming is quite popular for the emu oil.

As an Aussie i think that idea is crazy, how would the Americans think if we started eating the bald eagle or something.
Huh :blink:? Australian Aborigines have been eating it for millenia. I've eaten it a number of times and it is a good meat. I've had it roasted but there are plenty of chefs that will prepare it in different ways - here are some ideas and you'll find plenty more through Google. "Kanga Bangas" (kangaroo sausages) are even on special at Woolworths/Safeway this week if you care to try them. That gives you some idea how popular kangaroo meat is for major supermarket chains to stock it.

We're ok in the UK, we ate the last lion years ago, and I haven't seen a unicorn in donkeys years.
:rofl:
 
No i ment as a national symbol having it distrubuted all around the world is just weird, and we dont really have kangaroo problem there numbers are going down a bit.
 
Bald Eagle tastes like chicken. Goes pretty well with a sweet BBQ sauce.

Can I get some sides of Koala and Wombat with my Kangaroo meat please?

And I stop listening to any 'Climate Change Evangelist' as soon as they fail to mention fluctuations in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth. It doesn't matter is we all go hippy tomorrow... if the Sun decides to change output one way or the other, there will be climate change here. After all, it wasn't cavemen driving in their SUVs that started the last ice age, or the thaw after it.
 
@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").

Wrong.
Here's a quote from Prof. Roland:
"Methane is not as significant a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, but its effects are important,"

And here's another quote from him:
“If one really tightens emissions, the amount of methane in the atmosphere 10 years from now could be less than it is today. We will gain some ground on global warming if methane is not as large a contributor in the future as it has been in the past century”

Sounds to me like he thinks methane is a threat.


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

Don't try this in Germany, too. Not because we have a generic eagle as national symbol, but because we take protection of endangered species very seriously.
 
As an Aussie i think that idea is crazy, how would the Americans think if we started eating the bald eagle or something.

that reminds me of Swiss protesting because they were eating Bernhardiner (famous swiss dog) over in china... :rofl:
 
Sounds to me like he thinks methane is a threat.

His study suggests that methane is not a dangerous greenhouse gas because of its low level within the atmosphere and that methane emissions are controlable. At least German resources say so.

But i really don't want to hang on scientist a or b or whoever. I don't care about and adore climate science that much like a lot of people do.

Climate science just is an amusement for me...

 
His study suggests that methane is not a dangerous greenhouse gas because of its low level within the atmosphere and that methane emissions are controlable. At least German resources say so.

This chappie isn't German though, so you can't use him in that argument against methane being an important Greenhouse gas. Particularly as he disagrees with what you're saying in the first place.:blink:

But i really don't want to hang on scientist a or b or whoever. I don't care about and adore climate science that much like a lot of people do.

Well it sounds like you're hanging on the words of people who don't have the first idea about the science behind climate change. IMO you should either learn the science or keep your opinion to yourself.
I'm all for freedom of speech, but I think it should come with a clause that it's only applicable for people who know at least something about the subject they're on about.
 
Well it sounds like you're hanging on the words of people who don't have the first idea about the science behind climate change.

Scientists don't disagree so people shouldn't disagree either. That's the usual propaganda.

IMO you should either learn the science or keep your opinion to yourself.

I already learned about climate change and its believed possible causes. But i don't have to agree to everything and to kneel down like people do in the church. Less than ever people don't have to keep their opinions to themself.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I think it should come with a clause that it's only applicable for people who know at least something about the subject they're on about.

Well, who knows about the future climate and the causes of climate changes? Beside paper and computer models there is no real evidence of a catastrophic or unusual climate change caused by humans. We measure weather and climate for a rather short period of time. Compared to the age of the Earth we almost know nothing really concerning climate changes. In fact we guess and believe a lot...
 
Back
Top