|
|
Post by franko on Apr 21, 2009 13:54:21 GMT -5
Fatties cause global warming THE rising number of fat people was yesterday blamed for global warming.
Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production — a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet.
Overweight people are also more likely to drive, adding to environmental damage.
Dr Phil Edwards, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “Moving about in a heavy body is like driving in a gas guzzler.”
Each fat person is said to be responsible for emitting a tonne more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one.
It means an extra BILLION TONNES of CO2 a year is created, according to World Health Organisation estimates of overweight people.
The scientists say providing extra grub for them to guzzle adds to carbon emissions that heat up the world, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels and killing rain forests.link to “Planet Girth” articleAmazing what is being passed around the net these days . . . Oh . . . btw . . . I have the solution . . . but if I post it I'll be banned, and there are a couple more games left this season that I'll want to comment on. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 21, 2009 15:40:46 GMT -5
Ooohhh - the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has managed to link two of the pet causes du jour! Global warming and obesity. And the reverse vampires, no doubt - although dropping a bombshell like that would probably have serious repercussions for Dr. Edwards (who, in case anyone is wondering, is a statistician - not a medical doctor or an environmental biologist or in fact, someone who knows anything but how to make numbers look the way he wants them too).
Yeah I'm sorry - global warming nonsense aside, there's so many flaws in what was reported (and likely in his report - I can't find a copy of his paper right now, but knowing statisticians and having seen some of his other nutty proposals). Being fat != eating more. My brother's girlfriend eats like a horse that's been starved for a year or so but is quite rake like in figure. Further more, if excercising (moving) is tantamount to burning more fuel and releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere, shouldn't a fat person - who probably moves around and excercises a lot less - be like the person who owns a Hummer but doesn't take it out of the garage all that often, while slim people - who tend to excercise more - be like people who own a Honda Accord and take it out on long pleasure cruises and Sunday drives?
Rubbish science paired with rubbish science equals more rubbish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 21, 2009 16:35:15 GMT -5
Last two days in LA have been record setting over 102 degrees.
This has been the coldest winter in LA since I arrived 20 years ago.
We are either in the midst of global warming or entering the next ice age.
I am very worried that the sea level will rise and stop North Koreans from crossing the land bridge migrating to North America.
I've heard enough of Al Gore, "the sky is falling."
Humans didn't cause the last couple of ice ages or converting the lush Sahara into a desert.
Times change. Yes, hummers do put more CO2 into the atmosphere. Nature has a way of moderating extremes.
Global warming is good for Canada. Navagation into the Arctic, longer growing season in Saskatchewan, less salt and snow on the roads and easier access to oil sands. Add reduced wheat production in the America prairie states and Canada has a bonanza.
The tundra isn't short of water or heat.
|
|
|
|
Post by duster on Apr 21, 2009 18:13:56 GMT -5
... Global warming is good for Canada. Navagation into the Arctic, longer growing season in Saskatchewan, less salt and snow on the roads and easier access to oil sands. Add reduced wheat production in the America prairie states and Canada has a bonanza. The tundra isn't short of water or heat. In theory yes, but you have to be able to access those resources and protect them. For example, easier navigation in the Arctic means another Exxon Valdez goes from a possibility to a probability. A warmer climate won't help the people trying to build a road to a northern seaport like Churchill - it's hard to pave on top of muskeg in the first place and the present ice roads won't last as long. Higher mean temperatures doesn't help the desertification that is affecting the interior of BC and some areas of Saskatchewan. The tundra is a finite source of heat or water. The Russians made enormous efforts to turn the taiga into agricultural land and failed. A warmer climate and all the chemical fertilizer in the world doesn't make sparse soil and all those rocks more fertile. On the plus side, the already abundant population of mosquitoes would thrive, so I guess buying Union Carbide or S.C. Johnson stock might be a good idea.  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 21, 2009 22:08:32 GMT -5
Right on, TNG.
I thought this was a piece from The Onion at first.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 23, 2009 22:34:28 GMT -5
Rubbish science paired with rubbish science equals more rubbish. Why say rubbish and not garbage? I think that "rubbish" is too politically correct, too much of a metrosexual word.....  |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 24, 2009 9:07:07 GMT -5
Rubbish science paired with rubbish science equals more rubbish. Why say rubbish and not garbage? I think that "rubbish" is too politically correct, too much of a metrosexual word..... Because I feel like being eloquent today. Jeeze - can't a guy have a touch of refinement and class around here? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 27, 2009 16:33:56 GMT -5
Why say rubbish and not garbage? I think that "rubbish" is too politically correct, too much of a metrosexual word..... Because I feel like being eloquent today. Jeeze - can't a guy have a touch of refinement and class around here? That's BC's job. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 6, 2009 11:07:10 GMT -5
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Climate change serious - beer affected
BEER will be short supply, more expensive and may taste different as climate change affects barley production, a scientist says.
Drought conditions in parts of Australia where malting barley was grown was likely to get worse, according to Jim Salinger of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.
Barley production in the main growing region of Canterbury in New Zealand - where brewing giant Lion Nathan gets about 70 per cent of its malted barley - would also be affected, the New Zealand Press Association said.
"It will mean either there will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up," he said.
Malting barley production in Australia was likely to be hit hard in parts of Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and NSW.
The dry areas of Australia would become drier and water shortages would get worse.
"It will provide a lot of challenges for the brewing industry," Dr Salinger said.
He said breweries could be forced to look at new varieties of malt.
Dr Salinger told the Institute of Brewing and Distilling convention in Auckland today that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases - measured in equivalent amounts of carbon dioxide - would be double, and possibly four times pre-industrial levels, leading to further climate warming.
"Most areas in Australia where malting barley is cropped are likely to experience producing declines," he said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 6, 2009 11:32:28 GMT -5
At least they are taking steps to deal with that climate destroyer.....flatulence. Do YOU have your flatulence cards? ~~~~ New Weapon Against Warming: "Flatulence Cards" Offset Dog, Human Emissions
Sean Markey
for National Geographic News
March 6, 2007
While global warming is nothing to laugh at, an Australian company is providing some comic relief, selling carbon credits for flatulent pets and people.
So-called carbon emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane, are greenhouse gases that are thought to be key factors in climate change. These emissions can be offset by purchasing carbon credits, which may be used to fund environmental programs.
For 35 Australian dollars (about 27 U.S. dollars), customers of Sydney-based Easy Being Green can offset a year's worth of carbon emissions linked to their dogs, from trips to the vet to, yes, breaking wind.
Making your cat carbon neutral for a year costs U.S.$6, while U.S.$16 offsets two years of flatulence from that special someone.
More.....news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070306-warming-credits.html |
|
