Sunday, 7 September 2008

Head of IPCC tells us to stop eating meat

Is there any issue that the deeply immoral leaders of the Climate Movement won't try and include in their Marxist agendas?

Why the head of the IPCC should come from a country that doesn't have to do anything about CO2 reduction while at the same time benefiting from mandatory wealth transfers from signatory countries is beyond me. Shows what chumps we are to have ratified the thing in the first place.

Methane is certainly a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

However, we have no idea what percentage of methane in the atmosphere is due to natural sources and how much is due to farming practices so there's no telling how much effect a reduction in eating meat will actually have.
People should cut their consumption of meat to help combat climate change, a top United Nations expert told a British Sunday newspaper.
Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told The Observer that people should start by having one meat-free day per week then cut back further.

The 68-year-old Indian economist, who is a vegetarian, said diet change was important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental problems associated with rearing cattle and other animals.

"Give up meat for one day (per week) initially, and decrease it from there," he said.

"In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity."

Other small-scale lifestyle changes would also help to combat climate change, he said without elaborating.

"That's what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy."

Dr Pachauri is due to give a speech in London on Monday under the title: "Global Warning: the impact of meat production and consumption on climate change".

Dr Pachauri, who was re-elected for a second term six-year term as IPCC chairman last week, has headed the organisation since 2002 and oversaw its seminal assessment report in 2007 which gave graphic forecasts of the risks posed by global warming.

The IPCC warned then that without action the planet's rising temperatures could unleash potentially catastrophic change to earth's climate system, leading to hunger, drought, storms and massive species loss.

The organisation also won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 along with former US vice president Al Gore.
Not content with telling developing nations that they can't enjoy the benefits of increased energy use without using hugely expensive and inefficient 'renewable' technologies the high priests of the climate movement are now saying that the world should cut down on eating meat - something that all developing nations aspire to.

If there was a way of ranking immorality then those promoting major changes to society due to the climate change bogey - that will have clear negative consequences for all - must rank at the top and with daylight second.

(Nothing Follows)


Anonymous said...

You might have no idea how much atmospheric methane is natural and how much is anthropogenic, but that's because you're desperately ignorant and stupid. 'We' have a very clear idea.

Jack Lacton said...


You are completely off the planet.

Please use that graph to tell me how much is natural and how much is anthropogenic.

Kevo said...

"That's what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy."

Well regrettably Dr Pachauri offered no elaboration on this point, nor can we tell if the interviewer pressed the point.

But his intention seems explicit if taken at face value.

We aren't talking change; we aren't making noises about sustainability. The target is universal economic contraction.

Hmm - well let's mull our own elaboration on this perhaps in just one small aspect.

We face an aging population with increasing demands for health and nursing care - all of which tends to be heavy on inputs to sustain the individual.

We have had another weekend of carnage on the roads and bloodbaths in Melbourne's nightclub precincts - those intensive care wards tend to chew through a lot of energy and non-recyclable items.

And any parent who has had a difficult birth to contend with will recognise that tots popped into humidicribs with critical care nursing are probably chewing a lot of economic resources.

So what contraction does Dr Pachauri envisage here - in the area of pernal critical care and tragedy ? Timers on the intensive care and nursing home beds - if you are not breathing and eating on your own by the time the bell rings, bad luck, we pull the switch ??

As we start culling out the more helpless members of society, that should certainly help reduce economic activity in the medical servcies sector.

Although presumably we will have to tighten the belt in funeral services so that the surge in mortality doesn't translate into overall growth in the sector - multiple occupancy caskets, mulching, soylent green perhaps ??

Can't wait for the release of Princess Penny of the Vapours'

'Useless Carbon Exhaling Polluters Reduction Amendment Bill of 2011'. How many of us will wind up on those reduction lists I wonder ?

Anonymous said...

Fucky - ~1000ppb is anthropogenic, and ~700ppb is natural. Could you not even interpret such a simple thing as that from the graph?

Jack Lacton said...

I'm sorry, Fudgie, but your lack of scientific understanding is on clear display.

Simply because there's a rise does not create causation.

Anonymous said...

The UN IPCC moonbat has also called for governments to force their citizens to reduce meat consumption by 60%. If that doesn't tell you what these assclowns are about, I can't imagine what else might be convincing.

We're all destined to become vegetarian weenies, living in small cubicles with a single CFB illuminating the space while the looselugnut libs have their hairy monkey paws firmly grafted to the levers of power over our lives.

And we are to accept the political and social results of this hoax because....after all....they mean oh-so very well.

Meanwhile, I was very surprised to read that the new CERN Hadron collider is firing up this week, and that part of the experimentation will be to try to determine the link between cosmic radiation and cloud cover. I don't know whether to be encouraged about that or fearful.

I'm surprised about it because European scientists are very often in the tank on this global warming hoax. So that would explain the fear. On the other hand, it would be terrific if this is an honest effort to add to what we know about the matter. Perhaps Svensmark and Friis-Christensen will be on hand for reference.



Anonymous said...

Fucky - you think the sudden rise in methane after 750 years of hardly any variation, just when humanity started burning fossil fuels in earnest, was a coincidence?

Jack Lacton said...


I am not disputing the fact that there is a correlation between the rise in methane and man's activities. But correlation is not causation.

I want to know exactly how much of it is due to natural causes.

The rise correlates with the end of the LIA so there must be some percentage caused by the natural increase in temperature not brought about by CO2 as animal life has prospered in the warmer climate.

Please tell me exactly how much is natural and how much is not.

Is that too much to ask?

Anonymous said...

Like I told you, fucky, ~1000ppb is anthropogenic, and ~700ppb is natural. If you think the methane has only come from 'natural' temperature rises, then that should be ample proof for you that there was no mediaeval warm period - otherwise, methane levels then should have been similar to those now, right?

Jack Lacton said...


The logic is fine but the proof is not there.

Show me the proof.

Anonymous said...

I've shown you the proof. Show me the disproof.

Kayla09 said...

Proof vs Disproof...I guess you guys can keep going on like that in circles while the world keeps moving on with solutions.

Ok, so if not cutting down on meat for the environment - how about for health reasons?

I don't think it is too much to ask for really.

The problem with most of us is that we can't get it through our heads that we are all in this together and not against each other and yes there are some solutions that should be played out for the good of humanity if we are to survive as a human race.

But I guess that is asking too much of some people.