Poll: Number Of Americans Who Think Global Warming Is ‘Exaggerated’ Is Increasing
Poll: Number Of Americans Who Think Global Warming Is ‘Exaggerated’ Is Increasing
In a Q&A at the Wonk Room today, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) was asked why “the media still giving space” to global warming deniers. “I’m hopeful that while the old talking heads are still singing the ‘anti-science’ tune, most of America doesn’t really believe it,” replied Edwards.
Unfortunately, a new Gallup poll shows that while a majority of Americans still believe global warming is happening, a record number now say that it is “exaggerated” by the news media:
Considering the manner in which the media covers global warming, it’s not surprising that the public is confused. For instance, when conservative columnist George Will published demonstrably false claims about climate change in the Washington Post, the Post refused to run a correction. Editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, defended Will, claiming that he was simply “drawing inferences from data that most scientists reject” and that his critics were “irresponsible.”
In 2007, former Vice President Al Gore pointed out that studies have found that “essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists,” but that “53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed [with] the global warming premise.” Gore says that this is “balance as bias.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
As Karl Rove loves to say….. if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes “reality”
These people are intellectual dwarfs.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:08 pmThis is a distressing trend only exacerbated by corporate media green-washing and the very lame and diminished efforts by President Obama to immediately confront global warming and lead the people to a drastic solution.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
March 11th, 2009 at 5:10 pmThe war on science & rationality continues, move along.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:13 pmAlso, you have to remember that large percentages of Americans have no understanding of basic science, much less the human impact on global climate change.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:15 pmWhen you have a majority of people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, it’s difficult for them to understand the concept of global warming when they have 2 feet of snow on their front lawn.
As AlGore says
March 11th, 2009 at 5:17 pmIf you repeat a lie long enough it becomes a Nobel Prize and an Academy Award. (Not to mention a 100 million dollar fortune)
Well, cap and trade is actually a free market thing promoted by the investment banks, such as JP Morgan did with acid rain, and will be one of the next innovative ways of making money as carbon would become a commodity that would be traded and speculated on…
Why does the media hate global warming and wall street?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:19 pmAlGore Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
The wingnuts will forever hate all Nobel Prizes because Reagan didn’t win one. Waaaaaaa!!!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:23 pmThe survey was conducted during winter, so it’s possible that the season influenced results. It would be interesting to see the same poll in August.
It’s also interesting to see the “exaggerated” decline in 2005. I wonder if the survey was conducted after Hurricane Katrina?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:24 pmWe’ll learn the hard way.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:26 pmLet’s see. We can believe the troll’s baseless opinion that nothing is happening, or we can go with the scientific research of thousands of climatologists. Tough call.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:28 pmHurrican Katrina was not a phenomenally devastating hurricane in its own right. It was the breaking of the levees on Lake Pontchartrain that flooded New Orleans.
The environmental impact of changes in migration and changes in climate zone that impact agriculture should be covered in the media. The public would be able to understand it better with concrete examples.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:29 pmIn the next couple of decades climate change is going to cause famine, water shortages, and displacement perhaps millions of people. Of course by then it will be too late for conservation, we’ll need technology to save Earth’s life.
When that happens, people who used this crisis as a political football should be charged with negligent homicide
March 11th, 2009 at 5:32 pmWiley says
We’ll learn the hard way.
Except there are no second chances when it comes to irreversible damage. Once Earth reaches a “turning” point, all efforts will be too little too late.
I witnessed the Mighty Amazon River dry as a bone a few years ago. For the first time in the history of humanity, the Amazon dried up to almost 25% of its size for 4 months.
If that is not enough to scare you…..then you are a stupid, moronic rePUGnican!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:34 pmUnsurprisingly, fear tactics by many on the left have had the opposite effect from which they wanted. To create a groundswell of support from Americans, the issue should have been framed from the get-go as job creation, energy independence, and one of foreign policy.
Calling people names who don’t believe you isn’t going to garner majority support.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:37 pmWell, the poll doesnt divide the results into democratic or republican so to automatically assume that all deniers are (R) and all believers are (D), I think, is a mistake.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:44 pmArguing Global Warming is a bit like arguing gravity.
You can jump up in the air and say ‘look, no gravity’, but eventually, you have to come down…
The media tends to focus on the jumpers to bring ‘balance’ to an argument that shouldn’t even be made.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:46 pmWith our coming depression some may put this subject on the back burner and go into denial over global warming’s severity.
Sad, it is the children who get no say in the matter that will be affected.
The numbers would be different if children were polled.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:48 pmMost Americans are not very bright. They accept the propaganda from the corporate MSM, especially TV news. They will not move on climate change until they are directly affected, if then.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:48 pmWhat is up your butt, krystalviews? I’m not a Republican, nor am I denying global warming. Kiss my butt.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pmWell, let’s see. If we get this wrong, our grandchildren will look to us for an explanation. The world we leave for them will be vastly different than it looks today. They will want to know why we didn’t act.
Let’s look at the balance: If we get it wrong our world will die – with regard to its ability to support human life. If we get it right, we will have a healthier and more productive place to live. Why is that choice so hard for people to understand? Do you suppose they believe God will save us?
March 11th, 2009 at 5:50 pmWhy do you think the far leftists like harry reid are trying to stop the debate? It’s a hoax! -=Archibald=-
If it were a hoax I would think he would be wanting debate to, you know, catapult the propaganda instead of stopping debate.
Too much carbon is not good for us just as sucking on an exhaust pipe isnt good for us.
And of course with polar ice melting it creates El Ninas which do make for changing weather patterns.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:55 pmArchibald says: Or we can go with the thousands of scientists that say it isn’t true. Tough call….
Thats been debunked, those thousands of scientists didnt even know they were put on some denial list created by non-scientific deniers.
Besides science has many different branches IE a botanist is not a climatologist nor is a nuclear physicist.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:58 pmFolks…It is the survival of our race. Our ability to live here.
As to our famous Global Warming deniers: what possible benefit would go to the ones who want to protect our planet? Why on earth would those who believe global warming exists be so adamant about getting the message out?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:01 pmI think the jargon being used contributes to the problem. Also, after the severe winter, people too often confuse weather with climate.
Instead of global warming (which is factual) we might try to call it climate change. A symptom of climate change (global warming) is severe weather patterns.
People may not be inclined to think that now, but if we have a continued drought and extended heat wave this summer, they will think again.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:01 pmArchie B Says:
or we can go with the scientific research of thousands of climatologists. Tough call.
Or we can go with the thousands of scientists that say it isn’t true. Tough call….
Not to anyone paying attention.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:02 pmThe debate is the CAUSE….not that it IS happening. -=T5=-
Of course its happening, do you still see glaciers around the great lakes?
What do you think created all those lakes in Minnesota? See any Wooly Mammoths running about?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:04 pmThe debate, according to many, is that mankind is creating warming…I think it doesnt matter if man is or isnt the cause we must take care of our planet.
To deny warming is to deny that oil is limited in supply.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:06 pmThe debate is the CAUSE….not that it IS happening. -=T5=-
Im sorry If I misunderstood, could you clarify this remark please?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:10 pmTrue, but to think we can do anything other the slow it down, if at all, is a pipe dream.
So… we shouldn’t do anything? First you guys attacked anyone who said human activity caused it. Now you’re saying, oh, well, it’s too tough to fix.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:11 pmTrue, but to think we can do anything other the slow it down, if at all, is a pipe dream. -=T5=-
Doing something is better, in this case, I think, than doing nothing.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:12 pmEvery generation is born to a deader planet. Pollution and environmental degradation has been the norm for quite some time. Stopping or significantly slowing the damage we are doing will require radical changes in the way we live. I can understand people being afraid of that, and being burnt out from prophecies of apocalyptic doom. We need more and better information, and agencies that can make a difference need to act in spite of skepticism.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:13 pmTracy__5 Says:
“Of course its happening, do you still see glaciers around the great lakes?”
I don’t see any glaciers in Florida either, but that doesn’t mean global warming is true.
There aren’t that many glaciers in the continental U.S. anyway.
Excuse me, I mean climate change
March 11th, 2009 at 6:14 pmIt’s like saying cigarettes cause cancer, but there’s nothing we can do to stop people from smoking.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:15 pmIs man contributing to the rate of increase of greenhouse gases?…absolutely, many say that man is the sole cause of global warming…this is yet to be proven. -=T5=-
I concur. Is man the sole cause? I think not but our emissions do exacerbate the phenom. Such is why I mentioned obliquity and precession which is cyclical but over a long period of time 25k and 44k years IIRC
March 11th, 2009 at 6:15 pmmany say that man is the sole cause of global warming…
Link? Who are these “many?”
March 11th, 2009 at 6:16 pmShowing a little humility is always a good thing.
Screw that. Drill baby drill!
March 11th, 2009 at 6:17 pmYou mean the “thousands” of economists, social scientists and political scientists that say it isn’t true?
Strange thing… very few of them have published peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals disputing the science of increased CO2 and its impact on the Earth’s climate.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:18 pmThen why have people like Gore pushed such propoganda?
Quote?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:19 pmbarfly Says: Who are these “many?”
Mostly the deniers of GW..=)
March 11th, 2009 at 6:20 pmOf course, “humility” works both ways — and is used by deniers to make the claim that humans can’t possibly have any real impact on the climate because we’re so small and the atmosphere is so vast. To make this case, however, one must ignore phenomena such as urban heat islands, and climate shifts that accompany massive deforestation, for instance, as well as the principle of cumulative effects.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:21 pmThe truth will never prevail given the Orwellian world in which we live today. Corporate and special interest money of the Republican and right wing rabble control messaging. Jack Welch made it very clear when GE bought NBC that the news division would be used not only to make a profit but also to serve the corporate interests of General Electric. Nothing needs to be said about Rupert Murdoch and his media empire.
It is time to destroy the concentration of media and news ownership. It is time to eliminate the ability of corporations to buy and sell news as well as political advertising. The old FCC rules on media concentration must be re-established or there will be an end to democracy and (with climate change) quite possibly the human race.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:21 pmTracy__5 Says:
“I concur. Is man the sole cause?”
Then why have people like Gore pushed such propoganda?
They haven’t.
In fact, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that humans are the “sole” source of global warming.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:21 pmOh, barfly, Tracist wasn’t speaking literally about Gore “publishing propaganda” that man is the sole cause. He meant that, when distilled to the essence that wingnuts like to fixate on and simplified into standard demonizing talking point, Gore’s message can be dishonestly expressed as such.
That’s what he meant. I guess.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:24 pmWon’t matter in the future what anyone believed or when. What’s happening is happening, and it’s waaaaayyy to big a train to “put the brakes on”.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:26 pmThen why have people like Gore pushed such propoganda? -=T5=-
You would have to ask Al Gore that. But lets be real, often politicians and investors push environmental issues because its profitable. The creator of CDS’s, JP Morgan bank, profited handsomely off acid rain because pollution became, basically, a commodity. This did have the effect of reducing pollution, creating jobs and creating profits for wall street.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:26 pmUm, I asked for a link to those who claimed that human activity was the sole cause of global warming.
The one you provided doesn’t do it.
I guess you were just engaging in a little hyperbole, eh?
There really isn’t anyone who has claimed what you say.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:26 pm“The leaked assessment by the group of international experts says there is now overwhelming evidence to show that the Earth’s climate is undergoing dramatic transformation because of human activity.”
Doesn’t say “solely responsible.”
March 11th, 2009 at 6:27 pm“The leaked assessment by the group of international experts says there is now overwhelming evidence to show that the Earth’s climate is undergoing dramatic transformation because of human activity.” -=T5=-
I understand that deniers read that as man is the sole cause, but thats not what the way I read it.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:30 pmWell when you have that so called “Liberal Media” having a 4to1 ratio of Repukes to Democrats on the tube spewing their lies and propaganda, it’s no wonder that most people are ill informed on the subject…
….and it takes and understanding of science to be able to understand the reality of it all…
…and when you have most people in the US believing in a Invisible Magical Faerie in the sky that was made up by ancient goat herders…
…their power of reasoning is somewhat weak.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:32 pmYou would have to ask the author that. However, to use that lack of clarity as justification to claim the most extreme interpretation as the only reasonable one is kind of reckless, doncha think, Trace?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:37 pmI don’t knpw, Trace, because I haven’t read it. Have you?
If you have questions such as these, perhaps it might behoove you to actually research and read, rather than simply spewing shallow assumptions as if they were fact.
Seems to me that if the answer were “yes” (and I suspect it is, given the way i have heard former Vice-President Gore speak on the subject), then it would pretty much destroy this particular objection you have.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:40 pmEach to his or her own interpretation, but why didn’t it say “because of human and natural activity” -=T5=-
Mankinds activity can include the raising of cattle which produces rather large amounts of greenhouse gases. =)
March 11th, 2009 at 6:41 pmI havent read Gores book either..
March 11th, 2009 at 6:43 pmWhen average person reads it they wouldn’t have a reason to doubt it not not call into question a “lack of clarity”. -=T5=-
Language is a funny thing and its not perfect by any means.
If I said “The sky is blue” many would agree. But the sky isnt really blue if one takes the effort to understand, scientifically, that the sky only appears blue.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:50 pmDidn’t you above say “Each to his or her own interpretation”?
And now you’re making an argument based on how you assume the “average person” would read an ambiguous (at best) statement?
You claimed that former Vice-President Gore, among others, made the claim that man was “solely responsible” for climate change. That’s a pretty strict claim, made with deliberate language. You have yet to back it up.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:53 pmCattle are “a product of mankind”?
You’re not banking on strict interpretations of the language you choose anymore, are ya, Trace?
March 11th, 2009 at 6:54 pmTracy__5 Says:
#52
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0504-08.htm
“The leaked assessment by the group of international experts says there is now overwhelming evidence to show that the Earth’s climate is undergoing dramatic transformation because of human activity.”
I’m always suspicious of these little snippets taken as evidence. It always helps to read the actual article rather than rely on the honesty of tracy and his ilk.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Wouldn’t you agree that “cattle” are, for all practical purposes, a product of mankind? -=T5=-
No. Cattle werent bred into existence/created by mankind. but as a food source we have grown the population of cows far beyond its natural existence.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:57 pmBut you didn’t make your argument based on what the “average person” would think, until you were pushed on your claim. At first, your charge was, simply put, that Gore and other claimed that man was “solely responsible” for climate change. You have not shown that.
If you meant that “the average person would necessarily infer from Gore’s statements that man is solely responsible for climate change”, that is a different argument. Still not a very strong one, but less factually based and thus more difficult to immediately dismiss.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:58 pmTracy5 is a product of herd think.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:59 pmTracy__5 Says:
I quoted from Gore’s book.
And we’ve seen how you “quote”. See above.
Give it up, folks. You’ll never get an honest argument from Tracy.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:00 pmExactly my point by saying the “average person” wouldn’t take the time to understand “why” the sky is blue. -=T5=-
Sadly, true.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:01 pm“Cattle are “a product of mankind”?”
For all practical purposes…yes they are. -=T5=-
Cattle are not a product of mankind IE we dont build or manufacture cattle, nature did that a long time ago, but mankind uses them to create other products
March 11th, 2009 at 7:03 pmWhat the “average person” would think doesn’t mean squat.
We’re taking about language. The language you cite, the words that make up the statement, mean something very specific. It can be read different ways (hence the term “ambiguous”) but the language itself is what we have to deal with.
The language does not say what you want it to say, nor does it say what you claim the “average person” would get from it. The language says what it says. It does not restrict itself to man being the “sole” source of effect, no matter how much you want to believe it does. You have no standing to claim that the statement means the one narrow interpretation you insist it means, when it clearly does not say that.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:05 pmNo, Trace, the rules of English language mean that it’s an “ambiguous statement”.
You’re confusing things here, whether deliberately or you’re just confused, I can’t tell.
The “strict claim” I mentioned was your claim that Gore said man was “solely responsible” for climate change.
The quote you pulled from Gore’s book does not say that.
Try again.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:07 pm(sigh) I know you’re right, gum. I’ll leave it alone.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:09 pmJust wait until summer, it’ll go down again.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:11 pmThen up in the winter again.
People are stupid.
No offense Tracy_5 but coming from a person that doesn’t believe in evolution either, I am not sure you are the best at swaying anyway as to concepts in science.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:12 pmAlejandro Says:
Just wait until summer, it’ll go down again.
Then up in the winter again.
People are stupid.
I tend to use the word ignorant [uninformed], maybe because I think people are generally smart but lazy when it comes to using their minds
March 11th, 2009 at 7:14 pmI agree, Alejandro.
I though we had dropped the “global warming” phrase in favor of the more accurate “climate change”.
When people are being hit with late season snow and ice storms in unusual places, of course they are not going to believe in global warming…
March 11th, 2009 at 7:16 pmWhat day of the week did humans create cattle, Tracy5?
March 11th, 2009 at 7:18 pm“This debate were are having isn’t a matter of scientific dispute.”
That is painfully obvious, reading your offerings here.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:32 pmGeeeezz..
If you repeat a lie long enough it becomes a Nobel Prize and an Academy Award. (Not to mention a 100 million dollar fortune)
March 11th, 2009 at 7:39 pmIf you repeat a lie long enough it becomes a Nobel Prize and an Academy Award. (Not to mention a 100 million dollar fortune)
It also becomes your reality from the first written word
March 11th, 2009 at 7:42 pmPretty ambiguous there Al.
It’s okay for AlGores horse to crap in the street because He can afford the guy in a clown suit to follow Him around with a shovel. How very progressive of Him.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:48 pmThis.
Not all people, of course, but there’s certainly a fair percentage of the population that can’t get past the “But it’s cold out now, how could there be global warming?” thing.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:55 pmgrrrr….you trollies are right!
damn that al gore for being concerned about the future!!!!
and damn him for exercising his right to free speech!!!
and damn him for understanding what scientists mean when they talk about their disciplines!!!
damned smart people, anyway!!
damned old al gore!!!
he’s what the real problem is!!!
March 11th, 2009 at 8:17 pmAlGore Says:
It’s okay for AlGores horse to crap in the street because He can afford the guy in a clown suit to follow Him around with a shovel. How very progressive of Him.
____________
it’s kind of… amazing to watch a feckless twit like this one try to turn the problem into some sort of popularity contest… “because I don’t like Al Gore, the problem can’t be real…” or some such self-serving nonsense.
Let’s not forget that just last month, “on the 200th anniversary of his Darwin’s birth, Gallup has a new poll out showing that “only 39 percent of Americans say they ‘believe in the theory of evolution,’ while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36 percent don’t have an opinion either way”.
What percentage of Americans believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
What percentage believe Elvis is still alive… and perhaps living in the center of the Earth in Atlantis?
Problems have this nasty way of showing no respect whatsoever to opinions.
Go ahead… believe, hope, pray there isn’t a serious problem here… see where the prayers get ya…
March 11th, 2009 at 8:33 pmI say we let the deniers Drill Baby Drill.
Once they have depleted thier supplies. DONE!
We will not give you the technologies we have developed to combat global warming and alternative energy supplies.
YOU ALL will be living back in the Stone Age where you belong.
Deal?
March 11th, 2009 at 8:44 pmWho pays for most “science”?
March 11th, 2009 at 8:44 pmWhen the city is burning, whether caused by lightning or a match, most people with working brain cells put out the fire and remove the cause or chance that happens again.
Now the people with non-working brain cells spend all their time and efforts to tell you the city is not burning.
For anyone who has difficulty determining the two viewpoints……..
All those glaciers and the polar ice caps aren’t melting because the atmosphere, over all, is getting colder.
On the contrary, the glaciers and polar ice caps are melting exactly because heating of the atmosphere on a global scale is occurring, and this heating is apparently accelerating, which definitely doesn’t bode well for the future of mankind.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:21 pmYeah, we’ve had a bad winter (will it ever END???), but keep remembering we’re rolling dice with a 1 spot and it landed on the 1 spot this time. But instead of 5 other different sides, now there are only 4, maybe 3, and they are weighted to those sides. So we will back to heatwaves soon enough. Hell, it was in the 80s in parts of the US– IN FEBRUARY!
March 11th, 2009 at 9:56 pmWhatever natural cycles have happened to the earth over millions of years, I can’t argue those. All I know is that is insane to think over the past few hundred years we can dump all this extra CO 2 and freon and fu<k all into the atmosphere and not expect the worst.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:35 amI wonder if the rain will hurt my rubarb
March 12th, 2009 at 2:46 amScientists are now saying that due to melting ice at the poles the sea levels will rise higher and faster than expected. My fear is that we have missed our last best chance to do something to slow this down because of the deniers in office the last 8 years. And now with the Great Recession taking up every space resource available, the odds of anything big happening to ameliorate the situation look even more remote.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:53 amWiley, when I said
“If that is not enough to scare you…..then you are a stupid, moronic rePUGnican!”
I did not mean YOU, per se…… I meant “you” as in “anyone who is not scared by this must be…..:
I’m sorry for the misundersanding.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:01 amXisithrus Says:
Cattle are not a product of mankind IE we dont build or manufacture cattle, nature did that a long time ago, but mankind uses them to create other products
March 11th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
____________
This is a rather silly semantic argument, but I’m going to side with Tracy on this point. Humans do manufacture cattle, in very large and highly-polluting factory farms. Sure, the raw materials were not actually created by humans, but then neither was the iron ore we use to make steel or the hydrocarbon we use to make plastics.
The creatures we grind up to make our cheeseburgers bear at best a passing resemblance to the wild animals they are descended from. They have been selectively bred and genetically modified to become living fermentation vats and lipid storage, and loaded up with so many chemicals and antibiotics that they’d never survive in the wild.
I think it’s completely accurate to say that the cattle on factory farms around the world is indeed a product of humanity, and is a major producer of greenhouse gases that we should be very concerned with.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:10 amThis really sucks. Even Thom Hartmann is putting global warming deniers on his show. Why do radio show hosts keep doing this? Keep these deniers off the air! It’s having an overall doubtmongering effect. Progressives seem to be doing the work of Exxon lately.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:46 pmThe major producers of greenhouse gasses are coal plants and automobiles and buildings, not farm animals.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:48 pmComment #21: “The numbers would be different if children were polled.”
Actually, if you examine the Gallup story, their poll finds the only group that didn’t lower their support is 18-29 year-olds. I’m not saying these are children, but they are the youngest cohort in the study, and the ones most likely to have to live with severe effects.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:24 pmComment #64: “Is there anything in Gore’s book that says anything about global warming being cause by natural forces?”
If he writes about tipping points, there is. (I haven’t read the book either.)
March 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pmComment #83: “Cattle are not a product of mankind IE we don’t build or manufacture cattle, nature did that a long time ago, but mankind uses them to create other products.”
True, mankind did not create the cow. But the current large population of cattle — and its large methane output — is most certainly due to mankind.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:27 pm