Re: Walkers damage the planet

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:01:11 +0100, amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 22:14:35 +0100, Chris Street
<ngfb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:53:34 +0100, amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote:

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 20:40:27 +0100, Tim Jackson
<news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:27:11 +0100, amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote...
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 01:22:44 +0100, Tim Jackson
<news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Here's a further reason why it is bad science.

But what you have missed is the Chris Street expanded the argument
into food in general - see above.

The point you missed is that these are two entirely separate reasons why
it is bad science. They are not connected. Hint: I said "Here's a
**further** reason".

Nonsense. It's the reason it's not a reason.

No it was *a* reason. There are others.

You haven't given a reason.

That you understand anyway...

I agree that's what was said.

Glad to hear it


Now here is why it is wrong.

The comparison is between the CO2 emissions for a car, and the CO2
emissions in the production of beef leading to the conclusion that a car
emits less CO2 than a walker. There are a deal of things wrong with this
approach.


Don't forget he's using beef because it is a factor of four increase.

So you think he's selecting data to fit his conclusion. Nuff said


Firstly the CO2 production of the walker is not considered. Increased
calory consumption results in increased respiration and CO2 emission.


Contradiction.

I'm sorry it confuses you.


The article compares the cost of producing the beef.
Part of this beef
production cost is due to energy and therefore fossil fuel usage and CO2
emissions.
It is fair to consider that. It does not consider the same type
of energy consumption involved in the extraction and transport of the
vehicle fuel.

It can be seen that there are two large and important types of emission
that are not considered. As such the article states figures that are not
representative of the true picture.

But the true picture is that you're doing what you're accusing the
other side of doing by not taking into consideration the full picture
from both sides.

In what way? I am merely point out that the article takes two dissimilar
sources of CO2 production, fails to include large *unknown* amounts of
production and then reachs a conclusion that cannot be supported due to
these errors


Furthermore it presumes that the walker will derive all his/her calories
from beef. Proteins are a poor source of energy for walking. Furthermore
animal protein production is the most inefficient means of food production
possible. Dare I suggest it was picked for that reason? Animals consume and
waste large amounts of plants to produce meat. Ditto dairy. (the other
comparison that was made - again suspicious). If you wanted to walk then a
carbohydrate such as cereals, pulses, etc would serve you better, be more
likely to be chosen and would require dramatically less CO2 in production
terms.

I think the author has implied that. However, food production is
energy intensive and you have not given any figures backed by evidence
that you are right. So how about it?


My professional qualifications and charges are available if you wish me to
do your donkey work. I do not deny that food production is energy intensive
but I do know that the article reeks of bad science and poor methodology.
IF you cannot see that there are plenty of good courses that are run by
such illustrius and well thought of places as the OU - cheap to access and
even free if you are financially disadvantaged. It does require you to
think and have an open mind so I think you may fall down though




So when you said "So not even the author of this bad science supports
Angus's view that it's better to drive than to walk", you were getting
your mind in a knot

Typical :-))

It is indeed typical that you don't read what has been written. :-((

You may like to go back and have a look then. The comparison above has been
poorly chosen and gives a misleading result due to the erroneous
comparisons that were drawn.


How about evidence to the contrary?


Not just vague opinions.

I leave those you someone far more able than me at handwaving.

*plonk*


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Walkers damage the planet
    ... It's the reason it's not a reason. ... The comparison is between the CO2 emissions for a car, ... production cost is due to energy and therefore fossil fuel usage and CO2 ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Planet too hot? Cool it!
    ... absorbing our CO2 waste and transforming it into food. ... production of food could produce enough to feed all Africa. ... We can fix enormous quantities of CO2 by transforming the surface ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Planet too hot? Cool it!
    ... absorbing our CO2 waste and transforming it into food. ... production of food could produce enough to feed all Africa. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Mexico puts its kids on a diet
    ... - "soy viejo y me gusta decir mentiras" ... "In Cuba, which imports 80 percent of its food, iron-deficiency anaemia is ... local production of micronutrient-enriched food supplements, ... Así lo indica un informe elaborado por el Consejo Económico y Comercial ...
    (soc.culture.venezuela)
  • Re: Mexico puts its kids on a diet - la putica loca Teddy Schmidt admite que es "superior" en na
    ... Putica loca es Teddy Schmidt. ... "In Cuba, which imports 80 percent of its food, iron-deficiency anaemia ... food basket, establish production of enriched blended flour, improve ...
    (soc.culture.venezuela)