I kind of thought it was a reaction to the extreme skin pigmentation of the previous president...
Isn't that what the weird toad and tiki torches are all about?
They're asking for permission to... Remember, any information they release to corroborate or deny information in this memo has to be voted for within the republican-controlled committee, and then vetted by the President if it contains any information that may be classified (like more context regarding information given to the FISC).
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/30...
"The committee voted along party lines on Monday to make the Nunes memo public, while rejecting a motion from Schiff to also make the Democratic memo public at the same time."
Part of the problem is that the FBI didn't corroborate the dossier for the FISA application. Uncorroborated evidence paid for by political party used as justification for spying on political opponents is the problem.
The bigger problem is that this isn't factually accurate. The wording of the memo was very careful to make it sound uncorroborated. The entire dossier is of course not corroborated, but parts of it absolutely are. The memo did not mention whether or not the entire dossier was used as justification, or just the corroborated parts. The Democrats on the committee seem to be implying that if they're allowed to release more information, they will show that Nunes was telling a partial story for a reason.
The only thing I've gotten from this memo, is that more information needs to be released.. So we can determine if the FBI is corrupt, or the Republican leadership of the House Intelligence Committee... And I'm not sure which is scarier.
That does undermine the credibility of the FBI when they used that without verifying it particularly so when we have McCabe testifying that it was verified (who do you trust, McCabe or Bill Priestap).
The information that is trickling through the media, the DOJ, the FBI, and the Democratic members of the committee that sourced this memo would indicate that how much of the Dossier had or had not been verified was given to the FISA court, as well as the source of the dossier... Who do I trust? Not Nunes. Just about anyone else is more trustworthy on this topic. He has made his intentions clear- he's on a mission to use his leadership position of the committee to run damage control for the White House.
Using political research as justification to spy on political opponents is very dangerous.
Not sure I agree with you... A fact is a fact, regardless of where it is sourced. (Note: I am *not* claiming to know how factual the Steele Dossier is or is not.)
That alone should make any investigation careful because of the dangers of using the full powers of the FBI as a political tool against opposition parties.
Now.. I do agree that being careful is necessary. But it sounds like they were. The fact that none of this made it to light during the campaign says the FBI was pretty careful. It was definitely not leveraged in the political fashion that it could have been- ie, "Multiple Trump Campaign Officials Under Investigation For Being Agents Of The Kremlin!"
If the FBI handled things properly this memo would have been a big nothing burger and no one in the FBI or democrats would care.
Strongly disagree. The Democrats seem to be yelling "Release the whole story! Then this will be a nothing-burger!"
Are you claiming that releasing a partial story with political motivation can't put a darker spin on a complication situation?
My personal thoughts are that Mueller isn't going to find anything on Trump, personally. I'm guess a bunch of his campaign is going to go down, though... For good reason.
That said, I still think this memo is pretty weak. Given who it was released to first, I'm pretty sure this was nothing but a way to whip up the froth around the lips of the Fox News viewership. To strength Trump's base, not convince anyone who is on the fence, or serve Justice in any way.
Not only is your argument irrelevant, is is also incorrect.
You make this assertion while providing evidence to support my argument? Fascinating arguing tactic.
Depending on what propaganda site you visit ether China or Russia emits more green house gases than the United States. While the United States is still in the top percentage its over all emissions is going down. Where as China is already more than the United States, their over all emissions is going up.
I already addressed this. At some point, perhaps we will meet them in the middle, and your argument will be able to hold water. For now, it doesn't.
But what I did find is that China is emitting more than US and is scheduled to rise. India is not quiet there yet but is also scheduled to rise eventually surpassing the United States. Where as the United States over all emissions are down and continuing to decrease over time.
Of course China emits more. They have 4 times our population. India has 3. Per capita, they're still better world citizens than we are in the GHG respect. They also live less energy-intensive lifestyles (not necessarily a good thing) but for the sake of my argument, it is beyond stupid to claim *they* are the ones who are tipping the scale. Bitch at them when they reach our per-capita GHG emissions. Until then, as world citizens, *we* (and the Canadians/Russians) are the shitheads.
But never let the facts get in the way of your anti American rant. Continue to believe whatever you want to, the facts will not change your mind.
Literally the only facts you gave in that entire post supported my position perfectly. Anti-American? No, I'm just not a fucking dumbshit with American Flag boxer briefs.
Now here is something that is relevant. The average American carbon foot print is decreasing. Slowly but it is going down. While your average Indian and Chinese footprint is increasing. What do you think will happen when 1.2 billion Indians and 1.4 billion Chinese have the same foot print as the average American today?
What do I think will happen? Then you'll actually have a leg to stand on that they are the problem.
As you pointed out, what's important is all of the green house gasses together. Which means Americans are the ones who are the problem, not the Indians. We may meet them in the middle somewhere, but all you've done for now is toss your own argument into the shitter. So thank you.
Thank your deity that isn't true.
The Earth would be an ice-ball right now, if so.
The cycle is relatively stable (minus man-kind's current carbon cycle re-engineering efforts).
If every tree ended up sequestering any significant fraction of its biocarbon, we'd very quickly run out of bioavailable CO2 in the atmosphere and the planet would be looking at antarctic temperatures on average until enough volcanoes popped to fix the problem.
The plants came from CO2, thus that much CO2 is missing from the atmosphere as long as those plants live.
As long as those plants are re-planted when they die, that CO2 remains fixed in the plants biocarbon.
Eating the vegetables would eventually put that carbon right back into the biosphere
Yes. However, after those are eaten, the same mass is grown again. As long as the process continues, the process is a net negative to atmospheric carbon as a whole (shifts the balance of biocarbon to atmospheric carbon)
Even better- if it improves lifespans of starving people, it continues to shift more carbon out of the atmosphere and into extant biocarbon.
Those are absolutely attempts at representing themselves as Americans.
If I made a FB group called "Heart of Texas" do I need to explicitly state that I am an American Citizen and domestically invested this cause?
There are objective facts at play. Russians astroturf farms in the emply of the Russian state represented themselves as Americans and marketed themselves to stupid Americans in an effort to cause political division. That is an objective fact. And there are gaslighting pieces of shit like you trying to bring even that into question.
Just games. Though Linux game support is incredible these days (I've got 160 games in my Steam library that run on linux!)
There are still a few titles that I love that are Windows only, and too much trouble to get working under Wine with 3d acceleration.
You're a perfect example of the problem.
You're so convinced that something won't be better for you, that you will actively deny the realities of the universe to justify it. I've watched multiple people try to correct you, and you still don't get it. It's not because you can't get it- it's because you have a mental block in place that prevents reality from imposing upon your worldview.
If you measure my intake and outgo of carbon dioxide for the entirety of my life, my production of carbon dioxide will ALWAYS be much more than my intake. For my entire life. That is not "the short term". That's 100%.
This is a point to an argument that nobody is having, because it is irrelevant.
If you would shut the hell up and listen, you might stand a chance at understanding the cycles at play.
Yeah, right. The money was spent to study how much carbon dioxide comes from a breakfast sandwich because this is all about fossil fuels. Do you eat a fossil fuel breakfast sandwich? No, you don't.
Of course the study was about that... Because that's what matters- the carbon cost of the sandwich. Since the only cost to the sandwich is solar energy, except where fossil fuels come into play- that is the carbon cost they are measuring. Do you eat a fossil fuel breakfast sandwich? No, you don't. But the one you eat requires them to be made, which means it has a carbon footprint. They're quantifying that for the curious. Only people who are rabidly against that quantification because of the cognitive dissonance aroused when the reality conflicts with their world view take exception to someone quantifying it.
This is "all about" the contribution of humans to the CO2 issue, and that makes the context of this discussion not the global carbon cycle, but human actions that impact the carbon cycle. Like "eating a sandwich". In that context, there are two ways to stop the problem, both of which I listed.
The CO2 issue is fossil fuels. Period. All stop.
The ratio of biomass to CO2 is "stable" minus that. More biomass as producers to feed consumers, with corresponding biomass to feed secondary consumers is a net negative to atmospheric CO2. It's the fossil fuels that matter. You would find this obvious if you shut your fucking mouth and used your head instead of regurgitating broken logic.
When a climate zealot cannot win by using facts, start insults. I believe the next step is for you to pronounce that the science has been settled and there can be no discussion.
The facts have already been given, by me and other people, to you... You refuse to believe them. You are beyond help. When someone willfully refuses to accept logic, there's simply nothing you can do for them. You don't understand how the physical processes at play work, and that's OK. You could save some of your esteem by not commenting on the matter as if you were knowledgeable, however. Just some personal advice.
Except there's no direct evidence that links CO2 to global warming.
That's like saying there is no direct evidence that links a wool blanket to feeling warmer.
Sorry but the greenhouse gas people just didn't understand thermodynamics. I'm an engineer, I spent four years studying thermodynamics.
You spent 4 years studying the thermodynamics, and missed how molecules that absorb thermal emission spectra, become more energetic in the form of heat, can increase the temperature of a system? You've got to be fucking kidding me.
CO2 converts long-wave radiation, the earth's only way to give its input heat back to space- into heat. It increases the overall energy in the system by slowing down the planet's ability to shed it. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more the planet will warm until the input flux and output flux match again, that is until it reaches its new equilibrium. You're complaining that the large-scale statistical models have trouble modeling the exact impact of a certain amount of CO2 on the huge dynamic system. That's fair. But to say that it isn't even linked? That is fucking retarded, my friend.
You are absolutely not correct that OP's ignorance makes the problem intractable. It's intractable for completely other reasons.
Fair enough. I should have said, "Your refusal to allow your ignorance to be corrected makes this problem intractable."
You can't bring about a societal shift without force if you can't even educate your people.
The issue is not carbon, it is carbon dioxide. Yes, I ABSOLUTELY produce more carbon dioxide than I consume.
Only in the short term. The carbon you consume was carbon dioxide very recently. A plant turned it into edible carbon for you. You're undoing that process and taking a cut of the energy it provided in the form of more complex organic molecules.
I am converting carbon that has been converted into bio-carbon (carbohydrate, protein, fats) by plants back into the dangerous carbon dioxide.
Yes, you are.
The only way to stop that process is to stop eating or stop breathing.
Utter bollocks. You stop eating and stop breathing, and you'll be CO2 again within a year, unless of course we either bury you miles underground, or fire you at the stars at faster than escape velocity.
This isn't a complicated concept. There is a total carbon, and there is biomass. Your eating and exhaling is just passing what was CO2 very recently back to CO2. Short term alteration of a cycle that is already very short.
Not when you are evaluating the costs of one step in the cycle. Otherwise, let's be honest and include the entire existence of carbon on the planet, which we can say truly IS neutral no matter what any of us does. If "carbon neutral" is the goal, then bingo, we're there.
No, because fossil-fuels, which is what this is all really about.
You leave the 100 million year carbon cycles alone, and you can basically do whatever the hell you want and the planetary climate will remain stable with regard to carbon's effect on it. You start digging up sequestered carbon to fuel your increased need for dietary carbon, and that's the alteration of the cycle, the break in what is otherwise effective neutrality.
I eat veal. Six months is a lot shorter than five years.
Completely irrelevant.
Zealotry is more often fueled by presumed knowledge and arrogance. People who say "the discussion is over, the science is settled" are not ignorant, for the most part.
Is presumed knowledge knowledge not a form of ignorance? I think you've made it clear which yours is, however.
I don't typically quote XKCD, but this illustration on the masses of land animals does a really good job portraying exactly how bizarre the ecosystem is: https://xkcd.com/1338/. E.g., most of land mammalian are something we are raising to eat. The plants that we eat require a lot of fertilizer, typically synthetic (extremely energy intensive). The animals that we eat require a lot more plants than directly eating plants. Yes, this is complicated, and more complicated than I am portraying--which is why people do research to try to understand the impact of the Entire Product Lifecycle. I personally am interested in reading more into the article.
That's exactly what the article is about- and why it's worth reading, and not dismissing outright because "all things eat and shit"
Huh? Animals produce a lot more carbon dioxide than they consume. How is this "carbon neutral"? Or has "carbon neutral" been defined so that it doesn't mean you have to stop doing anything, just all those other people who are doing other things?
This is quite literally impossible.
All carbon in your body, exhaled, came via the cycle from the first step in it- the air, whether via a plant that used photosynthesis to break it apart, or an animal that you ate, who ate that plant. You can't possible "produce" more carbon that you took in, unless we're going to involve alchemy or high-energy particle physics into the equation. You can alter the balance of the cycle, between gaseous and various solid forms, but at the end of the day, that cow you just ate was all CO2 a year before it was born. That CO2 turned into carbohydrates with the addition of sunlight and oxygen, those plants were eaten by an animal and turned into the proteins that you eventually ate. Every living thing is a link that extracts what was originally solar energy by oxidizing carbon compounds constructed by plants. If you ate something living, your carbon came from the cycle. This is obviously untrue if you eat carbonaceous rocks. But I don't think you do.
Oh, I see. You are applying the entire carbon cycle to animal respiration and coming up with "neutral".
Yes, I am. As one should...
Here's a shocker. The entire planet is carbon neutral under that definition. There will never be more carbon than what is here today, or was here yesterday. It takes up various forms, just like in "the carbon cycle", but it is all still here and will still be here.
Yes, the entire planet is mostly carbon neutral under that definition (meteorites being a notable exception).
What matters is the length of the particular cycle you're altering. For all intents and purposes, fossil fuels can be considered non-cyclical, since their cycle length is longer than the existence of our species. For the cow you ate, it's all short-term. Whether you had eaten that cow or not, it was going to give its carbon onto the next step in the cycle pretty quickly either way. Cows only innate carbon-cycle impact is the formation of methane, which is a more environmentally impacting form of carbon.
I'd say that zealotry is making this intractable, but...
I don't think we disagree on that... but zealotry is often fueled by ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
I kind of thought it was a reaction to the extreme skin pigmentation of the previous president...
Isn't that what the weird toad and tiki torches are all about?
They're asking for permission to... Remember, any information they release to corroborate or deny information in this memo has to be voted for within the republican-controlled committee, and then vetted by the President if it contains any information that may be classified (like more context regarding information given to the FISC).
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/30...
"The committee voted along party lines on Monday to make the Nunes memo public, while rejecting a motion from Schiff to also make the Democratic memo public at the same time."
Part of the problem is that the FBI didn't corroborate the dossier for the FISA application. Uncorroborated evidence paid for by political party used as justification for spying on political opponents is the problem.
The bigger problem is that this isn't factually accurate. The wording of the memo was very careful to make it sound uncorroborated. The entire dossier is of course not corroborated, but parts of it absolutely are. The memo did not mention whether or not the entire dossier was used as justification, or just the corroborated parts. The Democrats on the committee seem to be implying that if they're allowed to release more information, they will show that Nunes was telling a partial story for a reason.
The only thing I've gotten from this memo, is that more information needs to be released.. So we can determine if the FBI is corrupt, or the Republican leadership of the House Intelligence Committee... And I'm not sure which is scarier.
That does undermine the credibility of the FBI when they used that without verifying it particularly so when we have McCabe testifying that it was verified (who do you trust, McCabe or Bill Priestap).
The information that is trickling through the media, the DOJ, the FBI, and the Democratic members of the committee that sourced this memo would indicate that how much of the Dossier had or had not been verified was given to the FISA court, as well as the source of the dossier... Who do I trust? Not Nunes. Just about anyone else is more trustworthy on this topic. He has made his intentions clear- he's on a mission to use his leadership position of the committee to run damage control for the White House.
Using political research as justification to spy on political opponents is very dangerous.
Not sure I agree with you... A fact is a fact, regardless of where it is sourced. (Note: I am *not* claiming to know how factual the Steele Dossier is or is not.)
That alone should make any investigation careful because of the dangers of using the full powers of the FBI as a political tool against opposition parties.
Now.. I do agree that being careful is necessary. But it sounds like they were. The fact that none of this made it to light during the campaign says the FBI was pretty careful. It was definitely not leveraged in the political fashion that it could have been- ie, "Multiple Trump Campaign Officials Under Investigation For Being Agents Of The Kremlin!"
If the FBI handled things properly this memo would have been a big nothing burger and no one in the FBI or democrats would care.
Strongly disagree. The Democrats seem to be yelling "Release the whole story! Then this will be a nothing-burger!"
Are you claiming that releasing a partial story with political motivation can't put a darker spin on a complication situation?
My personal thoughts are that Mueller isn't going to find anything on Trump, personally. I'm guess a bunch of his campaign is going to go down, though... For good reason.
That said, I still think this memo is pretty weak. Given who it was released to first, I'm pretty sure this was nothing but a way to whip up the froth around the lips of the Fox News viewership. To strength Trump's base, not convince anyone who is on the fence, or serve Justice in any way.
Not only is your argument irrelevant, is is also incorrect.
You make this assertion while providing evidence to support my argument? Fascinating arguing tactic.
Depending on what propaganda site you visit ether China or Russia emits more green house gases than the United States. While the United States is still in the top percentage its over all emissions is going down. Where as China is already more than the United States, their over all emissions is going up.
I already addressed this. At some point, perhaps we will meet them in the middle, and your argument will be able to hold water. For now, it doesn't.
But what I did find is that China is emitting more than US and is scheduled to rise. India is not quiet there yet but is also scheduled to rise eventually surpassing the United States. Where as the United States over all emissions are down and continuing to decrease over time.
Of course China emits more. They have 4 times our population. India has 3. Per capita, they're still better world citizens than we are in the GHG respect. They also live less energy-intensive lifestyles (not necessarily a good thing) but for the sake of my argument, it is beyond stupid to claim *they* are the ones who are tipping the scale. Bitch at them when they reach our per-capita GHG emissions. Until then, as world citizens, *we* (and the Canadians/Russians) are the shitheads.
But never let the facts get in the way of your anti American rant. Continue to believe whatever you want to, the facts will not change your mind.
Literally the only facts you gave in that entire post supported my position perfectly. Anti-American? No, I'm just not a fucking dumbshit with American Flag boxer briefs.
Now here is something that is relevant. The average American carbon foot print is decreasing. Slowly but it is going down. While your average Indian and Chinese footprint is increasing. What do you think will happen when 1.2 billion Indians and 1.4 billion Chinese have the same foot print as the average American today?
What do I think will happen? Then you'll actually have a leg to stand on that they are the problem.
As you pointed out, what's important is all of the green house gasses together. Which means Americans are the ones who are the problem, not the Indians. We may meet them in the middle somewhere, but all you've done for now is toss your own argument into the shitter. So thank you.
Yawn.
https://www.wired.com/story/di...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Ultimately, you have to take *someone's* word. Your standard of proof is ridiculous, and you know it. You're gaslighting. And you know it. Just admit it- you liked a few of the links.
Irrelevant
I don't think that word means what you think it means... Or did you mean irrelevant to your uninformed opinion?
Thank your deity that isn't true.
The Earth would be an ice-ball right now, if so.
The cycle is relatively stable (minus man-kind's current carbon cycle re-engineering efforts).
If every tree ended up sequestering any significant fraction of its biocarbon, we'd very quickly run out of bioavailable CO2 in the atmosphere and the planet would be looking at antarctic temperatures on average until enough volcanoes popped to fix the problem.
The plants came from CO2, thus that much CO2 is missing from the atmosphere as long as those plants live.
As long as those plants are re-planted when they die, that CO2 remains fixed in the plants biocarbon.
That's actually the American corporate cost-reduction model.
Not per-capita.
That's like saying "everybody but the United States combined pollutes more than the United States- everybody else should pay for it!"
Eating the vegetables would eventually put that carbon right back into the biosphere
Yes. However, after those are eaten, the same mass is grown again. As long as the process continues, the process is a net negative to atmospheric carbon as a whole (shifts the balance of biocarbon to atmospheric carbon)
Even better- if it improves lifespans of starving people, it continues to shift more carbon out of the atmosphere and into extant biocarbon.
*Russian
*employ
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Those are absolutely attempts at representing themselves as Americans.
If I made a FB group called "Heart of Texas" do I need to explicitly state that I am an American Citizen and domestically invested this cause?
There are objective facts at play. Russians astroturf farms in the emply of the Russian state represented themselves as Americans and marketed themselves to stupid Americans in an effort to cause political division. That is an objective fact. And there are gaslighting pieces of shit like you trying to bring even that into question.
Just games. Though Linux game support is incredible these days (I've got 160 games in my Steam library that run on linux!)
There are still a few titles that I love that are Windows only, and too much trouble to get working under Wine with 3d acceleration.
LOL. Awesome.
I can honestly say I have never looked at it from that point of view, but I'd have a hard time saying you were wrong.
You're a perfect example of the problem.
You're so convinced that something won't be better for you, that you will actively deny the realities of the universe to justify it. I've watched multiple people try to correct you, and you still don't get it. It's not because you can't get it- it's because you have a mental block in place that prevents reality from imposing upon your worldview.
If you measure my intake and outgo of carbon dioxide for the entirety of my life, my production of carbon dioxide will ALWAYS be much more than my intake. For my entire life. That is not "the short term". That's 100%.
This is a point to an argument that nobody is having, because it is irrelevant.
If you would shut the hell up and listen, you might stand a chance at understanding the cycles at play.
Yeah, right. The money was spent to study how much carbon dioxide comes from a breakfast sandwich because this is all about fossil fuels. Do you eat a fossil fuel breakfast sandwich? No, you don't.
Of course the study was about that... Because that's what matters- the carbon cost of the sandwich. Since the only cost to the sandwich is solar energy, except where fossil fuels come into play- that is the carbon cost they are measuring. Do you eat a fossil fuel breakfast sandwich? No, you don't. But the one you eat requires them to be made, which means it has a carbon footprint. They're quantifying that for the curious. Only people who are rabidly against that quantification because of the cognitive dissonance aroused when the reality conflicts with their world view take exception to someone quantifying it.
This is "all about" the contribution of humans to the CO2 issue, and that makes the context of this discussion not the global carbon cycle, but human actions that impact the carbon cycle. Like "eating a sandwich". In that context, there are two ways to stop the problem, both of which I listed.
The CO2 issue is fossil fuels. Period. All stop.
The ratio of biomass to CO2 is "stable" minus that. More biomass as producers to feed consumers, with corresponding biomass to feed secondary consumers is a net negative to atmospheric CO2. It's the fossil fuels that matter. You would find this obvious if you shut your fucking mouth and used your head instead of regurgitating broken logic.
When a climate zealot cannot win by using facts, start insults. I believe the next step is for you to pronounce that the science has been settled and there can be no discussion.
The facts have already been given, by me and other people, to you... You refuse to believe them. You are beyond help. When someone willfully refuses to accept logic, there's simply nothing you can do for them. You don't understand how the physical processes at play work, and that's OK. You could save some of your esteem by not commenting on the matter as if you were knowledgeable, however. Just some personal advice.
Except there's no direct evidence that links CO2 to global warming.
That's like saying there is no direct evidence that links a wool blanket to feeling warmer.
Sorry but the greenhouse gas people just didn't understand thermodynamics. I'm an engineer, I spent four years studying thermodynamics.
You spent 4 years studying the thermodynamics, and missed how molecules that absorb thermal emission spectra, become more energetic in the form of heat, can increase the temperature of a system? You've got to be fucking kidding me.
CO2 converts long-wave radiation, the earth's only way to give its input heat back to space- into heat. It increases the overall energy in the system by slowing down the planet's ability to shed it. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more the planet will warm until the input flux and output flux match again, that is until it reaches its new equilibrium. You're complaining that the large-scale statistical models have trouble modeling the exact impact of a certain amount of CO2 on the huge dynamic system. That's fair. But to say that it isn't even linked? That is fucking retarded, my friend.
You are absolutely not correct that OP's ignorance makes the problem intractable. It's intractable for completely other reasons.
Fair enough. I should have said, "Your refusal to allow your ignorance to be corrected makes this problem intractable."
You can't bring about a societal shift without force if you can't even educate your people.
The issue is not carbon, it is carbon dioxide. Yes, I ABSOLUTELY produce more carbon dioxide than I consume.
Only in the short term. The carbon you consume was carbon dioxide very recently. A plant turned it into edible carbon for you. You're undoing that process and taking a cut of the energy it provided in the form of more complex organic molecules.
I am converting carbon that has been converted into bio-carbon (carbohydrate, protein, fats) by plants back into the dangerous carbon dioxide.
Yes, you are.
The only way to stop that process is to stop eating or stop breathing.
Utter bollocks. You stop eating and stop breathing, and you'll be CO2 again within a year, unless of course we either bury you miles underground, or fire you at the stars at faster than escape velocity.
This isn't a complicated concept. There is a total carbon, and there is biomass. Your eating and exhaling is just passing what was CO2 very recently back to CO2. Short term alteration of a cycle that is already very short.
Not when you are evaluating the costs of one step in the cycle. Otherwise, let's be honest and include the entire existence of carbon on the planet, which we can say truly IS neutral no matter what any of us does. If "carbon neutral" is the goal, then bingo, we're there.
No, because fossil-fuels, which is what this is all really about.
You leave the 100 million year carbon cycles alone, and you can basically do whatever the hell you want and the planetary climate will remain stable with regard to carbon's effect on it. You start digging up sequestered carbon to fuel your increased need for dietary carbon, and that's the alteration of the cycle, the break in what is otherwise effective neutrality.
I eat veal. Six months is a lot shorter than five years.
Completely irrelevant.
Zealotry is more often fueled by presumed knowledge and arrogance. People who say "the discussion is over, the science is settled" are not ignorant, for the most part.
Is presumed knowledge knowledge not a form of ignorance? I think you've made it clear which yours is, however.
I don't typically quote XKCD, but this illustration on the masses of land animals does a really good job portraying exactly how bizarre the ecosystem is: https://xkcd.com/1338/. E.g., most of land mammalian are something we are raising to eat. The plants that we eat require a lot of fertilizer, typically synthetic (extremely energy intensive). The animals that we eat require a lot more plants than directly eating plants. Yes, this is complicated, and more complicated than I am portraying--which is why people do research to try to understand the impact of the Entire Product Lifecycle. I personally am interested in reading more into the article.
That's exactly what the article is about- and why it's worth reading, and not dismissing outright because "all things eat and shit"
Huh? Animals produce a lot more carbon dioxide than they consume. How is this "carbon neutral"? Or has "carbon neutral" been defined so that it doesn't mean you have to stop doing anything, just all those other people who are doing other things?
This is quite literally impossible.
All carbon in your body, exhaled, came via the cycle from the first step in it- the air, whether via a plant that used photosynthesis to break it apart, or an animal that you ate, who ate that plant. You can't possible "produce" more carbon that you took in, unless we're going to involve alchemy or high-energy particle physics into the equation. You can alter the balance of the cycle, between gaseous and various solid forms, but at the end of the day, that cow you just ate was all CO2 a year before it was born. That CO2 turned into carbohydrates with the addition of sunlight and oxygen, those plants were eaten by an animal and turned into the proteins that you eventually ate. Every living thing is a link that extracts what was originally solar energy by oxidizing carbon compounds constructed by plants. If you ate something living, your carbon came from the cycle. This is obviously untrue if you eat carbonaceous rocks. But I don't think you do.
Oh, I see. You are applying the entire carbon cycle to animal respiration and coming up with "neutral".
Yes, I am. As one should...
Here's a shocker. The entire planet is carbon neutral under that definition. There will never be more carbon than what is here today, or was here yesterday. It takes up various forms, just like in "the carbon cycle", but it is all still here and will still be here.
Yes, the entire planet is mostly carbon neutral under that definition (meteorites being a notable exception).
What matters is the length of the particular cycle you're altering. For all intents and purposes, fossil fuels can be considered non-cyclical, since their cycle length is longer than the existence of our species. For the cow you ate, it's all short-term. Whether you had eaten that cow or not, it was going to give its carbon onto the next step in the cycle pretty quickly either way. Cows only innate carbon-cycle impact is the formation of methane, which is a more environmentally impacting form of carbon.
I'd say that zealotry is making this intractable, but ...
I don't think we disagree on that... but zealotry is often fueled by ignorance.