Global Warming

29-11-2015 2:14pm #1

OK, I'm not entering into whether global warming is happening or not, just noting that there does seem to be a conspiracy to present unreliable evidence to the public to support the case. Why?

The latest example was the BBC, two days ago, presented a news report that the shocking amount of food waste was contributing to global warming because the unused food was being sent to landfills where it then decayed and released carbon dioxide.

Sounds plausible?

Not if you consider what would have happened if the food was actually eaten. It would have been broken down by our bodies and the bacteria in our gut and ended up in sewage farms for further decay, thus liberating CO2 - the exact same outcome as sending it to landfills.

And to look at the other option, what if the food had never been grown in the first place? Plants or weeds would have grown which in time would have decayed or got butned.. same outcome too.

So, what we have is a reputable organisation putting out stories which are unsubstantiated and which any half-reputable journalist should have questioned. Why?

ScumLord · 29-11-2015 5:09pm

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, I'm not entering into whether global warming is happening or not, just noting that there does seem to be a conspiracy to present unreliable evidence to the public to support the case. Why?

The latest example was the BBC, two days ago, presented a news report that the shocking amount of food waste was contributing to global warming because the unused food was being sent to landfills where it then decayed and released carbon dioxide.

The problem there is the media, it's not so much a conspiracy, as profiteering off drama. It's not enough for the media to tell you the story, they have to embellish it to the point that, it's maybe not a lie but the information is so corrupted that it's next to useless.

The media are like small town gossips at this stage, there's a grain of truth in there but it's been combined with dramatic possibilities to make the story as alarming as possible. They'll say "definitely, could have been" so that it sounds more likely, when in actual fact they don't know either way.

Not if you consider what would have happened if the food was actually eaten. It would have been broken down by our bodies and the bacteria in our gut and ended up in sewage farms for further decay, thus liberating CO2 - the exact same outcome as sending it to landfills.

I think the difference would be that if you landfill it all into one spot, it just goes through the rotting process, which basically breaks it all down into it's component parts. When it's eaten a lot of those gases get locked in solids, our waste is another creature's food, it all gets spread around more and isn't just dumped back into the environment in one toxic lump.

29-11-2015 5:29pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the difference would be that if you landfill it all into one spot, it just goes through the rotting process, which basically breaks it all down into it's component parts. When it's eaten a lot of those gases get locked in solids, our waste is another creature's food, it all gets spread around more and isn't just dumped back into the environment in one toxic lump.

No it doesn't. It decays just the same. And when it decays organic matter mostly goes into carbon dioxide and methane. If anything there would be a greater residue from landfill than sewage.

Dohnjoe · 29-11-2015 7:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So, what we have is a reputable organisation putting out stories which are unsubstantiated and which any half-reputable journalist should have questioned. Why?

Is this the article? (or similar)

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28092034

Sounds like 100% of the wasted food wouldn't necessarily be "eaten". It's appears that the system as a whole is inefficient, and the carbon footprint is higher due to unnecessary or wasteful processes

If the article you read is completely different and there's a genuine mistake, fire them a mail, no news agency is infallible, and editors can miss details

King Mob · 30-11-2015 12:43am

What leads you to believe there is a conspiracy besides this one article?

Why would the conspirators want to present false evidence that was so easily noticeable?

Why would such a conspiracy be allowed by the oil industry?

catbear · 30-11-2015 12:46am

All news providers are competing against eachother, including the BBC and other state broadcasters so naturally they'll spin things out for effect.

Datallus · 30-11-2015 12:47am

It's an obvious hoax, you can't hide the fact that it's bloody freezing outside :mad:

30-11-2015 9:37am

I'll give you another one.

Honey bees are disappearing in Europe...

There is no evidence that this is the case! Everytime that somebody tried to confirm this myth they weren't able to. Lots of anecdotes but nothing that stands up statistically.

A big EU survey basically showed winter deaths in line with expectations, higher in colder parts of Europe, as you would expect.

Yes, the media and the NGOs love it the myth and repeat it as if it was a proven fact. Presumably it serves their purposes but there is no actual evidence that it is happening, especially in Europe.

ancapailldorcha · 30-11-2015 11:50am

I don't see a Conspiracy angle here so I am closing this.

Global Warming

Comments