Hot Arctic

[dimebag1980]

Of course this is not true. Prior to the development of tools, meat eating by humans primairly occured on the rare occasion when an animal died. And even after the development of primitive tools, the capture of meat for consumption was a very energy intensive process and did not happen that often. Have you tried to catch any animal? Humans evolved eating mostly plant foods and the first settlements were based on farming of plants, not raising livestock.

The current huge consumption of meat is also a relatively new phenomena that has only existed for about the last 125-150 years and with a few exceptions is still mostly an American one as well. In the last 50 years meat consumption in this country has risen to unprecidented levels in human history and is one of the reasons that Americans have become the fattest nation on the earth with a host of diseases afflicting the population that are not seen elsewhere.

It's interesting that despite the medical advances made over the last 50 years that the current generation of 20 somethings and younger are one of the most unhealty generations in the last 100 years.

Of course meat is the reason for all of our problems... it couldn't possibly be sugars, flours, and other starches. Nor could it be from laziness. Of course not... it must be meat.

There are still many cultures who catch, kill, and eat their own food and we all derived from such cultures. I highly doubt primitive man was a vegetarian being. Our teeth are made for eating meat but they're also made for eating plants. Our bodies were designed to process meats and plants, but not complex starches. Meat is not the reason for our problems, but rather combining the fat in meat with processed foods that are toxic to our bodies. In addition, laziness is also part of the problem. A diet of meat alone will not cause these health problems, but eating meats and starches combined, along with living a sedentary lifestyle, will.

There are plenty of countries where meat is consumed in mass quantities and the people are extremely healthy; but the people in those countries also get regular exercise and don't eat the complex starches that we eat. They are hunter-gatherers and all they do is work. They don't have Twinkies, Ho-Hos, or Krispy Kreme fried hunks of dough so all they eat is meat and vegetables. Since meat is the most filling part of a meal, they undoubtedly eat their fair share of it so as not to go hungry.

Meat alone isn't causing alarming obesity, Type II Diabetes, and heart disease in our youth, but all the things I mentioned in the second paragraph are.

[damus]

Of course meat is the reason for all of our problems... it couldn't possibly be sugars, flours, and other starches. Nor could it be from laziness. Of course not... it must be meat.

Meat alone isn't causing alarming obesity, Type II Diabetes, and heart disease in our youth, but all the things I mentioned in the second paragraph are.

Aboriginal cultures that eat a lot of meat eat the whole animal. Most of the vitamins are in organs like the brain, heart, and liver. Most people do not eat these organs in the USA. Sure, we developed into intelligent beings after eating meat, but that doesn't mean we're fully adapted to it We're not too good with processed sugars or starches, but I don't know if any animal is. An ideal diet (one that I do not follow by any means) would include maybe one serving of meat or fish a day and a lot of vegetables, nuts and fruit. Beef is no good for you either the way they've been bred to be so full of fat. I like to substitute bison meat for it in recipes where the dryness of the bison meat can't be noticed too much...

Look over in cultures over in Asia where people end up living a long time... they eat mostly vegetables including seaweed. The meat simply isn't around enough to be eaten like we eat it here. In many countries without refrigeration, if you kill the animal you must eat it quickly before it rots. In the USA I was fascinated to hear that my great uncle (who was naive and his keys in the truck while visiting overnight, the truck is now in the river) never ate much actual meat until he was in the army. He lived on a farm, and "all the good meat went to the girls, I hated the stuff they gave us". The protein he got was mostly from soups and eggs (which were only available half the year when it was warm). Meat eating the way we do today is definately a phenomenon made possible by the refrigerator.

[hood]

Of course this is not true. Prior to the development of tools, meat eating by humans primairly occured on the rare occasion when an animal died. And even after the development of primitive tools, the capture of meat for consumption was a very energy intensive process and did not happen that often. Have you tried to catch any animal? Humans evolved eating mostly plant foods and the first settlements were based on farming of plants, not raising livestock.

Humans have always used tools and have always hunted for their primary food source. As I said, the species leading up to humans used tools, which allowed them to hunt, which allowed them to become more intelligent, allowing homo sapien to evolve. Our bodies do not process most plants efficiently, we are not capable of eating things such as grass, and we cannot process the skins or seeds of fruits and vegetables. Our bodies are designed to get most of our calories from meat, and is supplemented by soft fruits and vegetables. A great show to get a quick look at how humans evolved and how became to be the way we are, watch Discovery's "Walking With Cavemen," its interesting and very educational, you can learn more in three or four hours than what you can by spending endless hours surfing the web (more reliable info too).

[monsoon]

Of course meat is the reason for all of our problems... it couldn't possibly be sugars, flours, and other starches. Nor could it be from laziness. Of course not... it must be meat......

I never said meat was the reason for all our problems. If you got that from what I wrote, I suggest that you re-read it. Refined starches are also very bad for the diet. However the fact remains that meat is a very calorie dense food due to the fat content that is found in most meat. It is also the primary source of saturated fat in this country and the two combined, when eaten in great quantites lead to obesity. And yes most people who eat meat in this country, eat it combined with refined starches. A double whammy. Hi meat consumption is also been directly linked to a number of cancers.

Prior to 100 years ago people simply did not eat as much meat as they do now as they simply could not afford it. It was a luxury not a staple and that is where the American diet has failed. Today's unprecidented consumption of meat in the USA in the forms it is eaten in, is killing people.

Our bodies are designed to get most of our calories from meat,....

Indeed. And the reason we evolved that way was because eating meat was such a rarity up until recent history. And it is the reason that too much consumption of meat now is making people fat.

[dimebag1980]

I never said meat was the reason for all our problems. If you got that from what I wrote, I suggest that you re-read it. Refined starches are also very bad for the diet. However the fact remains that meat is a very calorie dense food due to the fat content that is found in most meat. It is also the primary source of saturated fat in this country and the two combined, when eaten in great quantites lead to obesity. And yes most people who eat meat in this country, eat it combined with refined starches. A double whammy. Hi meat consumption is also been directly linked to a number of cancers.

Actually the cancer risk comes from carcinogens due to overcooking meat, not simply from eating meat. PETA will tell you that meat causes cancer, but meat causing cancer is a theory that's being studied. However numerous studies have already shown that overcooking meat causes cancer, not the meat itself.

I did in fact erroneously respond as if you had said meat causes all of our problems. I gladly retract that as I know that wasn't what you said. You said meat is one of the causes of our problems.

Still, meat alone is not a problem but rather a healthy addition to any meal... with the major exception being our American way of life in which we combine it with starchy foods and a sedentary lifestyle. Any diet full of starchy foods and lacking exercise is going to increase health risks. However studies done on high-protein (mostly meat) diets prove that meat is actually very healthy when combined with exercise. Of course meat is loaded with fat, but our bodies were built to burn off fat if we use them. This is where our metabolism and muscles come in handy... so we can give our bodies the exercise they need to properly digest our food and burn off excess fat and calories.

[DwntwnGeo]

And it is the reason that too much consumption of meat now is making people fat.

Metro,

I don't see how you are linking soley meat consumption to the obesity of Americans. From your statement above it sounds like you sugguest that if we stop eating meat obesity would simply go away. I believe this to be false and maybe you didnt' mean for it to come across that way.

Meat contains protein (and others). The body cannot create stored body fat from protein, it creates it from starches and carbs and sugars.

I agree with you in the fact that as people eat large amounts of meat and starches, the body will use the protein first and store the starches for later use, thus creating body fat and obesity. However if you eat all starches and veggies and no meats, this doesn't mean that you cannot create body fat because if eaten in large quanities, your body will store any excessive starches and sugars as body fat.

I believe the way to curb obseity would be to eat smaller portion sizes and get more active in our lifestyles.

[runawayjim]

Metro,

I don't see how you are linking soley meat consumption to the obesity of Americans. From your statement above it sounds like you sugguest that if we stop eating meat obesity would simply go away. I believe this to be false and maybe you didnt' mean for it to come across that way.

Meat contains protein (and others). The body cannot create stored body fat from protein, it creates it from starches and carbs and sugars.

I agree with you in the fact that as people eat large amounts of meat and starches, the body will use the protein first and store the starches for later use, thus creating body fat and obesity. However if you eat all starches and veggies and no meats, this doesn't mean that you cannot create body fat because if eaten in large quanities, your body will store any excessive starches and sugars as body fat.

I believe the way to curb obseity would be to eat smaller portion sizes and get more active in our lifestyles.

everything in moderation is the key.

[intcvlcphlga]

To refer to someone who would see An Inconvenient Truth as a "wacko environmentalist" (from a post dated 6/1/06) is non-sensical. While I'm assuming that most people in here - those of you who have already formed an opinion on the movie - have not even seen it unless you live in New York or LA. So, having not seen the film, your response is completely uninformed and you are relying on right-wing talking points about skepticism regarding global warming and Al Gore. The "wacko" stance is the one where we continue to elect people like Bush and James Inhofe whose chosen position is ignorance. How is it that following science and intellect in favor of ignorance gets the "wacko" moniker? What is it about America that it is so suspect of intelligence? People were skeptical of both Gore and Kerry because they are smarter than Bush - why is that? Do we not want the most powerful man in the world to possess a powerful intellect?

The reality is, there aren't any reputable scientists questioning global warming and there haven't been for some time. Global Warming was first proposed as a theory in the 1950s by American scientists. By the turn of the century, all but 2 of the Kyoto Treaty countries had approved it. The US and Australia have not ratified it. Who are we to question it when the rest of the world has accepted that humans are contributing to climate change? Last time I checked, Americans were near the bottom of the rankings in science education which doesn't exactly provide the average American Joe with much of a bully pulpit. As Americans, we produce 1/3 of the greenhouse gases yet we are loathe to compromise our precious "lifestyle" as if God decreed that we are the chosen ones therefore it is our place to destroy his creation? We don't have a right to SUVs, McMansions and endless suburban sprawl when other parts of the world are being more responsible by building their communities sensibly, by using mass-transit, by walking and biking. It is completely inane that we have allowed the issue of protecting the environment - whether it is clean water, clean air, mercury, lead, auto-emission, diesel particulates, CO2 emissions, etc to be political issues. They aren't political issues anymore than religion is. God doesn't side with Republicans or Democrats, but he does (if you read the Bible) specifically side with the Earth by asking man, in his/her dominion over nature, to be good stewards of it. Driving to Wal-Mart in our Hummers to stock up on needless consumer products to take back to our McMansion in our gated subdivision is anything but being a good steward of nature.

[monsoon]

Metro,

I don't see how you are linking soley meat consumption to the obesity of Americans. From your statement above it sounds like you sugguest that if we stop eating meat obesity would simply go away. I believe this to be false and maybe you didnt' mean for it to come across that way.

Meat contains protein (and others). The body cannot create stored body fat from protein, it creates it from starches and carbs and sugars.

I agree with you in the fact that as people eat large amounts of meat and starches, the body will use the protein first and store the starches for later use, thus creating body fat and obesity. However if you eat all starches and veggies and no meats, this doesn't mean that you cannot create body fat because if eaten in large quanities, your body will store any excessive starches and sugars as body fat.

I believe the way to curb obseity would be to eat smaller portion sizes and get more active in our lifestyles.

You are very correct. If people ate only protein, they would lose weight and in fact eventually starve. This is the basis for the Atkins diet which was also known as the protein diet in the 1970s. The problem with meat is that aside from protein, it contains significant amounts of fat. Fat has 9 calories per gm while, while proteins and carbohydrates only have 4 per gram. Also keep in mind that its the taste caused by the fat in the meat that people crave. This is why white boneless skinless chicken breast, which doesn't have that much fat relative to other meat, is almost inedible without significant preparation such as deep frying it.

When you consume mostly meat, you are also consuming significant amounts of fat and almost all of it saturated. Remember that fat has more than twice the calories of protein and starches. Now add any starches and you quickly go over your calorie limit for the day and start getting fat. You can of course not eat as much, but because the calorie density of meat is so high due to the fat, most people have a hard time doing this. This is the reason that so many people are getting fat in this country.

Prior to WWII meat consumption in this country was much much lower. It was a luxury and most meals, if there was meat, it was a condiment. Obesity was not common. I recommend that you watch a 1930s movie or documentary where there are crowds of city people and you will not see any fat people. Or go to a country where they don't eat much meat today. I have been to Japan where the diet is mostly vegetables, rice, seaweed, soy products, seafood, and very little meat. You don't see any fat people there either. Upon my return to the USA the first thing that strikes you is the number of fat and really fat people walking around, The contrast is shocking.

[Snowguy716]

I'm not too worried right now. Barrow, AK is still struggling to reach freezing and by this time it should be warming up and things should be melting.

Here in Salzburg, temperatures have been record cold for the last two weeks. Mountain meadows (down to 4000ft.) that were flowering and gren two weeks ago with 75*F weather and leaves on the trees are now under 2-3 feet of snow and temperatures at 1400ft. are struggling to reach 50*F. There is talk that this may be the first time since the 1980s that glaciers in Austria advance rather than retreat... Mountain peaks around 2500m. or 7700 feet haven't even really melted much since the winter. Truly unusual.

but of course this is one year. Either way, I'd rather have this than a tropical north pole.

[Snowguy716]

You are very correct. If people ate only protein, they would lose weight and in fact eventually starve. This is the basis for the Atkins diet which was also known as the protein diet in the 1970s. The problem with meat is that aside from protein, it contains significant amounts of fat. Fat has 9 calories per gm while, while proteins and carbohydrates only have 4 per gram. Also keep in mind that its the taste caused by the fat in the meat that people crave. This is why white boneless skinless chicken breast, which doesn't have that much fat relative to other meat, is almost inedible without significant preparation such as deep frying it.

When you consume mostly meat, you are also consuming significant amounts of fat and almost all of it saturated. Remember that fat has more than twice the calories of protein and starches. Now add any starches and you quickly go over your calorie limit for the day and start getting fat. You can of course not eat as much, but because the calorie density of meat is so high due to the fat, most people have a hard time doing this. This is the reason that so many people are getting fat in this country.

Prior to WWII meat consumption in this country was much much lower. It was a luxury and most meals, if there was meat, it was a condiment. Obesity was not common. I recommend that you watch a 1930s movie or documentary where there are crowds of city people and you will not see any fat people. Or go to a country where they don't eat much meat today. I have been to Japan where the diet is mostly vegetables, rice, seaweed, soy products, seafood, and very little meat. You don't see any fat people there either. Upon my return to the USA the first thing that strikes you is the number of fat and really fat people walking around, The contrast is shocking.

I can attest to that having been to Japan and currently living in Europe. It is striking when you get back to America.. almost everybody has at least a little pudge. The difference between America and Japan is the diet, while the difference between Europe and America is exercise. Europeans don't eat that healthily but they do eat a little less than Americans and do exercise more. For that reason, obesity is on the rise here but it still is a dwarf of a problem in comparison with America.

And I can also attest to meat consumption: Austrians and Germans are famous for meat dishes: Schweinebraten, Bratwurst, Schweinehaxen, Wienerschnitzel, etc... but they don't eat that every day.. and many meals might have a little "speck" (bacon) mixed in for flavoring or maybe small pieces of chicken or something with a largely vegetable/noodle base.

But hey, we needn't look to our European friends to find the way.. we just need to ask Grandma and Grandpa!

[MR-2]

For that to happen, those of us who don't believe in global warming would either have to start believing in it or simply humor those who do. I choose to do neither, because it's nothing more than a crock. It's amazing how the general public can be so easily duped, through the power of suggestion, to believe that a simple theory is actually fact.

Fact: Our planet goes through cycles of warming and cooling. It's nature and it's proven.

Theory: Humans are partially responsible for the warming of the planet. It's a combination of mankind and nature.

I don't buy into the theory, therefore I don't see the need to try and search for a solution. Why should people involve themselves with trying to solve a problem they don't even believe exists?

Clearly we've all been duped. Just like electricity, black holes, relativity, evolution, and plate tectonics, global warming is nothing more than a money-making scheme cooked up by power-hungry scientists that want to scare the public into submission.

Why, I remember when these two yokels from Ohio claimed they'd invented a 'flying apparatus'. As a senior executive for the railroad industry, I've seen all these flying ideas tried before, and I wasn't fooled. I knew right away these pranksters were out to get government grants for their half-baked pseudoscience. It's a common tale, truly.

[hood]

Nobody with a brain question global warming, the question arises as to how much of it can be attributed to natural and man-made causes. It is quite obvious that the Earth naturally goes through huge temperature fluxuations, sometimes they happen fast, sometimes slow. While humans may be increasing the rate of warming, maybe by up to 10x, I don't think that we are the primary cause of it, our emmisions are lower than they were 50 years ago, but the rate of warming is still increasing. Besides, I'm not so sure a warmer Earth is a bad thing, the Earth has been very warm before and in those times it seems life was more diverse than ever.

[PghUSA]

Well spoken Hood. No matter if it is manmade or natural, we still have the power today to alter its future to some degree.

[MR-2]

Nobody with a brain question global warming, the question arises as to how much of it can be attributed to natural and man-made causes. It is quite obvious that the Earth naturally goes through huge temperature fluxuations, sometimes they happen fast, sometimes slow. While humans may be increasing the rate of warming, maybe by up to 10x, I don't think that we are the primary cause of it, our emmisions are lower than they were 50 years ago, but the rate of warming is still increasing. Besides, I'm not so sure a warmer Earth is a bad thing, the Earth has been very warm before and in those times it seems life was more diverse than ever.

Earth's natural temperature fluctuations oscillate over tens of thousands of years at least. Doing it in 150 years is an anomaly. Since it can't be linked to the Sun, Volcanos, Ozone, or techtonic activity of any kind, we're sort of limited in the number of things that could be causing it. Humans, Bacteria. Bacteria are the same as they've always been.

More diverse life isn't necessarily a good thing. Having tropical bugs and diseases spread heavily into our countries would be generally bad. Losing water and land for growing crops also isn't too great.

[damus]

Earth's natural temperature fluctuations oscillate over tens of thousands of years at least. Doing it in 150 years is an anomaly.

Sure, a lot of it has to do with the greenhouse gases.. but the midevil warm period came and went in a relative instant... people on greenland didn't understand what was going on as the "little ice age" came along. They kept trying to grow their crops and failed. A lot of people are thought to have died in that event. During the warm period, wine was made up in England....

[monsoon]

Well spoken Hood. No matter if it is manmade or natural, we still have the power today to alter its future to some degree.

Hmm. That argument probably won't go over too well in New Orleans. If we don't have the technology to diffuse a single hurricane, we certainly don't have the technology to stop a planetary disaster caused by the planet warming up.

[monsoon]

Sure, a lot of it has to do with the greenhouse gases.. but the midevil warm period came and went in a relative instant... people on greenland didn't understand what was going on as the "little ice age" came along. They kept trying to grow their crops and failed. A lot of people are thought to have died in that event. During the warm period, wine was made up in England....

There were no excessive greenhouse gasses during midevil times.

You are confusing a regional event with warmup of the entire planet. Northern Europe cooled off for a couple of hundred years because the gulf stream went dormant during that period.

[PghUSA]

Hmm. That argument probably won't go over too well in New Orleans. If we don't have the technology to diffuse a single hurricane, we certainly don't have the technology to stop a planetary disaster caused by the planet warming up.

The tragedy of New Orleans is that we DID and DO have the technology to prevent that, the hurricane didn't damage the city much at all, the state, local and federal non-response to the aging and overworked levys during the last 20-30 years did.

Besides, the French didn't realize that New Orleans would sink to the bottom of the bathtub over the next 300 some years, we know today that building a major metro on a slow sinkhole can lead to . . . flooding. The technology did not fail us, New Orleans, Louisiana and Washington politics, and millions of people that refuse to understand that they are living on a natural disaster waiting to happen failed us.

Isn't this what you are proposing change on the Global Warming debate? The technology is actually calculating, measuring and could prevent or slow down that process, just like it could the flooding. If our local, state and federal leaders continue to be deaf over decades it is not the technologies fault.

[monsoon]

The tragedy of New Orleans is that we DID and DO have the technology to prevent that, the hurricane didn't damage the city much at all, the state, local and federal non-response to the aging and overworked levys during the last 20-30 years did.

It would help if you would actually read what I posted. I said that we did not have the technology to divert a hurricane. I did not say we had did not have the technology to stop the levees from failing. That is another matter entirely and has nothing to do with global warming except that its a sign the most vulnerable places are going to succumb to storms that are related to the earth heating up. Hurricanes are big heat engines and the reason there were so many of them last year was because the ocean has warmed up.

Likewise the cooling of some northern lattitudes mentioned above is not a sign that global warming is not occuring. It is in fact another sign that global warming is in fact occuring. As the polar ice caps melt they are dumping billions of gallons of fresh water into the oceans. This fresh water is disrupting the currents in the ocean, such as the gulf stream, that bring north to certain northern regions of the planet. They will start seeing unprecidented cold in these regions, but this is highly regionalized and only means that Northern Europe will start having the same kind of weather as Canada. It will all generally warm up however.

[PghUSA]

^^Metro, I as well suffer from misreads, you answered me in absolute terms, my point was more that we have the technology to survive and even prosper, even if we lose some cities, certainly not any claim that we have the capability to control weather phenomena every day.

Hmm. That argument probably won't go over too well in New Orleans. If we don't have the technology to diffuse a single hurricane, we certainly don't have the technology to stop a planetary disaster caused by the planet warming up.

PghUSA wrote:[Well spoken Hood. No matter if it is manmade or natural, we still have the power today to alter its future to some degree.]

As far as not having the technology, half of the battle could be won by simply adopting and expanding Kyoto, but make it's intended benefits stick to even developing nations. Pittsburgh is proof positive that it can be done if you have the willpower, more certified LEED green buildings are being constructed here then most parts of the world, with the largest LEED certified office tower, convention center and soon Children's Hospital among others. It is correct though that simply stoping what human contribution to this might exist will not be nearly enough to lessen it's human impact. Hurricanes will happen, they may indeed get much much worse but Katrina as I mentioned above was not the thing the did New Orleans in, it was the 48 hour period following the hurricane, and the lack of local, state and federal response to it. When you can survive a cat 4 but die from flooding and dysenterie, it is not global warming that concerns me but the capability of our leaders on all levels.

[runawayjim]

i suggest you all read the following article before forming an opinion on global warming. apparently the scientists who actually study global climate change do not have any sort of consensus as to whether or not global warming is occurring or what the causes are. the ones who all believe in it are those who study local climates, the impact of climate change (meaning they don't have knowledge of teh causes), or hypothetical computer simulations that don't take into account a lot of real data.

read the article, i didn't do it justice...

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

[dimebag1980]

i suggest you all read the following article before forming an opinion on global warming. apparently the scientists who actually study global climate change do not have any sort of consensus as to whether or not global warming is occurring or what the causes are. the ones who all believe in it are those who study local climates, the impact of climate change (meaning they don't have knowledge of teh causes), or hypothetical computer simulations that don't take into account a lot of real data.

read the article, i didn't do it justice...

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

A coworker was actually telling me about this article this morning and I was going to look it up. Thanks, though, because now I don't have to search for it!

[intcvlcphlga]

A coworker was actually telling me about this article this morning and I was going to look it up. Thanks, though, because now I don't have to search for it!

While you're in the reading mood, check out this article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...lobewarm11.html

As a Shreveport resident, you might want to pay particular attention to the fact that a major portion of your state will be under water - as will significant portions of the Eastern Seaboard, the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of Florida, etc.

[dimebag1980]

While you're in the reading mood, check out this article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...lobewarm11.html

As a Shreveport resident, you might want to pay particular attention to the fact that a major portion of your state will be under water - as will significant portions of the Eastern Seaboard, the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of Florida, etc.

Thanks, I will do that. I've skimmed it for now, but this evening I'll try to sit down and read it fully. I'm very concerned about south Louisiana's looming problem; and while I'm still not sold on the idea of global warming as some are selling it (human responsibility,) I do know, due at least in part to the Earth's hsitoric cycles, it's inevitable that Louisiana will continue to sink into, and be eroded by, the waters of the Gulf.