<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on John Boehner&#8217;s Confusion of CO2 and CH4</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/</link>
	<description>Where science collides with life, slams into culture, crashes with politics, and gets totaled.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:33:18 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Latest Anti-Science Republican: Mike Pence &#124; The Intersection &#124; Discover Magazine</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/comment-page-1/#comment-16497</link>
		<dc:creator>The Latest Anti-Science Republican: Mike Pence &#124; The Intersection &#124; Discover Magazine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 13:14:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/#comment-16497</guid>
		<description>[...] expose the true colors of today&#8217;s Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives. John Boehner, Michelle Bachmann, John Shimkus&#8211;all have stood up and said just inconceivable things. And [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] expose the true colors of today&#8217;s Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives. John Boehner, Michelle Bachmann, John Shimkus&#8211;all have stood up and said just inconceivable things. And [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: On Global Warming, Like Evolution, the GOP is Stuck in the Pre-1859 Past &#124; The Intersection &#124; Discover Magazine</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/comment-page-1/#comment-16059</link>
		<dc:creator>On Global Warming, Like Evolution, the GOP is Stuck in the Pre-1859 Past &#124; The Intersection &#124; Discover Magazine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/#comment-16059</guid>
		<description>[...] is real and human-caused, this is a telltale moment. The House GOP minority leader, John Boehner, appeared Sunday on ABC News&#8217;s This Week with George Stephanopoulos and confusedly suggested that [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is real and human-caused, this is a telltale moment. The House GOP minority leader, John Boehner, appeared Sunday on ABC News&#8217;s This Week with George Stephanopoulos and confusedly suggested that [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Prall</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/comment-page-1/#comment-16030</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Prall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:02:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/#comment-16030</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ll second the notion that Boehner&#039;s red herring about CO2 not being a &quot;carcinogen&quot; is more revealing than his mentioning cows as a source of CO2. Technically, it&#039;s true that cow &quot;eructation&quot; can include some CO2, but the video clip makes it clear Boehner was trying to defect George&#039;s question of whether climate change is a serious problem by tossing up the meme that CO2 is natural (yes) - implying that it can&#039;t then be harmful (no!) - that&#039;s the point of Mass. v. EPA and the new Finding of Risk: spiking GHG concentrations pose large environmental risks from drought, severe weather events, sea level rise and ocean acidification; these not based on any claim of toxicity of CO2, and Boehner ought to know that. He&#039;s just playing a rhetorical card - one that I&#039;m sure plays well for his base.

When it comes to cows, a key point missed in many of these superficial debates is that the US population of cattle is around 100 million - one cow per every three Americans - and we fatten them on subsidized ADM corn in CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations), not on grass. This is entirely unnatural for cattle; corn is much harder for cattle to digest than the grasses on which they are naturally adapted to ruminate. This causes them to &quot;eructate&quot; a lot more methane than cows grazed on grass. Here&#039;s a recent article on cows and GHGs:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger
Fattening cattle on corn instead of grass also gives them acid indigestion, promoting growth of dangerous e-coli, requiring lots of antibiotics not needed for grass-fed cows, greatly increasing the risk of antibiotic resistant strains. Some of these really nasty e-coli find their way into our food supply, leading to food poisonings and mass recalls. This is documented in detail in the compelling bestseller _The Omnivore&#039;s Dilemma_ by Michael Pollan - highly recommended reading!
But getting back to climate change, methane is indeed the #2 greenhouse gas (pardon the expression) after CO2. Concentrated feedlots can&#039;t recycle the volumes of manure they yield, so it stews in manure &quot;ponds&quot; (devastating if they spill into waterways, as seen recently) where it ferments into yet more methane.
Rice farming, landfill garbage, and leaks from natural gas pipelines are other significant human sources of excess methane; wetlands and peat bogs are natural sources. Thawing of permafrost in the tundra is expected to add lots more methane as the climate warms (a big temperature-to-greenhouse-effect positive feedback.)
One methane molecule has some 21 times the greenhouse warming effect of one CO2 molecule; it takes around eight to ten years for methane in the atmosphere to oxidize into CO2 (adding yet one more CO2 molecule that will persist for on average 100 years). 
Methane concentrations today are almost triple their pre-industrial levels. While those in denial about climate used to crow about a recent &quot;plateau&quot; in this very elevated level, there is recent evidence of levels starting to rise again, such as here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=35856

Anyway, it&#039;s clear that Boehner did not want to answer George&#039;s persistent questions (props to George for focusing on the real issue). Boehner kept jumping ahead to &quot;we shouldn&#039;t act if China won&#039;t&quot; - which completely fails to answer the question about CO2! 
I believe this illustrates the problem we are up against: many conservatives have already decided that capping CO2 will be too costly, will push jobs overseas, etc. From that point, they work backwards to choose talking points that cast doubt on the science.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll second the notion that Boehner&#8217;s red herring about CO2 not being a &#8220;carcinogen&#8221; is more revealing than his mentioning cows as a source of CO2. Technically, it&#8217;s true that cow &#8220;eructation&#8221; can include some CO2, but the video clip makes it clear Boehner was trying to defect George&#8217;s question of whether climate change is a serious problem by tossing up the meme that CO2 is natural (yes) &#8211; implying that it can&#8217;t then be harmful (no!) &#8211; that&#8217;s the point of Mass. v. EPA and the new Finding of Risk: spiking GHG concentrations pose large environmental risks from drought, severe weather events, sea level rise and ocean acidification; these not based on any claim of toxicity of CO2, and Boehner ought to know that. He&#8217;s just playing a rhetorical card &#8211; one that I&#8217;m sure plays well for his base.</p>
<p>When it comes to cows, a key point missed in many of these superficial debates is that the US population of cattle is around 100 million &#8211; one cow per every three Americans &#8211; and we fatten them on subsidized ADM corn in CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations), not on grass. This is entirely unnatural for cattle; corn is much harder for cattle to digest than the grasses on which they are naturally adapted to ruminate. This causes them to &#8220;eructate&#8221; a lot more methane than cows grazed on grass. Here&#8217;s a recent article on cows and GHGs:<br />
<a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger</a><br />
Fattening cattle on corn instead of grass also gives them acid indigestion, promoting growth of dangerous e-coli, requiring lots of antibiotics not needed for grass-fed cows, greatly increasing the risk of antibiotic resistant strains. Some of these really nasty e-coli find their way into our food supply, leading to food poisonings and mass recalls. This is documented in detail in the compelling bestseller _The Omnivore&#8217;s Dilemma_ by Michael Pollan &#8211; highly recommended reading!<br />
But getting back to climate change, methane is indeed the #2 greenhouse gas (pardon the expression) after CO2. Concentrated feedlots can&#8217;t recycle the volumes of manure they yield, so it stews in manure &#8220;ponds&#8221; (devastating if they spill into waterways, as seen recently) where it ferments into yet more methane.<br />
Rice farming, landfill garbage, and leaks from natural gas pipelines are other significant human sources of excess methane; wetlands and peat bogs are natural sources. Thawing of permafrost in the tundra is expected to add lots more methane as the climate warms (a big temperature-to-greenhouse-effect positive feedback.)<br />
One methane molecule has some 21 times the greenhouse warming effect of one CO2 molecule; it takes around eight to ten years for methane in the atmosphere to oxidize into CO2 (adding yet one more CO2 molecule that will persist for on average 100 years).<br />
Methane concentrations today are almost triple their pre-industrial levels. While those in denial about climate used to crow about a recent &#8220;plateau&#8221; in this very elevated level, there is recent evidence of levels starting to rise again, such as here:<br />
<a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=35856" rel="nofollow">http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=35856</a></p>
<p>Anyway, it&#8217;s clear that Boehner did not want to answer George&#8217;s persistent questions (props to George for focusing on the real issue). Boehner kept jumping ahead to &#8220;we shouldn&#8217;t act if China won&#8217;t&#8221; &#8211; which completely fails to answer the question about CO2!<br />
I believe this illustrates the problem we are up against: many conservatives have already decided that capping CO2 will be too costly, will push jobs overseas, etc. From that point, they work backwards to choose talking points that cast doubt on the science.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lab Lemming</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/comment-page-1/#comment-16017</link>
		<dc:creator>Lab Lemming</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:04:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/#comment-16017</guid>
		<description>Given that the few emissions schemes that even attempt to control agriculture convert everything to &quot;CO2 equivalent&quot;, why does it matter what the actual gas is?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given that the few emissions schemes that even attempt to control agriculture convert everything to &#8220;CO2 equivalent&#8221;, why does it matter what the actual gas is?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MadScientist</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/comment-page-1/#comment-16013</link>
		<dc:creator>MadScientist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/#comment-16013</guid>
		<description>Uh ... better get your facts straight.  Cows don&#039;t fart that much at all - ask any cowpoke.  &quot;Eructation&quot; is the word for people who think &quot;burping&quot; is too vulgar, although it&#039;s not quite like burping either so maybe we should stick to &#039;eructation&#039;.   You get both methane and carbon dioxide but in field experiments it is far easier to estimate methane emissions than CO2 emissions; after all, a cow doesn&#039;t expel methane from its lungs (well, except for what little methane entered its lungs) but a cow does expel CO2; CO2 from eructation is probably very small overall compared to a cow&#039;s breathing and I don&#039;t know if anyone has tried to attribute CO2 to breathing vs. burping or even if anyone thinks there is any value in making such a distinction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Uh &#8230; better get your facts straight.  Cows don&#8217;t fart that much at all &#8211; ask any cowpoke.  &#8220;Eructation&#8221; is the word for people who think &#8220;burping&#8221; is too vulgar, although it&#8217;s not quite like burping either so maybe we should stick to &#8216;eructation&#8217;.   You get both methane and carbon dioxide but in field experiments it is far easier to estimate methane emissions than CO2 emissions; after all, a cow doesn&#8217;t expel methane from its lungs (well, except for what little methane entered its lungs) but a cow does expel CO2; CO2 from eructation is probably very small overall compared to a cow&#8217;s breathing and I don&#8217;t know if anyone has tried to attribute CO2 to breathing vs. burping or even if anyone thinks there is any value in making such a distinction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ashutosh</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/comment-page-1/#comment-16000</link>
		<dc:creator>Ashutosh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:42:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/#comment-16000</guid>
		<description>You are quite right, but I also don&#039;t think that Republicans really practice economic libertarianism, although they amply profess to. Consider all the subsidies, earmarks and kowtowing to special interest industrial lobbies. That&#039;s not exactly free market economics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are quite right, but I also don&#8217;t think that Republicans really practice economic libertarianism, although they amply profess to. Consider all the subsidies, earmarks and kowtowing to special interest industrial lobbies. That&#8217;s not exactly free market economics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Winsor</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/comment-page-1/#comment-15993</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Winsor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:29:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/#comment-15993</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d say there&#039;s more to it, Ashutosh. There&#039;s also the business community. Sam Tanenhaus and others talked about this. I don&#039;t think traditionalism and hard-line economic libertarianism mix that well. At one point there were &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism_(politics)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;actually Republicans who used to debate these issues&lt;/a&gt;.  No matter how much they pine for 1980, 2008 is a very different time...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d say there&#8217;s more to it, Ashutosh. There&#8217;s also the business community. Sam Tanenhaus and others talked about this. I don&#8217;t think traditionalism and hard-line economic libertarianism mix that well. At one point there were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism_(politics)" rel="nofollow">actually Republicans who used to debate these issues</a>.  No matter how much they pine for 1980, 2008 is a very different time&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ashutosh</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/comment-page-1/#comment-15992</link>
		<dc:creator>Ashutosh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/#comment-15992</guid>
		<description>In The Republican War on Science, I think Chris struck upon a fundamental reasons why conservatives are more likely to be reluctant to embrace sound science; it&#039;s simply because conservatism by tradition believes in stasis and the preservation of traditional institutions and ideas while science by tradition believes in challenging and changing the status quo. It&#039;s not that Democrats don&#039;t like traditional ideas, but Republicans by definition are more likely to be wedded to them, that&#039;s all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In The Republican War on Science, I think Chris struck upon a fundamental reasons why conservatives are more likely to be reluctant to embrace sound science; it&#8217;s simply because conservatism by tradition believes in stasis and the preservation of traditional institutions and ideas while science by tradition believes in challenging and changing the status quo. It&#8217;s not that Democrats don&#8217;t like traditional ideas, but Republicans by definition are more likely to be wedded to them, that&#8217;s all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph Soler</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/comment-page-1/#comment-15990</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Soler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:09:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/#comment-15990</guid>
		<description>Speaking of &quot;Culture War Theater&quot;.. anyone ever see one of those slick American Petroleum Institute debaters? I once attended a Justice Talking &quot;debate&quot; about Bush&#039;s (Mis-)Use of Science between an API talking head and the Cornell Physicist head of the Union of Concerned Scientists. ( I regret not knowing his name at the moment) What is sad is that too many scientists simply don&#039;t have the rhetorical skills to debate these people despite being profoundly more knowledgeable. Science might be science and politics politics, but sadly, as we know, scientific fact and theory are premised on very different principles from politics. Politics is more often guided by the perception of &quot;truth&quot; than any realistic standard for truth, and the Boehner remark is a perfect example of this. It was Ronald Reagan who first famously made the cow remark and Republicans have been repeating it ever since. As others have said, the fact that Republicans flagellate science does not vindicate Democrats and their own use and abuse, but nonetheless, we must single out the party whose Primary nominees for president mostly declaimed Evolution in favor of Creationism and two of whose leading voices at the moment, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee both argue that Evolution is a &quot;myth&quot; while Creation is a valid &quot;theory.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking of &#8220;Culture War Theater&#8221;.. anyone ever see one of those slick American Petroleum Institute debaters? I once attended a Justice Talking &#8220;debate&#8221; about Bush&#8217;s (Mis-)Use of Science between an API talking head and the Cornell Physicist head of the Union of Concerned Scientists. ( I regret not knowing his name at the moment) What is sad is that too many scientists simply don&#8217;t have the rhetorical skills to debate these people despite being profoundly more knowledgeable. Science might be science and politics politics, but sadly, as we know, scientific fact and theory are premised on very different principles from politics. Politics is more often guided by the perception of &#8220;truth&#8221; than any realistic standard for truth, and the Boehner remark is a perfect example of this. It was Ronald Reagan who first famously made the cow remark and Republicans have been repeating it ever since. As others have said, the fact that Republicans flagellate science does not vindicate Democrats and their own use and abuse, but nonetheless, we must single out the party whose Primary nominees for president mostly declaimed Evolution in favor of Creationism and two of whose leading voices at the moment, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee both argue that Evolution is a &#8220;myth&#8221; while Creation is a valid &#8220;theory.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Uncle Al</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/comment-page-1/#comment-15989</link>
		<dc:creator>Uncle Al</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/04/22/more-on-john-boehners-confusion-of-co2-and-ch4/#comment-15989</guid>
		<description>The Carbon Tax on Everything is not about content, it s about process.  First World Civilization must be ended.   God must establish His dominion of poverty, hunger, disease, filth, death, and silk-clad priests with whips.  Anybody who disagrees is thereby proven unqualified to comment.

Carbon Credit indulgences buy a stairway to heaven, guarded by arbitrageur-priests like Al Gore.   Can God make a collection plate so vast that even He cannot fill it?   Sure!  ALL OF THEM.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Carbon Tax on Everything is not about content, it s about process.  First World Civilization must be ended.   God must establish His dominion of poverty, hunger, disease, filth, death, and silk-clad priests with whips.  Anybody who disagrees is thereby proven unqualified to comment.</p>
<p>Carbon Credit indulgences buy a stairway to heaven, guarded by arbitrageur-priests like Al Gore.   Can God make a collection plate so vast that even He cannot fill it?   Sure!  ALL OF THEM.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
