Bill Nye Pushes Plan to Tax Animal Exhaust

[Swordsmyth]

You can always count on climate alarmists for a giggle, and you can definitely count on self-proclaimed “science guy” Bill Nye for a belly laugh. In an interview (https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-trump-administration-is-driving-bill-nye-nuts-its-a-formula-for-disaster?ref=wrap) with the Daily Beast, Nye called for a carbon tax on agriculture, which would burden farmers, raise food prices, and do next-to-nothing about so-called global warming. Nye then had the audacity to laud the scheme as a “free-market” solution.
“Well, this is what you do and it’s a win-win: to have a fee on carbon. So, if you are raising livestock and producing a lot of carbon dioxide with your farm equipment and the exhaust from the animals, then you would pay a fee on that and it would be reflected in the price of meat, reflected in the price of fish, reflected in the price of peanuts,” Nye said.
Nye and other environmentalists believe that a large portion of the world’s supposed climate problem is because of our insistence on having meat in our diet. In 2010, the United Nations Environment Programme even advocated a switch to a global vegan diet (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet) to address world hunger and climate change. Nye is a vegan himself (https://www.livekindly.co/bill-nye-vegan-guy/)and has been vocal in advocating such a diet.
Nye also absurdly claims that his proposed carbon tax is a free-market solution — because a free-market depends on social engineering and government intrusion, apparently.
“This would be a free-market way to reckon the real cost of a meat diet to the world,” Nye claimed. “But conservatives now are against such a thing because they’re against any regulation, any tax or any government involvement in anything. But again, it won’t last, and a carbon fee would be a fantastic thing for the world.”

Of course, what the “science guy” is advocating is ridiculous on many levels. Nye seems to be saying that his proposed carbon fee would raise the price of meat and encourage more vegetarianism and veganism. Ok, but what about the exhaust-producing animals? If we aren’t killing and eating some of them, won’t they continue to reproduce, growing their numbers even larger, and exacerbating the problem of their belching and flatulence? Or is Nye proposing to do away with the animals in some environmentally friendly way?
And just what about any of this is free-market? In a free market, goods and services are determined by the market and what consumers are willing to pay for those things. A carbon tax would be completely antithetical to a free market since it would artificially raise prices. Bill Nye may or may not be a “science guy”; but he is certainly not an “economics guy.”
While Nye’s proposal would probably cause mass starvation and food riots, especially in the third world where food options are much more limited, the fact is that it would do next to nothing to solve global warming.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/29128-science-guy-bill-nye-pushes-plan-to-tax-animal-exhaust

[fedupinmo]

I guess his "science" doesn't realize that farm equipment is used to grow vegetables a LOT more than it's used for meat.
I propose a 200% tax on vegetables with a deduction for meat consumption! :D

[Matt Collins]

Bill Nye is full of hot air:




https://i.imgur.com/wHPQ1TI.jpg

[nikcers]

You can always count on climate alarmists for a giggle, and you can definitely count on self-proclaimed “science guy” Bill Nye for a belly laugh. In an interview (https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-trump-administration-is-driving-bill-nye-nuts-its-a-formula-for-disaster?ref=wrap) with the Daily Beast, Nye called for a carbon tax on agriculture, which would burden farmers, raise food prices, and do next-to-nothing about so-called global warming. Nye then had the audacity to laud the scheme as a “free-market” solution.
“Well, this is what you do and it’s a win-win: to have a fee on carbon. So, if you are raising livestock and producing a lot of carbon dioxide with your farm equipment and the exhaust from the animals, then you would pay a fee on that and it would be reflected in the price of meat, reflected in the price of fish, reflected in the price of peanuts,” Nye said.
Nye and other environmentalists believe that a large portion of the world’s supposed climate problem is because of our insistence on having meat in our diet. In 2010, the United Nations Environment Programme even advocated a switch to a global vegan diet (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet) to address world hunger and climate change. Nye is a vegan himself (https://www.livekindly.co/bill-nye-vegan-guy/)and has been vocal in advocating such a diet.
Nye also absurdly claims that his proposed carbon tax is a free-market solution — because a free-market depends on social engineering and government intrusion, apparently.
“This would be a free-market way to reckon the real cost of a meat diet to the world,” Nye claimed. “But conservatives now are against such a thing because they’re against any regulation, any tax or any government involvement in anything. But again, it won’t last, and a carbon fee would be a fantastic thing for the world.”

Of course, what the “science guy” is advocating is ridiculous on many levels. Nye seems to be saying that his proposed carbon fee would raise the price of meat and encourage more vegetarianism and veganism. Ok, but what about the exhaust-producing animals? If we aren’t killing and eating some of them, won’t they continue to reproduce, growing their numbers even larger, and exacerbating the problem of their belching and flatulence? Or is Nye proposing to do away with the animals in some environmentally friendly way?
And just what about any of this is free-market? In a free market, goods and services are determined by the market and what consumers are willing to pay for those things. A carbon tax would be completely antithetical to a free market since it would artificially raise prices. Bill Nye may or may not be a “science guy”; but he is certainly not an “economics guy.”
While Nye’s proposal would probably cause mass starvation and food riots, especially in the third world where food options are much more limited, the fact is that it would do next to nothing to solve global warming.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/29128-science-guy-bill-nye-pushes-plan-to-tax-animal-exhaust
I agree with the conclusion but I think it would help reduce global warming.

[Swordsmyth]

I agree with the conclusion but I think it would help reduce global warming.

Cocky Locky believes chicken little? You'd better watch out for foxy loxy.

[nikcers]

Cocky Locky believes chicken little? You'd better watch out for foxy loxy.
You don't think a lot of people dying in the third world would reduce global warming?

[Swordsmyth]

You don't think a lot of people dying in the third world would reduce global warming?

Global Warming is controlled by the sun and other similarly immense natural systems, the death of every human on the planet wouldn't affect it.

[nikcers]

Global Warming is controlled by the sun and other similarly immense natural systems, the death of every human on the planet wouldn't affect it.
The human bean is a similarly immense natural system. There is a reason why people who have money have bomb shelters and they are so popular right now. World war 3 will cause long term climate change, man made.

[timosman]

The human bean is a similarly immense natural system. There is a reason why people who have money have bomb shelters and they are so popular right now. World war 3 will cause long term climate change, man made.

Bomb shelter will not protect you.

[VIDEODROME]

I agree with his conclusions on Global Climate Change or even that Americans eat meat excessively, but I don't agree with his half assed solution and I'm not sure he's even being serious. Part of the problem is modern media doesn't have time to discuss nuance in issues and I've seen Nye cut short when trying to do so.

Other things could be looked into:

Can Cow feed / diet be altered to reduce these emissions? Is there a difference between Grass Fed Beef versus Grain versus uhhh.... Candy Fed Beef (yes I'm serious, fucking leftover Candy) ?

Perhaps Mega-Farms need to be broken up? If your food is close to you, Cows or other animals don't have to ride miles down the highway in a semitruck trailer. Or in the case of Frozen Meat in a refrigerated trailer requiring more Diesel. I suppose the same applies to all Dairy products.

Why are Americans eating so much Beef in general?

Are other meat sources like Chicken less harmful for emissions?

Americans tend to eat out a lot or on the go so they're kind of at the mercy of what restaurants offer. I think there needs to be a creative approach to influences that are entrenched in American cuisine. In fact, many local restaurants' very appeal is built around Meat offerings such as Buffalo Wild Wings or Red Lobster. Would it in fact be worth enticing Americans to shift dining out preferences to these Non-Beef choices if Poultry or Seafood are less environmentally harmful?

Even aside from Meat, portions in Restaurants for entrees are often quite ridiculous even for something Nye might approve of like a Salad. A Dinner salad in a restaurant is often a big ass bowl with enough for 3 people.


Final thought, I think the American diet is a mess as a symptom of our economy influencing our society. Even for myself as a Truck Driver, I've often grabbed a burger to go out of shear convenience to eat while driving between job sites. If Americans have much more free time and money and less worry, they could probably have less of a tendency to go for quick convenience food.

[Root]

To hell with all these people telling me what to eat. Eat what you like, or don't. Leave me out of it.

[pcosmar]

I agree with the conclusion but I think it would help reduce global warming.

That sound like you have faith in pseudoscience.

not to mention that a bit of warming would be nice,, but the cycle is cooling now.

[luctor-et-emergo]

I guess his "science" doesn't realize that farm equipment is used to grow vegetables a LOT more than it's used for meat.
I propose a 200% tax on vegetables with a deduction for meat consumption! :D

And what exactly is it that cows eat generally ? Grass-fed cows eat grass of course, so there you're mostly right. With cows that get fed soy and grains, I'm very sorry to tell but those may not be vegetables as such but they do require lots of fuel to be grown, and, several pounds of it, go into a lb of meat. So, unless your cow eats naturally grown grass from a field, it does cost more fuel to produce.

I am lucky btw, if I look outside of my window, I see some cows snacking on grass, they are milk cows however. The meat cows are on a different field. :p Like I said, I'm lucky... Fresh milk, yoghurt, cheese, beef and eggs, a 300ft walk, fresh from the farm. Many different vegetables directly from the farmer in a mile. Oh, and I live close enough to the sea to get fresh fish that came out of the sea a few hours earlier... :D No clue what this has to do with the topic, but I'm happy.

[euphemia]

Bill Nye grew up rich and this is the only way he knows how to control other people. He graduated from Sidwell Friends school and the only thing *science* about him is his Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. He does not have an earned degree in science and i'm not aware that he did any graduate work at all.

[CaptUSA]

https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/cow-fart3.jpg
https://jerryinitaly.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/tax2.jpg?w=750

Remember these things???

http://intainforma.inta.gov.ar/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/vaca-inta-3.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/82/42/0d/82420ddada9b5730f19de2a0797ed043--funny-cow-pictures-funny-cows.jpg

[osan]

I don't know whether Nye is an idiot or just a corrupt tool of the so-called "left", but his "science" isn't.

Why is it that the people in this world who need the most to be severely beaten with iron bars rarely, if ever, are?

[nikcers]

That sound like you have faith in pseudoscience.

not to mention that a bit of warming would be nice,, but the cycle is cooling now.

It's not faith that people create heat. You don't have to go into a packed Ron Paul rally in a small building to learn that. I have sweat enough in those to tell the difference in temperature with and without people.

You also don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that not putting up a windshield Sun shade in your car to block the sun means your car is going to be 50% hotter then without it. Now maybe where you live getting hotter would be nice, but where I live bird and bat populations are disappearing entirely.

[PierzStyx]

I agree with the conclusion but I think it would help reduce global warming.

Well, yeah. Kill a bunch of people and the end result will be less pollution. Evil, but logical.

[pcosmar]

It's not faith that people create heat. You don't have to go into a packed Ron Paul rally in a small building to learn that. I have sweat enough in those to tell the difference in temperature with and without people.

You also don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that not putting up a windshield Sun shade in your car to block the sun means your car is going to be 50% hotter then without it. Now maybe where you live getting hotter would be nice, but where I live birds and bat populations a disappearing entirely.

And it is the SUN that heats the earth.. Man has no control of the SUN or it's cycles..

The earth periodically warms and cools.. It is the natural state of things and has been happening regardless of mans technology.

And a warm room full of people is not the Globe.. It is a closed space.

Seriously? Rooms of Ron Paul supporters are warming the planet????

take a deep breath and clear your head.

[nikcers]

And it is the SUN that heats the earth.. Man has no control of the SUN or it's cycles..

The earth periodically warms and cools.. It is the natural state of things and has been happening regardless of mans technology.

And a warm room full of people is not the Globe.. It is a closed space.

Seriously? Rooms of Ron Paul supporters are warming the planet????

take a deep breath and clear your head.
Man has no control over the water cycle? We mastered control over water thousands of years ago. The reason why ice isn't blocking as much sun is because its not getting replaced because it doesn't rain in areas where ice would be created normally. I used the analogy because you are trying to argue that thermal dynamics is pseudo science, Ron Paul was a doctor, a man of science.

[CaptUSA]

And it is the SUN that heats the earth.. Man has no control of the SUN or it's cycles..

The earth periodically warms and cools.. It is the natural state of things and has been happening regardless of mans technology.

There are also geothermic factors and volcanic releases into the atmosphere...

I would argue that humans are capable of affecting the atmosphere and, in turn, the climate. But to what degree? These scientists have never been able to answer that question. Not even a rough estimate. Are humans responsible for 2% of the climate? 25%? Judging from most of these idiots, you'd think it was 100%!

But let's say they were able to come to a consensus on the percentage caused by humans - the next question would be how much are we willing to give up in order to affect a 25% change to our 2% impact??

[pcosmar]

Man has no control over the water cycle?

Nope..

It still works with or without him.

Rain falls.. evaporates,, and falls again.. ever since the Flood. It's a cycle that man can only deal with.

[nikcers]

Nope..

It still works with or without him.

Rain falls.. evaporates,, and falls again.. ever since the Flood. It's a cycle that man can only deal with.
Yeah but we can make it rain, and we can make it- not rain.

[pcosmar]

But let's say they were able to come to a consensus on the percentage caused by humans - the next question would be how much are we willing to give up in order to affect a 25% change to our 2% impact??

It is not relevant.
The Pseudoscience behind this is bullshit,, and they re-phrase it when caught.

Man will come to the end in WAR.. not from climate.. as if we seriously could affect planet wide change (now that is some arrogance)

This whole issue is about Control.. about implementing the goals of a few elitists.

It ain't science.

[nikcers]

There are also geothermic factors and volcanic releases into the atmosphere...

I would argue that humans are capable of affecting the atmosphere and, in turn, the climate. But to what degree? These scientists have never been able to answer that question. Not even a rough estimate. Are humans responsible for 2% of the climate? 25%? Judging from most of these idiots, you'd think it was 100%!

But let's say they were able to come to a consensus on the percentage caused by humans - the next question would be how much are we willing to give up in order to affect a 25% change to our 2% impact??
A lot of it has to do with how much water we use, don't get me wrong there are natural causes of climate change. When we put millions of millions of people in places with no water and pump water into those places, and huge amount of water gets displaced and evaporated in different regions in the world it speeds up the water cycle and then it causes droughts

When there is a drought in places that usually create these giant shields of ice that block the sun it doesn't block as much sun so it has a lot more to do with the fact that the sun isn't getting blocked as much, and less to do with the heat getting trapped in the atmosphere because of gases that block the heat from escaping.

[pcosmar]

Yeah but we can make it rain, and we can make it- not rain.

NO you Can't..

You can sometimes trigger precipitation IF there is water present..

If the air is simply too dry ,,, all the seeding won't work.

And you can't stop a Monsoon.

[pcosmar]

DUDE.

They can not even reliably predict the weather tomorrow. They pretend to,, and are wrong often.. reliably wrong.

You want me to believe that they can predict weather in the future when they can not predict the week.

[CaptUSA]

A lot of it has to do with...

How much is "a lot"??

Please answer that. It doesn't have to be an exact number - just an estimate - but please provide some scientific info to back up your estimate. Otherwise, you're just buying into the Bullshit.

[nikcers]

NO you Can't..

You can sometimes trigger precipitation IF there is water present..

If the air is simply too dry ,,, all the seeding won't work.

And you can't stop a Monsoon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inoTJVCcHzs

[nikcers]

How much is "a lot"??

Please answer that. It doesn't have to be an exact number - just an estimate - but please provide some scientific info to back up your estimate. Otherwise, you're just buying into the Bull$#@!.
Not buying bullshit, we can't measure what the temperature is like on this planet without the ice sheets because they are still here. All we can do is look at climate records when there weren't giant ice sheets blocking the sun and look at average temperatures and see if they go up.

We could probably measure just how much heat the ice sheets/caps block but I don't know if that would change the climate everywhere, I am sure in some places the world would be more habitable, but I think that more habitable places will become inhabitable, it will be hell on earth in some places. We might be able to produce something similar to block the sun, something man man artificially kind of like GMO corn that doesn't have to be pollinated by bees,

I think man can find a solution for mother nature not being there to do everything for us. Just imagine all the resources under all the ice that the people in charge are going to be able to get after the ice melts too, thats the real conspiracy, and the people who are going to be making all the money are saying that global warming doesn't exist.

[pcosmar]

All we can do is look at climate records when there weren't giant ice sheets blocking the sun and look at average temperatures and see if they go up.

We could probably measure just how much heat the ice sheets/caps block but I don't know if that would change the climate everywhere, I .

What Giant Ice Shields???

I thought we were discussing science not some flat earth theory.

edit ,, or this,,

https://pm1.narvii.com/6491/ac867677d622a33155dbcaf0fbe0266294e4ed27_hq.jpg

[CaptUSA]

Not buying bullshit, we can't .................................................. ...................................

In other words, you have no idea how much humans are affecting anything - you only have your feelz... And since it seems logical (to you), you think it's scientific fact.

Seriously, this is NOT how science works. If you have a hypothesis, you measure and test it. But in this case, the hypotheses are NEVER tested - at best, they test and measure some very limited aspect of the outcomes, but they NEVER measure their underlying premise.

Sorry - you fell for the Bullshit.

Wanna try again?? What percentage of the change in climate is due to natural forces and what percentage is due to human impacts? Does it even concern you that there are no so-called "climate scientists" that will ever even address that calculation??

[nikcers]

What Giant Ice Shields???

I thought we were discussing science not some flat earth theory.
Miles and miles of ice in the polar regions, it reflects the heat- no flat earth here, just someone who lives in Las Vegas, and spends years of my life working just to pay for it to be a more habitable temperature in my home, and one day I thought about how amazing it would be if I owned an energy company and everyone had to pay 300 dollar electric bills

[pcosmar]

Miles and miles of ice in the polar regions, it reflects the heat- no flat earth here, just someone who lives in Las Vegas, and spends years of my life working just to pay for it to be a more habitable temperature in my home, and one day I thought about how amazing it would be if I owned an energy company and everyone had to pay 300 dollar electric bills

Live in Michigan and Pay Heat Bills.

You live in a desert and judge the rest of the world by your narrow parameters.

The polar Ice caps are out of direct sun.. and completely dark half the year. They get little SUN to begin with and reflect little.
an easily irrelevant theory.

You should see more of the country.. it really is huge.. and quite wet where I am currently.
But this is Rain Forest,, and not Desert.

[nikcers]

Live in Michigan and Pay Heat Bills.

You live in a desert and judge the rest of the world by your narrow parameters.

The polar Ice caps are out of direct sun.. and completely dark half the year. They get little SUN to begin with and reflect little.
an easily irrelevant theory.

You should see more of the country.. it really is huge.. and quite wet where I am currently.
But this is Rain Forest,, and not Desert.
Yeah but wouldn't it be really nice, if you hypothetically owned an energy company and all of the sudden everyone had 400 dollar energy bills? Wouldn't that be great for business?

[pcosmar]

The "Polar Vortex" a couple years back,, (Al Gore must have been talking)

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7350/12816081143_74e495aa57_b.jpg

All that water,,is is about 60 degrees below being liquid.

I understand thermodynamics better than you might think,,, I grew up there..
I heated a Home with Wood Fire.

The year after that we had record Snowfall..

This year it was the Blue Ice.

https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/cCXcjDTaGOxGTKJ3cKOgQQpMeL8=/950x534/filters:quality(90)/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fima ge%2F724361%2Fc740f53f-992f-45dd-a5be-d2606e212621.jpg

Did you know that the Water Cycle still works in a frozen environment?

Ice Evaporates.

And then we can discuss the Sub Tropics.. and the intensity of the SUN at the Equator.

[pcosmar]

Yeah but wouldn't it be really nice, if you hypothetically owned an energy company and all of the sudden everyone had 400 dollar energy bills? Wouldn't that be great for business?

$400 a year,?

Used to run $1000 a month in the summer in Key West.
Fuel cost on my farm was $800 a month in winter burning Oil.

Less considerably Burning Wood,,but labor is involved.

[Madison320]

In other words, you have no idea how much humans are affecting anything - you only have your feelz... And since it seems logical (to you), you think it's scientific fact.

Seriously, this is NOT how science works. If you have a hypothesis, you measure and test it. But in this case, the hypotheses are NEVER tested - at best, they test and measure some very limited aspect of the outcomes, but they NEVER measure their underlying premise.

Sorry - you fell for the Bull$#@!.

Wanna try again?? What percentage of the change in climate is due to natural forces and what percentage is due to human impacts? Does it even concern you that there are no so-called "climate scientists" that will ever even address that calculation??

I agree. If you look at long term charts of global temperature, I mean actual long term, like 500 million years, you'll see that:

1. The earth has had hundreds of thousands of warming trends like the one we are in right now.

2. The average temperature is currently lower than the historical average.


The "Global Warmers" are using the most common statistical trick in the book. They're ignoring scale. On a 100 year timeline a .4 degree increase looks like a lot but over 500 million years you can't even see it.

[nikcers]

I agree. If you look at long term charts of global temperature, I mean actual long term, like 500 million years, you'll see that:

1. The earth has had hundreds of thousands of warming trends like the one we are in right now.

2. The average temperature is currently lower than the historical average.


The "Global Warmers" are using the most common statistical trick in the book. They're ignoring scale. On a 100 year timeline a .4 degree increase looks like a lot but over 500 million years you can't even see it.
On a 100 year timeline the global population has tripled. You don't think that 3 times the amount of people don't affect the world differently?

[CaptUSA]

On a 100 year timeline the global population has tripled. You don't think that 3 times the amount of people don't affect the world differently?

How much differently??

[nikcers]

How much differently??
3X

[CaptUSA]

3X

Really?? :rolleyes:

I know you're being coy, but it's only because you can't answer the question. Humans are just one factor that influences the climate. Even if you multiply that factor by 3, unless you know what their impact was to begin with, you can't possibly assess their impact now.

It's funny, right? It seems like it should be a relatively easy question to ask and someone should have had an answer by now - even a "10-30%" number would be a starting point. But look it up - you won't find it. You'll find, "X% of scientists agree.." or "X% of the climate has changed since humans...", but you will never find them estimating the human impact against other natural causes. NEVER. And that doesn't bother you?

[nikcers]

Really?? :rolleyes:

I know you're being coy, but it's only because you can't answer the question. Humans are just one factor that influences the climate. Even if you multiply that factor by 3, unless you know what their impact was to begin with, you can't possibly assess their impact now.

It's funny, right? It seems like it should be a relatively easy question to ask and someone should have had an answer by now - even a "10-30%" number would be a starting point. But look it up - you won't find it. You'll find, "X% of scientists agree.." or "X% of the climate has changed since humans...", but you will never find them estimating the human impact against other natural causes. NEVER. And that doesn't bother you?

Thats the joke, its hard to quantify things that don't get measured or can't get measured like air pollution and its damage on other people who have to breath the air. You would think that would be easy. All you would have to do is look at people getting cancer, or lung diseases. How much does that cost in medical expenses and how much of a drain is it on society? There are other things that give you lung problems though, and not all of the air pollution stays in the air some of it goes other places...

[CaptUSA]

Thats the joke, its hard to quantify things that don't get measured or can't get measured like air pollution and its damage on other people who have to breath the air. You would think that would be easy. All you would have to do is look at people getting cancer, or lung diseases. How much does that cost in medical expenses and how much of a drain is it on society? :rolleyes: You mean as opposed to surviving longer and consuming resources for longer? So, instead of treating cancer and lung diseases for a few years, we can treat other ailments for much longer?! Because that's a net savings in medical expenses???

You're still coming up empty on this one...

[Ender]

I agree. If you look at long term charts of global temperature, I mean actual long term, like 500 million years, you'll see that:

1. The earth has had hundreds of thousands of warming trends like the one we are in right now.

2. The average temperature is currently lower than the historical average.


The "Global Warmers" are using the most common statistical trick in the book. They're ignoring scale. On a 100 year timeline a .4 degree increase looks like a lot but over 500 million years you can't even see it.

Exactly- AND it is currently going into a cooling stage- shocker.

[Ender]

Thats the joke, its hard to quantify things that don't get measured or can't get measured like air pollution and its damage on other people who have to breath the air. You would think that would be easy. All you would have to do is look at people getting cancer, or lung diseases. How much does that cost in medical expenses and how much of a drain is it on society? There are other things that give you lung problems though, and not all of the air pollution stays in the air some of it goes other places...

Cancer is caused by lack of air but it has nothing to do with "global warming" and everything to do with the fact that "civilized" people breathe backwards. If people would actually learn about their bodies & how to take care of them, illness would shoot down to almost nothing.

Unfortunately, Big Pharma doesn't want you to know that.

[Ender]

THE HUNZA PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO LIVE UP TO 145 YEARS OLD; HERE’S THEIR SECRET
NOVEMBER 8, 2015

In the debate over which diet and lifestyle is the best path for increased health and longevity, there is nothing like real-life indisputable proof such as that found among the Hunza tribe in the Himalayas.

These people, living in an extremely secluded region of the world, practice simple lifestyle habits which allow them to enjoy excellent overall health and lifespans of up to 145 years!

This, and they do it in style, being among the happiest human beings on Earth with near-perfect physiology. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, blood pressure issues and other common plagues of the Western world are almost unheard of among the Hunza.

More here:
http://thespiritscience.net/2015/11/08/the-hunza-people-are-able-to-live-up-to-145-years-old-heres-their-secret/

[pcosmar]

THE HUNZA PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO LIVE UP TO 145 YEARS OLD; HERE’S THEIR SECRET


I don't think I want to.. 61 this year and I don't know that I want another 30..

doin' time on planet earth.

[Ender]

I don't think I want to.. 61 this year and I don't know that I want another 30..

doin' time on planet earth.

The Hunza's are a happy people- when you live in an open air prison, it can seem not worth it.

[pcosmar]

The Hunza's are a happy people- when you live in an open air prison, it can seem not worth it.

I'm expecting the next several to go down hill.. so no bright hope in the future.. Hope for a few calm moments I guess.

[Anti Globalist]

Yeah I'm gonna eat whatever the hell I want. I could care less what these idiots think.

[Ender]

I'm expecting the next several to go down hill.. so no bright hope in the future.. Hope for a few calm moments I guess.

I think you're awesome pcosmar- keep smiling, we need you.

[lilymc]

I dislike Bill Nye, and I don't buy into the global warming hysteria, but I do want to reply to one thing right now, because whoever wrote this article is showing some ignorance.


If we aren’t killing and eating some of them, won’t they continue to reproduce, growing their numbers even larger, and exacerbating the problem of their belching and flatulence?

We are artificially breeding them into existence, for the sole purpose of using/eating them. When the demand for animal products decreases, the number of animals brought into existence will decrease too. This won't happen overnight, but it will happen (gradually), it's just basic supply and demand.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Hi Bill Nye. Save the planet, kill yourself.

[pcosmar]

I think you're awesome pcosmar- keep smiling, we need you.

I do,, there will be pockets of peace and freedom,, but I have little hope of an overall peace.
The world seems to be accelerating in another direction.