24% 0f the worlds forest have been denuded for the raising of cattle. There is approximately 1.3 billion cattle alone exhaling tons of methane each and every day. This production exceeds that of methane emissions from mines, gas production facilities, and landfills. Then there is the 171 million buffalo, 1 billion odd sheep, 767 million goats, 956 million pigs, 55 million horses, 12 million mules, 40 million asses, 19 million camels, 16 million chickens, 1.5 million ducks, not counting geese and every other animal not mentioned, or the impact of their waste on the environment.
And those world livestock figures are from 2003.
How about we replant that 24% of earth with trees and wait 10 years to see how that works first before we follow up with the suicide booths.
Actually, I think both could be done in conjunction with one another. All those who blame human existence could suicide themselves for the greater good, while the rest of us look at the world a little more holistically and work out the dynamics rather than follow like lemmings the 'true believers' of global warming and their apopaleptic rage against man.
If you really want to extend your study investigate food, feed, processing and consumer wastage. That ranges anywhere from 0% to 164%.
not counting the energy required to produce or process. Just in terms of wastage.

Sir Vivor thanks for quoting the Christian Science Monitor...and alerting us to God's wrath.

"CO2 would still be CO2. Methane would still be methane"
Science in action is a beautiful thing.

"Bye Alzo"
Bye EN...see you in 2009 when and if AGW returns.

"there ARE wolves, and that they eat little boys"
eeek! Stop scaring the children.

"All those who blame human existence could suicide themselves for the greater good"
EN or davasb, step up.

Ian Plimer in his excellent article makes this important distinction that relates to connectivity ...... "If the conclusion that humans are changing climate by carbon dioxide emissions requires the omission of validated astronomical, palaeontologic and geological evidence, then the popular view of humans causing climate change is not science. We are seeing a revival of a form of zealous Western politics intertwined with poor theology, poor economics and poor logic."

The distinction i make is that the universe is not a closed system but an infinite environment.... a major distinction. It never ceases to amaze how even seemingly intelligent people push this "Strong Anthropic Principal" which is weak and unimaginative on just about every level.

Systems people only know closed exclusive systems which is not surprising really but if the universe is an infinite ENVIRONMENT then it is not a system however one wants to look at it. So let's not start with preconceived silly cosmological models or climate models that are nonsensical and no different to earlier examples like the "wonderful" idea that the earth rested on the back of a giant turtle.

In an infinite environment, divergence and convergence are equal. Things come apart in one place to form other things in another place giving this process occurring at all times with respect to each electron, atom, cell, organ, organism, species, ecosystem, planet, and galaxy.

Stopping climate change and making it somehow perfect, constant and regular simply serves to illustrate quite well the anthropocentric mindset where we are expected to understand that all humans exhale carbon with original sin. Quite ridiculous when you consider that carbon creates a greening and healthy environment. I love CO2 because it grows better roses, bigger tomatoes, greens the environment and even leads to stronger, healthy people. We just need to get out there and kick the greening on a bit with some good conservation programs. Understanding the biological behavior of terra preta is but one. There are many practical and beneficial convergence programs for CO2. (Unless of course you believe you smell like a rose with your anthropocentric mindset.)

What the climate change skeptics are arguing is that pollution has no consequence. The skeptics argument hinges on wether the moon is in Scorpio and the Sun is in Leo if then venus is rising in capricorn and the feng shui of Titan interferes with the crystal healing of Jesus who is ressurected by the waking of the Yeti then the sun will cause global warming.

C'mon you pro science climate hystericists with your ridiculous argument gas does stuff, prove it aint so.

re:
"Sir Vivor thanks for quoting the Christian Science Monitor...and alerting us to God's wrath."

I'm puzzled. Where in the article is God's wrath mentioned?

Alzo, maybe you'd better read the full article. The link is in my prior post.

And maybe you ought to find out a bit more about the Christian Science Monitor. My opinion is that it is a more reliable source of information than Rush Limbaugh. I expect my opinion would be shared by many a journalist, be he (or she) theist, agnostic or atheist.