1. Even hamburger flippers are climate scientist these days.

    Burger King addresses climate change by changing cows’ diets
    Michelle Chapman, The Associated Press, at 12:07 on July 14, 2020

    Burger King is staging an intervention with its cows.

    The chain has rebalanced the diet of some of the cows by adding lemon grass in a bid to limit bovine contributions to climate change. By tweaking their diet, Burger King said Tuesday that it believes it can reduce a cow’s daily methane emissions by about 33%.

    Cows emit methane as a by-product of their digestion, and that has become a potential public relations hurdle for major burger chains.

    Greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector made up 9.9% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Of that amount, methane emissions from livestock (called enteric fermentation) comprised more than a quarter of the emissions from the agriculture sector.

    With an over-the-top social media campaig n that teeters between vulgarity and science (sprinkled with more vulgarity), Burger King is banking on the heightened awareness of climate change and its responsibility to limit its own role.

    According to a recent poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, about two out of three Americans say corporations have a responsibility to combat climate change. The gravitational pull of climate change is increasingly finding its way onto national political stage.

    Potential customers are also cutting down on the amount of meat they consume, citing both environmental and dietary concerns. Burger King and rival McDonald’s have added meat alternatives to their menus.

    Two years ago McDonald’s said it was taking steps to cut the greenhouse gases it emits. It tweaked the manner in which the beef in its Big Macs and Quarter Pounders was produced. The company said at the time that it expected the changes to prevent 150 million metric tons (165 million tons) of greenhouse gas emissions from being released into the atmosphere by 2030.

    Burger King worked with scientists at the Autonomous University at the State of Mexico and at the University of California, Davis to test and develop its formula of adding 100 grams of lemongrass leaves to the cows’ daily diets. Preliminary tests indicate that the lemongrass leaves help the cows release less methane as they digest their food.

    On Tuesday, Burger King introduced its Reduced Methane Emissions Beef Whopper, made with beef sourced from cows that emit reduced methane, in select restaurants in Miami, New York, Austin, Portland and Los Angeles, while supplies last.

    1. I’m cutting down on Burger King burgers… to zero. Carl’s Jr. is better anyway, and they don’t pander to the climate crazies.

      Cows eat *pounds* of grass or grain per day… adding a mere 100 grams of lemongrass leaves to their diet won’t have an appreciable effect. 150 million metric tons of methane sounds like an awful lot, doesn’t it? Except it’s not… it’s a drop in the bucket, considering that it’s over 10 years.

      150 million metric tons is less than landfills produce in one year… we must close all landfills and force people to eat their own trash! That’s as much as wetlands produce in a single year… we must eradicate all wetlands! That’s as much as termites produce in 2 years… we must embark upon a worldwide and very expensive campaign to destroy all termites! That’s as much as the world’s oceans produce in 2 1/2 years… we must drain the oceans!

      As usual, the climate crazies have no sense of scale.

      Besides, barbed-wire grass (aka fevergrass, aka lemongrass) *relaxes* the abdominal muscles, allowing the *release* of gas…
      “Lemongrass promotes good digestion and brings relief from diarrhea, bloating, nausea, stomach ache and gastroenteritis. It allows the abdominal muscles to relax and release gas.”

      On top of that, methane’s absorption spectrum is swamped by water vapor:
      “The ratio of the percentages of water to methane is such that the effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O. The amount of CH4 must increase 100-fold to make it comparable to H2O.”

      And to top it all off, methane breaks down very quickly when exposed to sunshine… OH- radicals break it down into CO2 and H2O.
      “The hydroxyl (OH) radical, a molecule made up of one hydrogen atom, one oxygen atom with a free (or unpaired) electron, is one of the most reactive gases in the atmosphere and regularly breaks down other gases, effectively ending their lifetimes. In this way, OH is the main check on the concentration of methane”

      As usual, the climate crazies have no scientific basis for their blather.

  2. Mr Ed Berry, pHD
    I totally agree with the need to re-elect President Trump.
    I totally agree that Republicans, not having an answer to “global warming”, will face defeat.
    I totally agree we must reach our Republican leaders to help them understand global warming – BUT I HAVE GOTTEN KICKED IN THE SHINS BY THEM; “You do not know how politics works – I have taken your name off my email list”

    Mr Berry – may I humbly suggest you contact me about the fourth source of energy – Mr Robert Tuttle’s book – AND THE CAUSE OF THE GLOBAL WARMING THAT ENDED IN 2005, AND THE COASTING TILL 2020. WE ARE NOW COOLING OFF!!!!!

    Using NOAA’s global [hot spot] temperature map it is very easy to see what caused the warming that occurred after 1980 until 2005.
    Their latest map shows the hot spots are gone [except one in Siberia]. We are entering an ice age – THE PROOF IS THERE.


    TIME MAGAZINE’S latest has 45 pages of “ONE LAST CHANCE” to save the planet.

    Art Krugler

    I am a registered Chemical and Mechanical Engineer – not given to following people who are “never in doubt but often wrong” [ like my father]
    I will be writing a new chapter on this source of energy next week, and will send you a draft – but only if you respond to this email.
    I do not want to take energy away from re-electing Trump.

  3. IPCC mandate
    IPCC mandate of human caused warming.
    Just what would you expect from an organization whose mandate is this?
    1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding HUMAN-INDUCED [my emphases] climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.

  4. The rational voter is trapped between a rock and a hard place:
    Opportunistic stupidity v.s. the feckless GOP.

    Republicans had numerous opportunities to step up to the plate,
    but they allowed all to pass. Climate, energy, and the EPA’s
    Endangerment Finding are perhaps the most glaring example.

    But it’s hardly unique. Now the GOP is confronted with bigger issues.
    Too many arose from its anemic drive and legislative impotence.

    The only hope of a long term solution is to gradually replace
    entrenched Republicans with populist alternatives,
    endorsed by the likes of Trump. Alabama may be a signal.

    Until then, the GOP will continue its well established role –
    waiting for the next left wing threat.

  5. The problem that is faced is not proving the science it is being given the opportunity to prove it to the masses. Unfortunately, at present, the mainstream media, which is liberal/ left leaning, is firmly against allowing access to their programmes to educate on this subject as they say `mantra like` that “the science is settled” or “there is a consensus”… The only way the masses will get on board with rejecting the alarmist rubbish is to somehow gain access to the TV to discuss and debate !!!

  6. If I may add it, ordinary citizens can participate in a facet of the global warming issue that doesn’t require any kind of climate science expertise, by questioning whether the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are on the payroll of Big Oil to spread lies actually has any viable evidence to back it up. The accusation appears in the literally days-old Minnesota v American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil lawsuit. I posit that when any objective examiner dives deeply enough into the accusation, no matter how it is approached, the accusation falls apart and always leads back to the same core clique of enviro-activists who’ve been pushing this worthless accusation for the last 20+ years. For more on that, please see my dissection of the MN v API case here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=10334 (apologies in advance for all the additional reading there resulting from my links within my blog post)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.