Xref: utzoo misc.headlines:21708 sci.bio:4132 sci.skeptic:6773
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uoft02.utoledo.edu!desire.wright.edu!sbishop
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,sci.bio,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: More Budget Busters
Message-ID: <1990Dec10.093753.1992@desire.wright.edu>
Date: 10 Dec 90 14:37:53 GMT
References: <1990Nov5.103853.10645@pbs.org> 
 <1990Nov5.224851.19579@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1990Dec4.145421.25102@engin.umich.edu> <1409@gtx.com>
Organization: University Computing Services, Wright State University
Lines: 39

In article <1409@gtx.com>, al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) writes:
> In article <1990Dec4.145421.25102@engin.umich.edu> picard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ronald V Picard) writes:
>>In article <1990Nov5.224851.19579@nntp-server.caltech.edu> dicely@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Christopher M. Dicely) writes:
>>>btiffany@pbs.org writes:
> 
>>>>	*  $19,000,000 to study bovine flatulence.
>>>Yes, but recent preliminary studies have revealed that this ("cow gas") may be
>>>the most significant contributor to the greenhouse affect, or at least among
>>>the more significant ones, and that it may be reducable by dietary changes...
> 
>>Sorry, this is a lie put out by the new pro-vegetarian groups.  It is
>>a much easier target to say we shouldn't eat meat or the world will be
>>destroyed, than convincing us we're immoral for eating meat.
>   
>>Check out the groups supporting this statement and the obvious solution.
> 
> 1) Why do you think this is a lie? Was the research funded by vegetarian
> interests?  I don't care who *supports* a statement. Hitler supported
> fresh air and exercise, but that doesn't make me skeptical about the
> value of fresh air and exercise.
> 

Another interest that is pushing the 'cow gas' study is the coal/fuel industry. 
I think they may be hoping it will take some of the heat off them.  No one
seems to think about what it was like when millions of buffalo covered the 
western plains.  The 'cow gas' problem sounds to me like a lot of 'bull'.

> 2) What "obvious solution" do you mean?
> 

This was a little vague.  I also want to know what solution?

> 3) BTW, I read "dietary changes" as dietary changes for the cows, not
> dietary changes for the humans.  What was the intent?
> 

Don't see how you can have dietary changes for the cows.  They produce some
gas as a natural byproduct of eating grass.  What ELSE would you have them
eat?  McNuggets?  ;^)