TexasCHLforum.com

Rafe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:19 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 3:54 pm https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2022 ... the-future

The mainstream propaganda for eating insects instead of beef begins today. The sustainable superfood.

Do these radical greenie nimrods bother to think about, even momentarily, the stuff they spout?

Grasshopper
Portion Size: 30g
Total Fat: 1.1g
Cholesterol: 3.3mg
Total Carbohydrate: 9.6g
Protein: 0.3g
Essential Amino Acids Present: Leucine (80.9–88.5), Lysine (54.0–69.8), Valine (59.2–61.8)
Essential Amino Acids Absent: Histidine, Isoleucine, Methionine, Phenylalanine, Threonine, and Tryptophan

The average grasshopper weighs 300mg. The long-horned grasshopper (family Tettigoniidae; commonly called katydids in North America) weigh (undried) about 0.54 grams. So let's be generous and say 500mg dried: 2 dried grasshoppers equal 1 gram in weight for purposes of serving size.

The World Health Organization sets the Safe Level of Protein (SLP) intake at 0.83 grams per kilogram per day, or 0.38 grams per pound per day. A 200-pound man would need, per the WHO minimum, 76 grams of protein per day. (As someone who lifts weights with mild seriousness, my general target is 0.7-0.8 grams per pound of bodyweight per day; for our 200-pound example, that would be around 150 grams of protein, but we won't even go there...)

It takes 60 grasshoppers to reach the portion size of 30 grams...which yields only 0.3 grams of protein. That means it would take 3.33 30g servings to reach 1 gram of protein; that's 253 servings to reach 76 grams of very incomplete protein: only 3 of the 9 essential amino acids.

At 60 grasshoppers per serving, that's 15,180 grasshoppers per day to meet minimum, safe protein intake guidelines for one human.

The 2020 population of San Antonio was 1.529 million. If we got just 1.529 million people (about 0.46% of the U.S. population) to switch to grasshoppers for their protein source, we'd need over 23.2 billion grasshoppers every single day, or over 8.468 trillion each year to minimally sustain just San Antonio...and then people would be dying from lack of essential amino acids if they didn't also have other sources of protein.

But they could supplement with plant protein, right? Well...

Have any of these climate change alarmists bothered to even ask an entomologist about this idea...or spend three minutes on Google?

"Grasshopper environmental damage is most often associated with rangeland, corn, small grains, and vegetable crops. However, during heavy infestations almost any type of plant may be attacked, including trees, shrubs, ornamentals, flowers, and turfgrass. Grasshoppers are commonly thought of as foliage feeders, but will also feed on flowers, fruits, seed heads, stems, and essentially all above ground plant parts."

Idiots! If we could harvest enough grasshoppers to support just 1% of the U.S. population, we'd have a literal, Biblical plague of locusts destroying all the plant life on which everything feeds.

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 am The number of environmentalists who are sick of the climate change alarmists is quickly rising, because crying wolf is a sure way to turn lay people who cannot independently evaluate the evidence against the broader cause. I stopped looking at temperature data a long time ago because there are so many instances of retroactive and obvious "adjustment" to turn the curve into a linear increase over the past 80 years.

The Earth is something like 4.5 billion years old and has had an atmosphere for maybe 4 billion of that (obvious guesses based upon geology, nobody was there). We have temperature and CO2 data from ice cores going back 400,000 years. That is 0.001% of the history of Earth's atmosphere. Further, our data on sun spots and more broadly on the energy imparted to the Earth by the sun goes back 400 years (with fragmentary evidence going back ~2300 years) or 0.0000001% of the history of the Earth's atmosphere. Further, our ability to piece together the relationship between volcanic events and global temperature remains nearly absent, as science still argues about the atmospheric effects of large eruptions in recent history (Thera, Taupo, Baekdu, Samalas and Tambora).

The one number that I watch is oceanic pH. High school chemistry teaches us that a giant, buffered system like the ocean can absorb enormous amounts of acid or base (in this case CO2 in the form of H2CO3<=>H+HCO3, so tiny changes in pH are worrisome. Further, because the numbers are tiny and most folks don't understand logarithmic scales, there is little incentive to doctor the data. We are adding amounts of CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere in a way that has changed the CO2 concentration in the air and dissolved in the oceans in ways that we haven't seen for at least 400,000 years, and changing how we interact with fossil fuels (essentially stored up solar energy) is likely wise from a CO2 and "finite resource" perspective. However, the alarmism and invented certainty that we see today from certain people is bravado, not science. The most scientific phrase of all is "I don't know", not "my best guess is."

The current fad of treating climate scientists as modern prophets rather than a sober appraisal of what they can actually prove is troubling, and the correct answer is to demand proof, not to dismiss their findings. The unintended consequence of demanding belief in oneself based upon one's credentials rather than one's evidence is that people can dismiss or accept one's claims as though they were a unified whole. "Science denial" is bad, but it is the same variety of error as "Science belief"; a sober appraisal and constant re-appraisal of the data is what gives science its explanatory power, not "they've been right before, so I be they're right now."