Most cow flatulence is the result of human activity. Before cows were domesticated, there was almost no chance cows would ever reach these ridiculous herd sizes in nature (barring natural selection for KILLER COWS).

Also, they did not eat corn or soy-based diets much in nature, which both cause increased methane emissions. Alfalfa and flaxseed are proven to reduce emissions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/us/05cows.html?pagewanted=...

The vast majority of cows exist only to feed humans. Saying that pollutants emitted from cows shouldn't be attributed to human behavior is like saying that pollutants emitted from cars shouldn't be attributed to human behavior: complete nonsense.

It's not complete nonsense, as cows aren't human, and cows produce methane, therefore cows are nonhuman sources of methane.

I agree with you that cow methane is our doing ultimately, but to say it's 'complete nonsense' is dishonest.

To give credence to the notion that "cow methane is not humans' fault" is also utterly disingenuous. "ultimately our doing" also suggests there is a long and arduous causality chain which equally absurd. Humans raise cows on diets cows would not choose for themselves (and resulting in more cow methane) and in numbers that the cows would not be able to maintain on their own. Cow methane is our fault in the exact same way that burning stuff and releasing CO2 is our fault. Seriously are you going to say burning coal is not a human source of methane, or at least sit around and say "be nice to the idiot arguing it?"

Sorry, your whole point is more intellectually dishonest than you accuse the "complete nonsense" phrase of being.

What do you think my point is? I feel you're misrepresenting me.

A coal plant isn't human, and coal plants produce CO2, therefore coal plants are nonhuman sources of CO2.

But for humans coal plants and their emissions would not exist. But for Humans cars and their emissions would not exist. But for Humans a population of 60 million American wild Buffalo might still exist.

I did not post to be controversial, I was not suggesting humans are not responsible for Global Warming, however, the contribution of humans to global warming is not always black and white. Cars and coal plants? Yes, black and white humans are responsible. Cows? Yes and No, sure you can count the 1.5 billion domesticated cattle as human behavior, but on the other hand 20% of all cattle are found in India where they are not domesticated or raised to be eaten. However, I suppose it is a matter of time before someone makes an analogous argument to the agricultural argument, if you can argue Humans raise cows to be feed on therefore their pollution is attributed to humans, then you can argue that if Humans raise cows to be worshiped their emissions are still attributable to humans....Screw it....whether you drive a car, operate a coal factory, spray an areosol can, eat a steak or passively worship cows you are 100% responsible for global warming.