Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 225 posts

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#201

Post by anonyfox »

revelio wrote: post #188
mnky9800n wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked you repeatedly to provide a physical explanation for any observation such as global surface temperatures, glacier time series photos, sea ice reduction, etc. So far you provide none. And I'm not attacking the messenger because you seem to have no message. You are only being a contrarian claiming the data doesn't exist to begin with. So yeah, whatever man.

Non-human physical explanations for climate change can include sunspot activity, the AMO, El Nino/La Nina events, volcanic activity, internal interactions and probably many others. Some are known but most aren't. That's why I've not been giving you a comprehensive list: the climate isn't fully understood.

> the climate isn't fully understood

I give you this one. There is no absolute _proof_, we only have scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority. Granted, they all can be wrong, thats the good thing about science.

Having said that, just out of curiosity watching you discuss:

Would you agree that _just in case_ all these dudes are roughly right, we all should make at least good faith attempts to stop whatever we're doing currently or change it so that it doesn't make the situation worse?

Best case, all the scientists were wrong and we made the world a cleaner place with less pollution and sustainable tech instead of using up limited resources wherever possible. Worst case: they were not only right and even underestimated the pace (happened multiple times already), but we took measures just in time and can solve the problems just-in-time.

I mean, we could expand the problem easily to not only include warming and its effects, we do have straight pollution problems right in front of us. Toxic substances sifting into nature, rivers dying, agricultural wastes poisoning the seas, piles of garbage in poorer countries where new smallpox variants can emerge, hostile bacterias that are immune to the last antibiotics we have against superimmune things, ... .

I think even if the whole global warming story would be some super world conspiracy or mathematical error at the end, many measures to reduce that thing would also help against very obvious problems we also have (or start to have).

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#202

Post by karmakurtisaani »

mnky9800n wrote: post #162
revelio wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> what is the natural explanation that you are providing for the increase in global mean temperatures since industrialisation? Since industrialization i.e. the 20th century? It's quite possible that there actually hasn't been any increase if you look at the original thermometer readings and take the trend over the period since the start of industrialization. That's why the record is full of cases where climatologist…

if you don't believe temperature data go look at pictures of glaciers that go back 100+ years https://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/ what makes them melt? must be photoshop of the pictures by climatologists right? so maybe it's photoshop, but then where does all the sea ice go? probably climatologists lying about it right? are the satellites even in space? maybe they are a lie just like the moon landing. https://www.n…

I think you just encountered a real "climate skeptic" in the wild. A once abundant species, but a rare sighting in 2023.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#203

Post by karmakurtisaani »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #17

It really does feel like we’re living in bizzaro world. If you want to make recommendations based on evidence, make sure it doesn’t impact the profits of powerful groups. Many negative things we see in public policy stem from this fact. Lack of right to repair, lack of broadband in America, lack of cyber security in corporations, US tax law. Maybe you like your meat. That’s fine. You can make decisions for your self,…

You know, I'm also fine with people eating meat. I just would like them to pay for the damage they cause, and would not like to subsidise their consumption with my tax money.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#204

Post by karmakurtisaani »

alphabetatheta wrote: post #5

I'm actually surprised how much dairy products contribute to global warming. It's only veganism that really cuts down on carbon emissions.

I suppose theoretically optimal diet would have to be some flavour of vegan, plus maybe some fish if available. In practice, a major reduction of meat and dairy would probably be enough to make a difference.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#205

Post by mnky9800n »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #202
mnky9800n wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you don't believe temperature data go look at pictures of glaciers that go back 100+ years https://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/ what makes them melt? must be photoshop of the pictures by climatologists right? so maybe it's photoshop, but then where does all the sea ice go? probably climatologists lying about it right? are the satellites even in space? maybe they are a lie just like the moon landing. https://www.n…

I think you just encountered a real "climate skeptic" in the wild. A once abundant species, but a rare sighting in 2023.

Yeah I guess I was bored while waiting on my code to finish running. Oh well. My gf would say, "why are you talking to people on the internet?"

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#206

Post by gaganyaan »

iakov wrote: post #104
Sankozi wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pure FUD. > Were these the same people who told us the glaciers would be melted and the Maldives under water by 2000? Were they? Please tell us. > How narcissistic do you have to be to believe the world is going to end in your little eye blink of a lifetime? Who says that? Where in the article have you read something like that? > Look, the West can go carbon negative, but it makes no difference at all if Chin…

The FUD is spread by climate activists so often that nobody takes them seriously anymore. Look, this [0] is the latest example - I've heard about it from my friends. They were mocking the poster child of climate change activists and her doom-and-gloom prophecies that she promptly deleted once it became clear that the permanent ice is still there, and that humanity is not, in fact, extinct. Of course now it's an "impr…

Did you actually read the article you linked? I ask because it was quite informative, and doesn't support what you're saying.

I don't really have the time to argue about it with you unfortunately, but if anybody else reads the above comment: yes, you can safely ignore it like the rest of the denialist comments that come from a place of ignorance. If you'd like to know why the commenter is speaking out of ignorance, the linked article is a great place to start, or look up tipping points.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#207

Post by prepend »

doctor_eval wrote: post #77
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is, that the giant corporations can pollute the environment (eg. coca cola in a plastic bottle, with a plastic cap, with a plastic label, wrapped in a plastic 6-pack, with a plastic handle, on a plastic pallet wrapped in plastic foil), and rich environmentalists then fly their private jets to some 'green' conference and tell an 'average joe' that he shouldn't drive his car and eat meat, and should pa…

The trope of the rich environmentalist flying their private jet, is just that. I’m sure that some exist, but the vast majority take far more care of the environment than that.

A trope means a common theme. I agree that it’s a trope because it occurs frequently (look at every climate change conference).

I think maybe you meant to say misconception or something like that where the reality is different than understanding. In this case reality is the same as understanding.

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#208

Post by prepend »

midland_trucker wrote: post #134
cowl wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an absurd question and may I bring the absurdity to it's final form? where do the calories in the plant then come from? Is the next raccomandation to eat CO2 and Sun Rays?

I'm pointing out that you don't seem to realise how insanely resource inefficient meat is: [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/feed-required-to-produce-... [2] https://cbey.yale.edu/our-stories/disrupting-meat Napkin maths from the first source suggests 5kg of feed to produce a 200g steak. All while losing all but 4% of the original calories. This is of course ignoring the vast water consumption and emissions (and…

Comparing the weight of animal feed and consumable meat isn’t very useful because almost 100% of animal feed isn’t edible by humans. It’s not like that 5kg of feed is going to be eaten by people instead of going the animals.

There are lots of inefficiencies that are perfectly normal. Compare the amount of sunlight needed to produce a single gram of plants. Why does that ratio matter?

It’s not valuable to compare even beans to steak as they are completely different nutrients. 100g of steak has 271 calories with 19g fat and 25g protein [0]. 100g of cooked black beans has 132 calories with 24g carb, 9g protein, and 1g fat [1].

You don’t compare these foods by weight if you’re talking about human diet.

Animals consuming massive amounts of stuff people can’t eat is a feature, not a bug. That’s the point of cows, that they graze on grass and build up nutrients for people to eat.

Now the issue of factory farming having cows in a pen being force fed is a separate problem. But meat itself is useful for feeding people.

[0] steak nutrition https://g.co/kgs/wFer2d [1] https://www.yazio.com/en/foods/black-beans-cooked.html

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#209

Post by prepend »

mnky9800n wrote: post #205
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you just encountered a real "climate skeptic" in the wild. A once abundant species, but a rare sighting in 2023.

Yeah I guess I was bored while waiting on my code to finish running. Oh well. My gf would say, "why are you talking to people on the internet?"

> My gf would say, "why are you talking to people on the internet?"

I love these flashes from the old internet. Does your girlfriend live in Canada?

Re: The meat industry blocked the IPCC’s attempt to recommend a plant-based diet

#210

Post by prepend »

sprucevoid wrote: post #99
waihtis wrote: post #9

The discussion around plants, meat and dairy need to become much more nuanced. Let's take dairy as an example - has a great effect in boosting mTORC1 activity which causes better growth in children. Now, a non-insignificant set of people who have bought into zealous veganry are raising children who will be physically more fragile just because they've been marketed with the idea that dairy == bad. On the other hand, o…

> feel free to correct any errors in my claims What you say about mTORC1 is not supported by the leading academic researcher organizations in the field of nutrition. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ "It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the preventio…

Your quote doesn’t dispute that dairy is good for promoting growth in adolescents.

It just says that vegan diets are appropriate. If one is concerned with optimization then you would want to consider diets that are superior, not just adequate.

Not taking a side, I just get frustrated when people present material to refute that doesn’t actually refute. For example a paper saying “daily is not superior to non-dairy diets in adolescents” would be a good refutation.

Post reply on HN