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

Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

sciencenews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 450 posts

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#401

Post by Maursault »

least wrote: post #365
Maursault wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you've done is contradicted the statements I've made, which are verifiably true. I'm not sure why you would waste your time. Every statement you've made, every single thing you've just written, is provably false. Eat all the meat you want. You've earned it.

> Every statement you've made, every single thing you've just written, is provably false. No, they're not. > Most vegans will need an actual B12 supplement. It obviously depends on how much of any given fortified B12 food you consume. Hypothetically yes, you could eat enough fortified foods to avoid the need for a pill, but it'd take a lot more intentional eating on the vegan's part. Most vegans should take a B12 sup…

What you're missing is vegans have made a big decision and take their diet seriously. The fact of the matter is most vegans do not have a B12 deficiency, nor any of the other unsupported criticisms you've made. I honestly don't know how they can be so disciplined, and my only criticism of them is their often saying "it's easy," because I personally find it impossible to get away from animal product. There have been a lot of studies and surveys, and vegans do it, they avoid meat and animal product, and they're not all anemic and suffering from low BMD, in fact most are perfectly healthy because, again, they're serious about diet and nutrition, and disciplined, and they know what to eat. I guarantee you that most if not all vegans are a good sight healthier than you or I. The evidence is available on the web if you would just search and cease trying to confirm your biases. You're just trying to justify your lifestyle. Don't bother, because no one cares.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#402

Post by timeon »

codethief wrote: post #400
klipt wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When it comes to meat production, we have already reached the steady state. Well yes but also no, we've reached a steady state. If we reduce meat production we would reach a new, lower steady state which would buy some more time.

> we would reach a new, lower steady state That's right but your claim that this > would buy some more time completely ignores my (admittedly back-of-the-envelope) calculation. Please do point out if there's an error somewhere but until then I will stand by my point: Emissions from meat production – even with meat consumption as high as it is these days – are negligible in the grand scheme of things. We better focus…

> That food would also need to be grown

Animals for meet are killed before reaching adult age but it still takes longer time then one season of plant growth. They need to eat those in meantime.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#403

Post by least »

Maursault wrote: post #401
least wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every statement you've made, every single thing you've just written, is provably false. No, they're not. > Most vegans will need an actual B12 supplement. It obviously depends on how much of any given fortified B12 food you consume. Hypothetically yes, you could eat enough fortified foods to avoid the need for a pill, but it'd take a lot more intentional eating on the vegan's part. Most vegans should take a B12 sup…

What you're missing is vegans have made a big decision and take their diet seriously. The fact of the matter is most vegans do not have a B12 deficiency, nor any of the other unsupported criticisms you've made. I honestly don't know how they can be so disciplined, and my only criticism of them is their often saying "it's easy," because I personally find it impossible to get away from animal product. There have been a…

> The fact of the matter is most vegans do not have a B12 deficiency

I didn't say they did. I did say they in all likelihood need to supplement their B12. This is well supported by vegans and nutritionists.

> nor any of the other unsupported criticisms you've made.

I have supported my claims, actually. The fact that you disagree with the science is your problem, not mine.

> The evidence is available on the web if you would just search and cease trying to confirm your biases.

Your absolute lack of intellectual curiosity indicates that the one that would benefit from these words is yourself. You haven't actually discredited anything I've said even though this is all pretty well studied stuff. It's also important information for people that you seem to admire so much, to ensure that they are getting the right nutrition. Your argument is basically "I know vegans and they don't have any issues resulting from their diet." It's not an argument and it does a disservice to vegans to talk about it with such dishonesty.

> You're just trying to justify your lifestyle. Don't bother, because no one cares.

No, I'm making a case for meat, which you seem to have a really toxic relationship with on top of you being incredibly ignorant to the actual data.

You seem to be making the wrong assumption that I'm trying to dissuade people from becoming vegan. That's not what I'm doing. I am making an argument that meat is an excellent source of nutrition that has extremely high utility so the increased energy required to produce it is worthwhile.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#405

Post by timeon »

least wrote: post #114
throwaway09223 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the problem is that meat consumes approximately 25 plant calories to produce 1 meat calorie. It's a reducing function, which means calorie for calorie meat produces 25 times as much greenhouse gas simply from the costs involved in plant production. This isn't universally true - some meat is grown by grazing "free" plant calories. But it is true for grain fed cattle -- for most US industrial meat production.…

> Yes, but the problem is that meat consumes approximately 25 plant calories to produce 1 meat calorie. Why is this a problem? Animals also produce higher quality protein with higher bioavailability, have a better amino acid profile that better suits what humans require, and provide nutrients that people cannot get from plants. That's on top of the fact that a lot of those plant calories aren't even consumable by hum…

> Why is this a problem?

You need to produce much more plants to feed the animal first instead of directly feeding you. So to stay on topic (unlike your "quality") this process uses more fossil fuels.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#406

Post by timeon »

verdverm wrote: post #177
eastof wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nutrients [...] only found in meat Nutritional yeast is tasty and naturally has b12, and most cereals/grains are fortified with it. > amino acids [...] only found in meat This just isn't true, you can get all amino acids from plant-based sources like soybeans, lentils, and peanuts. Source: I have been vegan for 5 years and I still have a healthy 6 minute mile, 25 consecutive pullups, V5-V7 range boulder problem cli…

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-nutrients-you-cant-ge... is just one example Most dietary deficiencies take many decades to play out. Vegans require many artificial supplements to fill the gaps. My questions is mainly, are these sufficient or are natural sources better? I'd recommend checking out this Huberman podcast for a set of protocols for assessing your strength, endurance, and more. https://youtu.be/CyD…

Human is also animal. Other animals also do not produce B12. They have it either from bacteria or in case of modern farming: supplements.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#407

Post by alex_lav »

Thiez wrote: post #305
alex_lav wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Source: I have been vegan for 5 years and I still have a healthy 6 minute mile, 25 consecutive pullups, V5-V7 range boulder problem climber, etc. Is "I'm athletic right now" really a legitimate argument to "veganism at a large scale could have unintended health consequences"?

Hundreds of millions of Asians are vegetarian or vegan. It's not like these diets were invented yesterday.

If this is your assertion, I'd love to see some data around both the total amount of vegans/vegetarians and studies assessing their overall health.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#409

Post by upsidesinclude »

stametseater wrote: post #360
upsidesinclude wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about when seaweed is added to the feed which reduces methane emmission by 70%? The numbers that go into these approximations are not reliable and that's the problem with trying to have some exacting figure 20-28 and use that to create policy. Which is why we can know that it is just about creating policy.

Seaweed in a cows diet either: increases the CO2 the cow emits, increases the mass of carbon the cow shits, or increases the mass of the cow. The carbon has to go somewhere. I don't know where it goes, but regardless of where it goes, there's no doubt about where it came from to begin with. Virtually all the carbon cows eat was pulled out of the atmosphere by plants.

Do you have a point?

I have missed it.

Re: Methane may not warm the Earth quite as much as previously thought

#410

Post by lern_too_spel »

smonn_ wrote: post #397
machina_ex_deus wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that video. The thing is, when you get to this point, it should've been pretty clear for any honest scientists that you shouldn't trust the narrative / story, you should do the full calculation, and be honest about how trustworthy the calculation is. The picture presented is as if the story is already enough (it definitely isn't), and the shortcomings of the calculations are not important, while the truth is t…

I have to agree, when money and interests like with the situation around climate change are involved its hard to do actual science, it just turns into a fucked up manipulation game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth was funded by the Charles A. Koch Foundation, which hoped to get a contrarian result backed by real science. The study lead was a climate science skeptic at the time. It reached the same conclusion as everyone else.

Decades earlier, ExxonMobil spent millions to do its own science and came to the same conclusion. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...

It's not hard to do the science. It's hard to be truthful about the results when they affect your bottom line.

Post reply on HN