411–420 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country shows that 19% of Asians are vegetarian, meaning hundreds of millions. Multiple studies show vegetarians live longer, but they are correlational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the stores fish and meat are different aisles. And the discussion is about carbon footprint, not veganism.
Please don't inject yourself into conversations when you do not fully grasp the context. > In the stores fish and meat are different aisles. This does not change the fact that fish is still, in fact, meat. > And the discussion is about carbon footprint, not veganism. Broadly, but not in this context.
> 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.
It is quite obvious meat is used here in everyday colloquial sense. Especially when elsewhere in the greater thread people contrast meat with poultry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the stores fish and meat are different aisles. And the discussion is about carbon footprint, not veganism.
In my store, the fish is right next to the butcher, in the same aisle... Fishing is the primary source of plastic in the ocean, it has its environmental issues as well. That is before we talk about offshore fish farms, where the fish live in a cage their whole life, get fed subpar inputs, and generally resembles chicken farms. Not to mention that we have over fished the natural ocean to the point that the salmon food…
"30% off" ain't a claim to be "harmless". The stuff is still quite insane. Ditching cow and milk is still quite relevant. (Also, corn price for feeding cattles vs famine is still a topic with tension).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Robust science? You mean NY Times or Chicago Tribune?
No, with the work done by people actually observing and counting polar bear populations. At any rate, going back to the original non-bear related claims that you're picking a fight with, those outlets were in both cases reporting measurements and claims made by scientists. Indeed, you could argue that they aren't reliable and the reality was different, but then you'd have to concede that in the past "consensus climat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It got less precise. Look at the range of ECS estimates. They are now wider than they ever were. It's quite the controversy. Even guys like Hausfather and Schmidt are sounding the red alert over it.
Do you have any examples you could point to? Most of their public comments on the topic of this thread look like this, noting the accuracy of predictions: https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1597660277188677632 https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli... Based on what little details you gave, I’m assuming you’re referring to the “hot models” paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-…
You: scientific consensus got more precise over time.
Me: it got less precise over time and there's no consensus on the right answer for a core variable.
You: if you drop models you "know" are wrong then it's got more precise!
That isn't a rebuttal it's a confirmation. The models have been getting less precise about core variables over time and they don't know why. IPCC try to cover this up to some extent by downweighting models they "know" are wrong, but as the article you cite says, most climatologists don't do this and continue to act as if all models are equally correct even though they're diverging and so that can't be true. Result: not only is there no consensus on ECS but there's not even any consensus on what to do about its divergence. No precision, no consensus.
>> there’s no credible reason to think warming will halt or reverse
Temperature trends have halted or reversed even in just the last few decades so that can't be true, although climatologists like to go back and edit the record to try and remove these embarrassing episodes. See: global cooling becoming global warming, and "the pause" e.g.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S167492781...
"Issues related to the pause of global warming in the last decade are reviewed. It is indicated that: (1) The decade of 1999–2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero; "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Co2 is far from the only thing affecting temperature. The graph you're posting is clearly not a step function either. More like some kind of oscillation with an additional linear trend. Maybe the oscillation is el nino, it seems to be roughly periodic to 7 years or so, I don't know. Edit: the bigger peaks are bang on el nino years, especially the '98 peak
Yep the step function is El Nino. There is also La Nina which can cool things, the AMO and other natural inputs that affect temperature. So it turns into a debate about how much each factors matters, which is the big set of unknowns that have no clear answer. Hence why the science isn't settled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Well, that's not really possible. Meat is bad coming and going, objectively speaking. The only thing meat does have going for it is the energy provides, but at the cost of poor health and hurting literarily everyone. If meat producers weren't so greedy, and produced less, a lot less, only what was necessary, a lot of the harm that comes with meat could be mitigated, not the health risks, just the carbon contribution.
btw, any time I am mentioned, me personally, what I know or don't know, or what I am, etc. etc., a fallacious argument is being constructed. Fallacy is unpersuasive, fwiw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet comparing a simple chemical composition of water and the effects of a particular gas on a large and very poorly understood system is somehow less tripe? Please.
The greenhouse effect is not "poorly understood" and the link between CO2 and climate is clearly established over millions of years of geologic time. If you have trouble understanding how this is done, I recommend you read more instead of posting on hackernews. You could start here: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=co2+and...