Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Has a documentary ever influenced you to eat more plant based?
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?
I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?
I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.
Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.
It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.
2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?5 -
To whoever flagged my comment above, if you'd like to clarify what part of my post crossed the line, I would be happy to either clarify it or edit it.2
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?
I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.
Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.
It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.
2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?
Those scientists have an anti-capitalist mentality. Reducing carbon footprint means eating less meat (but they prefer if Americans don't eat any meat), driving less or not at all, less consumption, shop local. Those are all fine arguments but it's social science, not a hard science. If you have a dedication for social justice, come right out and say it. Don't falsely claim this is hard science when it's not. And you are engaging in a false analogy when you compare environmental scientists with oncologists.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?
I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.
Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.
It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.
2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?
Those scientists have an anti-capitalist mentality. Reducing carbon footprint means eating less meat (but they prefer if Americans don't eat any meat), driving less or not at all, less consumption, shop local. Those are all fine arguments but it's social science, not a hard science. If you have a dedication for social justice, come right out and say it. Don't falsely claim this is hard science when it's not. And you are engaging in a false analogy when you compare environmental scientists with oncologists.
Some of them are capitalists. They aren't a monolithic group, they have varieties of opinions, convictions, and belief systems just like any group of scientists. Some of them eat meat, some of them drive cars, etc.
The oncologist thing was an example of how your argument is constructed. You claim that most scientists agree that factory farming isn't harmful to the environment. The only way you can even potentially establish that claim as true would be to eliminate those who are experts in the subject (and, by the way, you haven't even provided a source for that claim). You can't eliminate the experts and then use that to determine that your position is the mainstream one. That isn't how it works.
Environmental science is a hard science -- it's the study of our earth and how our actions are impacting it. I am not sure where you are getting your information on the actual practice of it, but it appears you've been misinformed. Did you read the articles I linked above? Those are actual scientists.
If you rule out those who study the earth and the impact of human actions from the discussion, who is your source of information on the subject? Those who reject the entire practice of science as it relates to human action are not immune from political motivations. Are we going to rely on Smithfield Foods and Iowa Select Farms to tell us there's nothing to see here?5 -
That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?
I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.
Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.
It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.
2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?
Those scientists have an anti-capitalist mentality. Reducing carbon footprint means eating less meat (but they prefer if Americans don't eat any meat), driving less or not at all, less consumption, shop local. Those are all fine arguments but it's social science, not a hard science. If you have a dedication for social justice, come right out and say it. Don't falsely claim this is hard science when it's not. And you are engaging in a false analogy when you compare environmental scientists with oncologists.
Science is science. Unless proven to be used to skew reality (such as often the case in documentary films), facts are facts regardless of how we package it. Certainly we have to view the entirely of the facts to form a proper picture, but they remain facts. It is hard science if taken in full context.
It's well known within the scientific community that beef has a much higher carbon footprint than most other proteins, including other animal proteins. It's also well accepted that in terms of water resources it does poorly compared to other food sources. On an overall scale, it's a resource intensive form of food and has greater environmental impact than most other foods.
But it's all a balancing act as well. A person could eat beef but lead an otherwise fairly green lifestyle and have a reasonably small carbon footprint, or eat beans and tofu and waste resources elsewhere and have a large footprint.
The same applies to other foods. Nuts as a whole have a very low if not neutral carbon footprint, since many grow on trees. But their water consumption per calorie is higher than many other sources. For areas with lower water resources, this might impact the water available for other plants that scrub the air.
It's a complex picture, regardless of how you paint it. But facts remain facts regardless of the choices we make.
9 -
That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?
You were the one who cited Impossible burger in your aforementioned links yesterday.
Mainstream scientists Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, who study the environment say CO2 Emissions is beneficial for the planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw
0 -
I admit - I enjoy watching some food documentaries - although some are definitely bunk. Mostly I watch them to get inspired and back on track. I like Joe Cross and his work with juicing - but I would never advocate this as a diet, it's just not sustainable. Everything in moderation. I also eat meat, because I feel better in my body when I do. I also chose to eat meat that I've raised or my husband has hunted. I put up 24 jars of canned venison last week. I'm not a purist, I will eat meat from the store or in a restaurant - but as a general rule - most of the meat my family eats is what we raised, killed and processed ourselves. We also plant a huge garden every year. I'm grateful that we can source a good deal of our own food - not everyone can. Considering the massive impact we humans have on this planet - it is the least we can do.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?
You were the one who cited Impossible burger in your aforementioned links yesterday.
Mainstream scientists Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, who study the environment say CO2 Emissions is beneficial for the planet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw
I mentioned the Impossible Burger, I didn't claim it was lower in fat and calories than a meat burger. Our conversation was (I thought) about the environmental impact of factory farming.
Roy Spencer is driven by an evangelical view of global warming and his work has been rejected by many mainstream climate scientists. He is entitled to his beliefs, which are as follows: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." His belief that we CANNOT change anything about the Earth because it is completely controlled and sustained by the power of a divine being is simply outside a scientific viewpoint. For what it is worth, he also rejects evolution. He is not a mainstream scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
Patrick Michaels works for the Koch Brothers. If you dislike ideological bias in science, it's amazing you'd pick him as a person to listen to. Most of his funding comes from the very industries that are attempting to convince us that global warming isn't real or that it will actually help us in some weird way, although I have to say "The Satanic Gases" is a heck of a name for a book.
You've found two guys who claim global warming is good for the earth. One is a religiously inspired man who rejects the idea that we could change the Earth in any way and has also rejected the foundation of biological science. The other makes his living testifying for coal companies and the oil industry. One gets the impression that you don't mind at all when "pseudo-science" is "cloaking" a "political agenda."
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?
You were the one who cited Impossible burger in your aforementioned links yesterday.
Mainstream scientists Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, who study the environment say CO2 Emissions is beneficial for the planet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw
I mentioned the Impossible Burger, I didn't claim it was lower in fat and calories than a meat burger. Our conversation was (I thought) about the environmental impact of factory farming.
Roy Spencer is driven by an evangelical view of global warming and his work has been rejected by many mainstream climate scientists. He is entitled to his beliefs, which are as follows: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." His belief that we CANNOT change anything about the Earth because it is completely controlled and sustained by the power of a divine being is simply outside a scientific viewpoint. For what it is worth, he also rejects evolution. He is not a mainstream scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
Patrick Michaels works for the Koch Brothers. If you dislike ideological bias in science, it's amazing you'd pick him as a person to listen to. Most of his funding comes from the very industries that are attempting to convince us that global warming isn't real or that it will actually help us in some weird way, although I have to say "The Satanic Gases" is a heck of a name for a book.
You've found two guys who claim global warming is good for the earth. One is a religiously inspired man who rejects the idea that we could change the Earth in any way and has also rejected the foundation of biological science. The other makes his living testifying for coal companies and the oil industry. One gets the impression that you don't mind at all when "pseudo-science" is "cloaking" a "political agenda."
They are in the mainstream. Attacking a scientist funding or religious beliefs is an ad hominem attack. Scientists who have defended Spencer say his religious beliefs have nothing to do with his research on climate change. Whether or not Michaels receives his funding from the Koch brothers is completely irrelevant because you are attacking his source of funding, not his actual arguments regarding Global Warming.
I can just as easily attack your environmental scientists source of funding from federal, state governments and Greenpeace because Greenpeace is a eco-terrorist organization whose activists get arrested by law enforcement because they commit acts of terrorism against businesses whom they feel is hurting precious Mother Earth. Scientists who get grants from the government suffer from confirmation bias.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?
You were the one who cited Impossible burger in your aforementioned links yesterday.
Mainstream scientists Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, who study the environment say CO2 Emissions is beneficial for the planet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw
I mentioned the Impossible Burger, I didn't claim it was lower in fat and calories than a meat burger. Our conversation was (I thought) about the environmental impact of factory farming.
Roy Spencer is driven by an evangelical view of global warming and his work has been rejected by many mainstream climate scientists. He is entitled to his beliefs, which are as follows: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." His belief that we CANNOT change anything about the Earth because it is completely controlled and sustained by the power of a divine being is simply outside a scientific viewpoint. For what it is worth, he also rejects evolution. He is not a mainstream scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
Patrick Michaels works for the Koch Brothers. If you dislike ideological bias in science, it's amazing you'd pick him as a person to listen to. Most of his funding comes from the very industries that are attempting to convince us that global warming isn't real or that it will actually help us in some weird way, although I have to say "The Satanic Gases" is a heck of a name for a book.
You've found two guys who claim global warming is good for the earth. One is a religiously inspired man who rejects the idea that we could change the Earth in any way and has also rejected the foundation of biological science. The other makes his living testifying for coal companies and the oil industry. One gets the impression that you don't mind at all when "pseudo-science" is "cloaking" a "political agenda."
They are in the mainstream. Attacking a scientist funding or religious beliefs is an ad hominem attack. Scientists who have defended Spencer say his religious beliefs have nothing to do with his research on climate change. Whether or not Michaels receives his funding from the Koch brothers is completely irrelevant because you are attacking his source of funding, not his actual arguments regarding Global Warming.
I can just as easily attack your environmental scientists source of funding from federal, state governments and Greenpeace because Greenpeace is a eco-terrorist organization whose activists get arrested by law enforcement because they commit acts of terrorism against businesses whom they feel is hurting precious Mother Earth. Scientists who get grants from the government suffer from confirmation bias.
It's not an ad hominem to note that someone has religious convictions that bar them from ever acknowledging that humans can change the earth. It would be silly to ignore that. It would likewise be silly to ignore that someone's main source of income relies on denying climate change and that their main source of funding comes from industry sources.
Spencer himself acknowledges that his religious beliefs are foundational to his understanding of the natural world. I don't know which scientists are claiming that his statements on the earth being "self-correcting" due to God's power have nothing to do with his belief that climate change cannot hurt us or impact the earth negatively, but surely you see that one cannot be separated from the other. I'm curious though - which specific scientists have claimed that Spencer's religious beliefs aren't connected to his conclusions on climate change despite his statements to the contrary? And did they share how they made that determination?
It would be very strange for you to attack "my" environmental scientists as being attached to Greenpeace as I haven't named any scientists as being "mine." I take it that's just the blanket attack waiting in the wings for anyone who disagrees with the assertion that global warming is just a fantasy made up by scary socialists?
I will admit that I do think the earth is "precious." It is the only one we've got and I don't agree that God will step in to rescue and restore it no matter what we do to it. Apologies to Spencer et al. but I don't think they've proven that case.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?
You were the one who cited Impossible burger in your aforementioned links yesterday.
Mainstream scientists Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, who study the environment say CO2 Emissions is beneficial for the planet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw
I mentioned the Impossible Burger, I didn't claim it was lower in fat and calories than a meat burger. Our conversation was (I thought) about the environmental impact of factory farming.
Roy Spencer is driven by an evangelical view of global warming and his work has been rejected by many mainstream climate scientists. He is entitled to his beliefs, which are as follows: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." His belief that we CANNOT change anything about the Earth because it is completely controlled and sustained by the power of a divine being is simply outside a scientific viewpoint. For what it is worth, he also rejects evolution. He is not a mainstream scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
Patrick Michaels works for the Koch Brothers. If you dislike ideological bias in science, it's amazing you'd pick him as a person to listen to. Most of his funding comes from the very industries that are attempting to convince us that global warming isn't real or that it will actually help us in some weird way, although I have to say "The Satanic Gases" is a heck of a name for a book.
You've found two guys who claim global warming is good for the earth. One is a religiously inspired man who rejects the idea that we could change the Earth in any way and has also rejected the foundation of biological science. The other makes his living testifying for coal companies and the oil industry. One gets the impression that you don't mind at all when "pseudo-science" is "cloaking" a "political agenda."
They are in the mainstream. Attacking a scientist funding or religious beliefs is an ad hominem attack. Scientists who have defended Spencer say his religious beliefs have nothing to do with his research on climate change. Whether or not Michaels receives his funding from the Koch brothers is completely irrelevant because you are attacking his source of funding, not his actual arguments regarding Global Warming.
I can just as easily attack your environmental scientists source of funding from federal, state governments and Greenpeace because Greenpeace is a eco-terrorist organization whose activists get arrested by law enforcement because they commit acts of terrorism against businesses whom they feel is hurting precious Mother Earth. Scientists who get grants from the government suffer from confirmation bias.
It's not an ad hominem to note that someone has religious convictions that bar them from ever acknowledging that humans can change the earth. It would be silly to ignore that. It would likewise be silly to ignore that someone's main source of income relies on denying climate change and that their main source of funding comes from industry sources.
Spencer himself acknowledges that his religious beliefs are foundational to his understanding of the natural world. I don't know which scientists are claiming that his statements on the earth being "self-correcting" due to God's power have nothing to do with his belief that climate change cannot hurt us or impact the earth negatively, but surely you see that one cannot be separated from the other. I'm curious though - which specific scientists have claimed that Spencer's religious beliefs aren't connected to his conclusions on climate change despite his statements to the contrary? And did they share how they made that determination?
It would be very strange for you to attack "my" environmental scientists as being attached to Greenpeace as I haven't named any scientists as being "mine." I take it that's just the blanket attack waiting in the wings for anyone who disagrees with the assertion that global warming is just a fantasy made up by scary socialists?
I will admit that I do think the earth is "precious." It is the only one we've got and I don't agree that God will step in to rescue and restore it no matter what we do to it. Apologies to Spencer et al. but I don't think they've proven that case.
You asked me to name the list of environmental scientists and I did and, then, you proceeded to commit an ad hominem on their religious beliefs as though it's relevant to their research when it isn't. And I didn't take out a blanket attack on any environmental scientist. If they say Global Warming is real, fine. If they're saying Global Warming is happening, we are in dire situations, and we must move beyond capitalism to a centralized planned economy, then they're sullying science and using it as a tool to advocate for their political beliefs.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?
You were the one who cited Impossible burger in your aforementioned links yesterday.
Mainstream scientists Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, who study the environment say CO2 Emissions is beneficial for the planet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw
I mentioned the Impossible Burger, I didn't claim it was lower in fat and calories than a meat burger. Our conversation was (I thought) about the environmental impact of factory farming.
Roy Spencer is driven by an evangelical view of global warming and his work has been rejected by many mainstream climate scientists. He is entitled to his beliefs, which are as follows: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." His belief that we CANNOT change anything about the Earth because it is completely controlled and sustained by the power of a divine being is simply outside a scientific viewpoint. For what it is worth, he also rejects evolution. He is not a mainstream scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
Patrick Michaels works for the Koch Brothers. If you dislike ideological bias in science, it's amazing you'd pick him as a person to listen to. Most of his funding comes from the very industries that are attempting to convince us that global warming isn't real or that it will actually help us in some weird way, although I have to say "The Satanic Gases" is a heck of a name for a book.
You've found two guys who claim global warming is good for the earth. One is a religiously inspired man who rejects the idea that we could change the Earth in any way and has also rejected the foundation of biological science. The other makes his living testifying for coal companies and the oil industry. One gets the impression that you don't mind at all when "pseudo-science" is "cloaking" a "political agenda."
They are in the mainstream. Attacking a scientist funding or religious beliefs is an ad hominem attack. Scientists who have defended Spencer say his religious beliefs have nothing to do with his research on climate change. Whether or not Michaels receives his funding from the Koch brothers is completely irrelevant because you are attacking his source of funding, not his actual arguments regarding Global Warming.
I can just as easily attack your environmental scientists source of funding from federal, state governments and Greenpeace because Greenpeace is a eco-terrorist organization whose activists get arrested by law enforcement because they commit acts of terrorism against businesses whom they feel is hurting precious Mother Earth. Scientists who get grants from the government suffer from confirmation bias.
It's not an ad hominem to note that someone has religious convictions that bar them from ever acknowledging that humans can change the earth. It would be silly to ignore that. It would likewise be silly to ignore that someone's main source of income relies on denying climate change and that their main source of funding comes from industry sources.
Spencer himself acknowledges that his religious beliefs are foundational to his understanding of the natural world. I don't know which scientists are claiming that his statements on the earth being "self-correcting" due to God's power have nothing to do with his belief that climate change cannot hurt us or impact the earth negatively, but surely you see that one cannot be separated from the other. I'm curious though - which specific scientists have claimed that Spencer's religious beliefs aren't connected to his conclusions on climate change despite his statements to the contrary? And did they share how they made that determination?
It would be very strange for you to attack "my" environmental scientists as being attached to Greenpeace as I haven't named any scientists as being "mine." I take it that's just the blanket attack waiting in the wings for anyone who disagrees with the assertion that global warming is just a fantasy made up by scary socialists?
I will admit that I do think the earth is "precious." It is the only one we've got and I don't agree that God will step in to rescue and restore it no matter what we do to it. Apologies to Spencer et al. but I don't think they've proven that case.
You asked me to name the list of environmental scientists and I did and, then, you proceeded to commit an ad hominem on their religious beliefs as though it's relevant to their research when it isn't. And I didn't take out a blanket attack on any environmental scientist. If they say Global Warming is real, fine. If they're saying Global Warming is happening, we are in dire situations, and we must move beyond capitalism to a centralized planned economy, then they're sullying science and using it as a tool to advocate for their political beliefs.
I noted the non-scientific, a priori assumptions of Spencer and the fact that the other is exclusively funded by coal companies and the Koch brothers. By your OWN previously stated standards, they are not reliable sources. I'm not sure why you would believe them except that they're telling you what you want to hear.
I'm not sure why you're stuck on "moving beyond capitalism." The very existence of commercially viable meat alternatives, funded by investors, some of what are from companies that are publicly traded, would suggest that we have options for addressing meat-related climate change that are compatible with capitalism. Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger are run by capitalists, they exist to return funds to investors. They have nothing to do with centralized planning.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?
You were the one who cited Impossible burger in your aforementioned links yesterday.
Mainstream scientists Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, who study the environment say CO2 Emissions is beneficial for the planet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw
I mentioned the Impossible Burger, I didn't claim it was lower in fat and calories than a meat burger. Our conversation was (I thought) about the environmental impact of factory farming.
Roy Spencer is driven by an evangelical view of global warming and his work has been rejected by many mainstream climate scientists. He is entitled to his beliefs, which are as follows: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." His belief that we CANNOT change anything about the Earth because it is completely controlled and sustained by the power of a divine being is simply outside a scientific viewpoint. For what it is worth, he also rejects evolution. He is not a mainstream scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
Patrick Michaels works for the Koch Brothers. If you dislike ideological bias in science, it's amazing you'd pick him as a person to listen to. Most of his funding comes from the very industries that are attempting to convince us that global warming isn't real or that it will actually help us in some weird way, although I have to say "The Satanic Gases" is a heck of a name for a book.
You've found two guys who claim global warming is good for the earth. One is a religiously inspired man who rejects the idea that we could change the Earth in any way and has also rejected the foundation of biological science. The other makes his living testifying for coal companies and the oil industry. One gets the impression that you don't mind at all when "pseudo-science" is "cloaking" a "political agenda."
They are in the mainstream. Attacking a scientist funding or religious beliefs is an ad hominem attack. Scientists who have defended Spencer say his religious beliefs have nothing to do with his research on climate change. Whether or not Michaels receives his funding from the Koch brothers is completely irrelevant because you are attacking his source of funding, not his actual arguments regarding Global Warming.
I can just as easily attack your environmental scientists source of funding from federal, state governments and Greenpeace because Greenpeace is a eco-terrorist organization whose activists get arrested by law enforcement because they commit acts of terrorism against businesses whom they feel is hurting precious Mother Earth. Scientists who get grants from the government suffer from confirmation bias.
It's not an ad hominem to note that someone has religious convictions that bar them from ever acknowledging that humans can change the earth. It would be silly to ignore that. It would likewise be silly to ignore that someone's main source of income relies on denying climate change and that their main source of funding comes from industry sources.
Spencer himself acknowledges that his religious beliefs are foundational to his understanding of the natural world. I don't know which scientists are claiming that his statements on the earth being "self-correcting" due to God's power have nothing to do with his belief that climate change cannot hurt us or impact the earth negatively, but surely you see that one cannot be separated from the other. I'm curious though - which specific scientists have claimed that Spencer's religious beliefs aren't connected to his conclusions on climate change despite his statements to the contrary? And did they share how they made that determination?
It would be very strange for you to attack "my" environmental scientists as being attached to Greenpeace as I haven't named any scientists as being "mine." I take it that's just the blanket attack waiting in the wings for anyone who disagrees with the assertion that global warming is just a fantasy made up by scary socialists?
I will admit that I do think the earth is "precious." It is the only one we've got and I don't agree that God will step in to rescue and restore it no matter what we do to it. Apologies to Spencer et al. but I don't think they've proven that case.
You asked me to name the list of environmental scientists and I did and, then, you proceeded to commit an ad hominem on their religious beliefs as though it's relevant to their research when it isn't. And I didn't take out a blanket attack on any environmental scientist. If they say Global Warming is real, fine. If they're saying Global Warming is happening, we are in dire situations, and we must move beyond capitalism to a centralized planned economy, then they're sullying science and using it as a tool to advocate for their political beliefs.
I noted the non-scientific, a priori assumptions of Spencer and the fact that the other is exclusively funded by coal companies and the Koch brothers. By your OWN previously stated standards, they are not reliable sources. I'm not sure why you would believe them except that they're telling you what you want to hear.
I'm not sure why you're stuck on "moving beyond capitalism." The very existence of commercially viable meat alternatives, funded by investors, some of what are from companies that are publicly traded, would suggest that we have options for addressing meat-related climate change that are compatible with capitalism. Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger are run by capitalists, they exist to return funds to investors. They have nothing to do with centralized planning.
I know progressives like to bash the Koch brothers and demonize scientists who gets their grants from private businesspeople. As you line of argument is: if Patrick Michaels conducted the research using Koch brothers money, then his studies are tainted. Again, you are falling into the trap of attacking the academic's source of funding, not their arguments and studies.
I never said Michaels and Spencer were unreliable sources, you did. A few environmental scientists argue according to this line of thought: "The earth is getting warmer. The circumstances are dire. The ice caps are melting and the polar bears are going towards extinction. If we don't stop our current system of capitalism and move towards an alternative, Socialism, which is more sustainable for the environment then our planet will not survive." They've been saying that line of thought for over fifty years and nothing has happened.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?janejellyroll wrote: »That NY Times article is an editorial, not a study. And he begins with this, "just released in multiple articles in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is sure to be controversial. It should certainly not be interpreted as license to eat as much meat as you like. But the scope of the work is expansive, and it confirms prior work that the evidence against meat isn’t nearly as solid as many seem to believe."
The NY Times editorial you provided, the author said those Vegan Beyond Whoppers are actually higher in fat and calories than traditional burgers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/10/01/Study-Heart-disease-cancer-risk-may-not-rise-with-red-meat-in-diet/8561569900195/
Apologize for moving off-topic here because we're talking about Environmental Science and not dieting but here is a NY Times article by Gina Colata which says eating red meat may not be as bad for you as you previously thought.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that the Impossible Burger (which is what Burger King serves, not Beyond Burger) is lower in fat and calories than a meat burger, did they?
No New York Times article is going to be a study. They report on research, they don't conduct it. I ask again, if you don't believe that scientists who study the environment are a trustworthy source, who is your source of information for how factory farming impacts the earth?
You were the one who cited Impossible burger in your aforementioned links yesterday.
Mainstream scientists Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, who study the environment say CO2 Emissions is beneficial for the planet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLgUv_znMMw
I mentioned the Impossible Burger, I didn't claim it was lower in fat and calories than a meat burger. Our conversation was (I thought) about the environmental impact of factory farming.
Roy Spencer is driven by an evangelical view of global warming and his work has been rejected by many mainstream climate scientists. He is entitled to his beliefs, which are as follows: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence—are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." His belief that we CANNOT change anything about the Earth because it is completely controlled and sustained by the power of a divine being is simply outside a scientific viewpoint. For what it is worth, he also rejects evolution. He is not a mainstream scientist by any stretch of the imagination.
Patrick Michaels works for the Koch Brothers. If you dislike ideological bias in science, it's amazing you'd pick him as a person to listen to. Most of his funding comes from the very industries that are attempting to convince us that global warming isn't real or that it will actually help us in some weird way, although I have to say "The Satanic Gases" is a heck of a name for a book.
You've found two guys who claim global warming is good for the earth. One is a religiously inspired man who rejects the idea that we could change the Earth in any way and has also rejected the foundation of biological science. The other makes his living testifying for coal companies and the oil industry. One gets the impression that you don't mind at all when "pseudo-science" is "cloaking" a "political agenda."
They are in the mainstream. Attacking a scientist funding or religious beliefs is an ad hominem attack. Scientists who have defended Spencer say his religious beliefs have nothing to do with his research on climate change. Whether or not Michaels receives his funding from the Koch brothers is completely irrelevant because you are attacking his source of funding, not his actual arguments regarding Global Warming.
I can just as easily attack your environmental scientists source of funding from federal, state governments and Greenpeace because Greenpeace is a eco-terrorist organization whose activists get arrested by law enforcement because they commit acts of terrorism against businesses whom they feel is hurting precious Mother Earth. Scientists who get grants from the government suffer from confirmation bias.
It's not an ad hominem to note that someone has religious convictions that bar them from ever acknowledging that humans can change the earth. It would be silly to ignore that. It would likewise be silly to ignore that someone's main source of income relies on denying climate change and that their main source of funding comes from industry sources.
Spencer himself acknowledges that his religious beliefs are foundational to his understanding of the natural world. I don't know which scientists are claiming that his statements on the earth being "self-correcting" due to God's power have nothing to do with his belief that climate change cannot hurt us or impact the earth negatively, but surely you see that one cannot be separated from the other. I'm curious though - which specific scientists have claimed that Spencer's religious beliefs aren't connected to his conclusions on climate change despite his statements to the contrary? And did they share how they made that determination?
It would be very strange for you to attack "my" environmental scientists as being attached to Greenpeace as I haven't named any scientists as being "mine." I take it that's just the blanket attack waiting in the wings for anyone who disagrees with the assertion that global warming is just a fantasy made up by scary socialists?
I will admit that I do think the earth is "precious." It is the only one we've got and I don't agree that God will step in to rescue and restore it no matter what we do to it. Apologies to Spencer et al. but I don't think they've proven that case.
You asked me to name the list of environmental scientists and I did and, then, you proceeded to commit an ad hominem on their religious beliefs as though it's relevant to their research when it isn't. And I didn't take out a blanket attack on any environmental scientist. If they say Global Warming is real, fine. If they're saying Global Warming is happening, we are in dire situations, and we must move beyond capitalism to a centralized planned economy, then they're sullying science and using it as a tool to advocate for their political beliefs.
I noted the non-scientific, a priori assumptions of Spencer and the fact that the other is exclusively funded by coal companies and the Koch brothers. By your OWN previously stated standards, they are not reliable sources. I'm not sure why you would believe them except that they're telling you what you want to hear.
I'm not sure why you're stuck on "moving beyond capitalism." The very existence of commercially viable meat alternatives, funded by investors, some of what are from companies that are publicly traded, would suggest that we have options for addressing meat-related climate change that are compatible with capitalism. Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger are run by capitalists, they exist to return funds to investors. They have nothing to do with centralized planning.
I know progressives like to bash the Koch brothers and demonize scientists who gets their grants from private businesspeople. As you line of argument is: if Patrick Michaels conducted the research using Koch brothers money, then his studies are tainted. Again, you are falling into the trap of attacking the academic's source of funding, not their arguments and studies.
I never said Michaels and Spencer were unreliable sources, you did. A few environmental scientists argue according to this line of thought: "The earth is getting warmer. The circumstances are dire. The ice caps are melting and the polar bears are going towards extinction. If we don't stop our current system of capitalism and move towards an alternative, Socialism, which is more sustainable for the environment then our planet will not survive." They've been saying that line of thought for over fifty years and nothing has happened.
I'm saying if you reject the work of those attempting to warn us about climate change as being motivated by certain ideological positions, then it doesn't make sense why you would accept the work of those who are clearly motivated by a different set of ideological positions.
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »No, I am turned off by the suggestion that somehow I'm destroying the planet when I'm eating burgers and should feel ashamed of it. The principles of eating or not eating meat is a moral one, not an environmental one. Some vegans do not apply this common assessment of behaviors and pontificate as though what most Americans are doing is destroying the planet when they don't put down that steak.
So you're open to the argument that some actions are destructive to the earth and should be avoided, you just don't believe that eating factory farmed meat is one of those actions?
Most reputable scientists say there is no harmful threat to the environment to eating meat. Americans have been buying meat from Farmer John's, Jimmy Dean, John Morel, and Tyson Foods for decades without harming the planet.
What is the source for the claim that "most reputable scientists" say that factory farming doesn't impact the environment? Was it some sort of survey?
I think we can have a legitimate debate on to what extent humans can eat meat without harming the earth, but it's clear that many scientists -- including reputable ones -- agree that the current quantity of meat that we eat and the conditions in which factory farmed animals are living are having a negative impact on the environment.
To be clear, not all scientists who are concerned about the environmental impact of factory farming agree that we need to eliminate meat eating. Some of them advocate for eating less meat, while others argue for different methods of meat products. But there is a widespread agreement among environmental scientists -- the ones who would be the experts here, not just generic scientists -- that factory farming does have a negative impact on the environment.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaam5324
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
https://earth.stanford.edu/news/qa-meat-health-and-environment
I don't understand the argument that we've been doing this for decades and it hasn't had an impact. Are you denying that climate change is a real thing or are you arguing that it is caused exclusively by other factors?
That's the key word here: Environmental Scientists. They are not real scientists. They are political scientists cloaking their pseudo-science with a political agenda (i.e. disdain for capitalism). I don't understand the argument that environmental scientists who have been saying for decades that global warming is real and nothing has ever happened. Are you saying we should all reduce all forms of consumerism, stop driving cars, stop eating meat, and not live in nice houses? Because if I follow your argument to its most logical conclusion we would all be reduced to the most economically backwards and primitive of conditions.
So you determined that most scientists disagree that meat eating has an impact on the environment by first concluding that all scientists who claim it does are somehow practicing pseudo-science?
What do you mean "nothing has ever happened"? We are observing the impacts of climate change right now. There are literally observable impacts. Or is it your claim that pseudo-scientists are fabricating those?
I'm not sure how you get from "It's clear that factory farming is having an impact on the earth that we should consider" to "We should no longer live in 'nice homes.'" There is a whole range of responses we can have to the set of facts that we're presented with -- we can eat less meat, we can eat meat that is differently produced, we can eat alternative proteins. It's not like there is a stark two options here: continue to produce meat in exactly the same way we have in increasing quantities or never eat meat again and give up living in homes.
I can see the appeal of concluding the only two options are to stay on the same path or give up civilization. When you frame it like that, it makes it seem obvious that we should stay on this path. But what if we challenged ourselves to think beyond those binary limits? Why are there only two options here?
I said environmental scientists aren't legitimate scientists and they have a political agenda. When I said nothing ever happened what I mean by that is there is global warming, but the earth has only warmed 2 degrees over the past forty-five years. The meat industry has been producing meat this way for over a century and nothing has ever happened to the environment.
Exactly. The only way you can justify the statement that most scientists say that factory farming isn't having a negative impact on the environment is to first exclude all the scientists who specialized in the field of quantifying and observing these impacts as non-scientists.
It's like saying cancer isn't real because oncologists aren't real doctors, they're pseudo-doctors. You create the conclusion you want by first excluding any input from those who disagree with the conclusion that you wish to reach.
2 degrees warmer in 45 years isn't nothing. The only way you can justify that global warming has no impact and is unrelated to factory farming is to ignore evidence to the contrary.
Again, this doesn't have to be a binary choice -- factory farming or abandon civilization. There are actually a variety of responses practiced by those who acknowledge that factory farming is having an impact on the world that we live in. Those of us who would prefer that we do nothing do want to make it sound like doing ANYTHING is impossible, but is that true?
Those scientists have an anti-capitalist mentality. Reducing carbon footprint means eating less meat (but they prefer if Americans don't eat any meat), driving less or not at all, less consumption, shop local. Those are all fine arguments but it's social science, not a hard science. If you have a dedication for social justice, come right out and say it. Don't falsely claim this is hard science when it's not. And you are engaging in a false analogy when you compare environmental scientists with oncologists.
You mean... social science isn't real?! *throws doctorate into bin*
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 896 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions