• Makeshift@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

    Well not that shocked.

    Don’t worry, nothing will be done. Bacon and nuggies are more important to people than the world their children inherit.

    • magiccupcake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      While pork and poultry are not great for the environment either, they have nothing on the methane emissions of ruminating animals like cows.

    • EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Prove what? Cows produce a shit ton of methane, and methane is bad for the environment. Why act like this is up for debate just bc this one study wasn’t done properly? Cows are objectively shit for the planet, I don’t get the point of defending them or obfuscating facts about them

  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    the more I dig into this paper the worse it gets. it’s calculating inputs from feed and land use change. this is as bad as poore-nemecek. but it’s not even using data from the operations, instead it’s just guessing.

    no one should take this paper seriously, except academic rhetoricians who need to show their colleagues how the trappings of science are used to spread claims without evidence.

    edit:

    page 65: this report is an extrapolation based on ivanovich et al, which itself is an extrapolation based on poore-nemecek. this is bad science built on bad science.

    I’m totally open to the claims that are presented, but the evidence used to support it simply can’t do that.