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.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
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.
While pork and poultry are not great for the environment either, they have nothing on the methane emissions of ruminating animals like cows.
Here I was trying to figure out what a chocolate cow was...
this is just poore-nemecek, and it is bad science.
Do you have something to contradict it?
Edit: well I can’t find anything refuting this poore-nemecek they referenced besides a correction issued to the paper itself so guess I’ll just link it here in case anyone else is interested like I was.
the paper compiles LCAs from disparate sources. but LCAs are not transferable between studies. the entire basis of the analysis is bad science.
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.
Just Stop Cows
if they could prove it, this would be worth discussing. these are just guesses.
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
what is the data? how much do they produce?
You need me
To send you proof
That cows produce methane?
You know Google exists right?
this paper doesn't tell us how much methane is produced. it's as detailed as your comment.
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support