Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[mspohr]

Christiana Figueres on the climate emergency: ‘This is the decade and we are the generation’

Christiana Figueres on the climate emergency: ‘This is the decade and we are the generation’

You say this decade is the most consequential in human history…
This is the decade in which, contrary to everything humanity has experienced before, we have everything in our power. We have the capital, the technology, the policies. And we have the scientific knowledge to understand that we have to half our emissions by 2030.

Only 11 pages or so of the book describe the terrible consequences of unchecked climate change, while the rest talks about the possibility of a much better world. Why?
It’s important for everyone to face the negative consequences that we’re sleepwalking ourselves toward, which is why those 11 pages are there. But equally as important is to spark the imagination and the creativity that comes with understanding that we do have this incredible agency to create something completely different.

We wanted to offer both universes to those who, understandably, are paralysed by despair and grief at the loss that is already under way, as well as those who are paralysed by their comfort and lack of understanding of the moment that we’re in.

 

[Swampgator]

Meat is STILL not considered good for you

Incorrect sir. You disagree with the latest science. You must be a meat denier.

 

[Swampgator]

He did not found it but yes he did help. He also states that how could a gas that is only .04% of the atmosphere have any effect yet when sick takes medication at half that level and yet get well.

Taken straight from wiki:

Moore attended DMWC meetings, and was part of the committee when its name was changed to the Greenpeace Foundation.

But OK, Greenpeace doesn't like his views now and so denies he was a co founder.

 

[dhrivnak]

Taken straight from wiki:

Moore attended DMWC meetings, and was part of the committee when its name was changed to the Greenpeace Foundation.

But OK, Greenpeace doesn't like his views now and so denies he was a co founder.

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970.

1970 is 10 years before he became involved.

 

[SageBrush]

He also states that how could a gas that is only .04% of the atmosphere have any effect

Someone should send him a primer on radiation

 

[Swampgator]

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970.

1970 is 10 years before he became involved.

Dr Moore joined in 1971, before they were Greenpeace. It appears you got your information from the Desmog blog. Not wise.
This is like arguing whether or not Elon was a founder of Telsa.

 

[kdcnnyc]

What you are really advocating when you say "what is the point of not acting" is we should use governments to act by force to accelerate this transition. That is really the reason the CAGW gets push-back from "conservatives".

And what you are admitting, is that you - like many, understandably - simply don't like the association of the government involved in deciding policy matters for what to do. As well, you don't like feeling berated by people who you otherwise have little to nothing in common with. I get it. Putting up advocates for an alternate view is proof that there are two sides - insinuated as "balanced" sides - that are kept down by the the forces that threaten our individual freedoms.

But in looking past the noise and rhetoric from political punditry, the science is overwhelmingly in favor of acting. And the truth is that small individual actions is not enough. It needs to be large-scale. The only way to do that is through meaningful regulation.

 

[kdcnnyc]

Incorrect sir. You disagree with the latest science. You must be a meat denier.

I must've missed the latest evidence of that!

Nah...I just like it, even though I know it's not good for me. Or the environment! But to each his/her own, right?

 

[Swampgator]

I must've missed the latest evidence of that!

Nah...I just like it, even though I know it's not good for me. Or the environment! But to each his/her own, right?

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/...d-meat-intake-cardiometabolic-cancer-outcomes

I can get you about 5 more recent, large meta analysis papers if you want to shoot me a DM.

 

[brur]

All of us were ignorant at one time. All of us started out with a website or a monograph or a book that covered the basics.

The problem @brur is facing is that he wants to debate and discuss as if he has brought new ideas and data and arguments. In that he is wrong, and it is why no one can be bothered with him.

The AGW denialist arguments are well covered and debunked at realclimate.org
End of discussion

No, I have no interest in debating anyone. I don't even disagree with the concept of CO2 warming.
let's leave it there,

 

[ladysbff]

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/...d-meat-intake-cardiometabolic-cancer-outcomes

I can get you about 5 more recent, large meta analysis papers if you want to shoot me a DM.

I'd love if you could DM me further studies.

This paper you just linked only looks at postmenopausal women and admits a paucity of data.

If you are a man I would be worried about deriving a conclusion from a study that does not take into account that you are at a higher risk of developing cancer :/

Why are Men More Likely Than Women to Develop Cancer Over the Course of Their Lives? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Females, it turns out, carry an extra copy of certain protective genes in their cells, which functions as an additional line of defense against cells’ growing out of control, investigators found. Though not solely responsible for cancer’s apparent “bias” toward males, the duplicate copies likely account for some of the imbalance, including up to 80 percent of the excess male cases in some tumor types.

“Across virtually every type of cancer, occurrence rates are higher in males than in females. In some cases, the difference might be very small – just a few percent – but in certain cancers, incidence is two or three times higher in males,” said Andrew Lane, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber, the co-senior author of the study with Gad Getz, PhD, of MGH and the Broad Institute. “Data from the National Cancer Institute show that males carry about a 20 percent higher risk than females of developing cancer. That translates into 150,000 additional new cases of cancer in men every year.”

 

[Swampgator]

I'd love if you could DM me further studies.

This paper you just linked only looks at postmenopausal women and admits a paucity of data.

If you are a man I would be worried about deriving a conclusion from a study that does not take into account that you are at a higher risk of developing cancer :/



View attachment 511848



Why are Men More Likely Than Women to Develop Cancer Over the Course of Their Lives? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Females, it turns out, carry an extra copy of certain protective genes in their cells, which functions as an additional line of defense against cells’ growing out of control, investigators found. Though not solely responsible for cancer’s apparent “bias” toward males, the duplicate copies likely account for some of the imbalance, including up to 80 percent of the excess male cases in some tumor types.

“Across virtually every type of cancer, occurrence rates are higher in males than in females. In some cases, the difference might be very small – just a few percent – but in certain cancers, incidence is two or three times higher in males,” said Andrew Lane, MD, PhD, of Dana-Farber, the co-senior author of the study with Gad Getz, PhD, of MGH and the Broad Institute. “Data from the National Cancer Institute show that males carry about a 20 percent higher risk than females of developing cancer. That translates into 150,000 additional new cases of cancer in men every year.”

I'm not sure you understand the purpose of the meta analysis shown here.
They looked at all studies meeting the Grade criteria that have been published to date.

Data Sources:

EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest from inception to July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception to April 2019, without language restrictions.

Study Selection:
Randomized trials (published in any language) comparing diets lower in red meat with diets higher in red meat that differed by a gradient of at least 1 serving per week for 6 months or more.

 

[ladysbff]

I'm not sure you understand the purpose of the meta analysis shown here.

I'm not sure I do either. Can you please explain?

Incorrect sir. You disagree with the latest science. You must be a meat denier.

Per your above post, I assumed anything you linked would be "the latest science" which you seem to imply (by calling the previous poster incorrect) that meat is now considered good for you. Unfortunately the paper you linked was an analysis that was self-admittedly based largely on one study that looked only at postmenopausal women that did not control for other lifestyle factors, nor different types of meat.

Study Selection:
Randomized trials (published in any language) comparing diets lower in red meat with diets higher in red meat that differed by a gradient of at least 1 serving per week for 6 months or more.

So, in your view, this study makes the conclusion that eating meat is now good for you? Trying to understand your logic here. Thanks.

 

[Swampgator]

I'm not sure I do either. Can you please explain?


Per your above post, I assumed anything you linked would be "the latest science" which you seem to imply (by calling the previous poster incorrect) that meat is now considered good for you. Unfortunately the paper you linked was an analysis that was self-admittedly based largely on one study that looked only at postmenopausal women that did not control for other lifestyle factors, nor different types of meat.


So, in your view, this study makes the conclusion that eating meat is now good for you? Trying to understand your logic here. Thanks.

I Dm'd you some more answers to your questions. DOn't want to get this climate thread too far off topic.

The two studies I showed you reviewed ALL AVAILABLE evidence. The fact that very few studies met the GRADE criteria for inclusion speaks for itself.

Think about this from a 30,000 foot view. Meat has been the foundation for Homo Sapiens diet for the entire history of our species. (300,000 years) What other animal is at a increased health risk from eating the diet which they evolved?

 

[JRP3]

I can't say that I envy your thought process. Apparently it has severed you well. So I accept it as being like a rock, it is what it is and it is perfectly what it is. The keywords are I "accept" and "perfectly".

How much time do you spend reading the flat Earth arguments? Do you think it worth your time to spend more?

 

[ZsoZso]

Yeah..... that's really not a problem. The thermal energy added from fools fuel and nuclear is ~3% of the energy we're adding from the altered radiative balance. CO2 @ >400ppm is the problem.

The radiative imbalance caused by the increase in CO2 levels is adding >2E22J/yr to the planet. The best analogy I've read to put this insane amount of energy in context is every person on Earth is running 100 microwave ovens 24/7/365. That's a ridiculous amount of heat.

The total primary energy consumed globally (which includes wind & solar) is <6E20J/yr.

Oh, it will be all fine!

You know what is the best part of catastrophic speed climate change ?
No highly evolved life form (plant or animal) will be able to adapt to it, so evolution on Earth will be reset from bacterial level life and in a few billion years completely different species will evolve!
And that is great news, because it means the entire crop of home-insapiens deniers will also die out!
Reading the deniers on this thread and listening to all the deniers in main stream media or on the street has proven to me beyond a shadow of doubt that this species is not fit to survive.

 

[ladysbff]

Think about this from a 30,000 foot view. Meat has been the foundation for Homo Sapiens diet for the entire history of our species. (300,000 years) What other animal is at a increased health risk from eating the diet which they evolved?

Excellent point.

Of course, in 2020, meat consumption is absolutely nothing like it was during the 300,000 years of evolution. Surely we can agree that processed foods have a vastly different nutritional profile, and therefore impact upon human health, than wild and genetically diverse game with no additives, the type of foodstuff Homo Sapiens evolved to eat. Unfortunately only the tiniest fraction of Americans eat exclusively wild and genetically diverse game with no additives so I'm not sure if your point has any bearing.

I believe that obesity is one such increased health risk, which affects almost 40% of American adults. Can you please explain that anomaly? Particularly in other animals, like you asked for, such as cats, and dogs. Cats in particular usually maintain a meat-based diet. And cat obesity and its negative affects are on the rise.

Adult Obesity Facts | Overweight & Obesity | CDC

https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/136/7/1940S/4664725


Just to make the thought complete... Can you also address why a plant-based diet leads to better health? Please explain this paper in particular:
A plant-based diet for overweight and obesity prevention and treatment

 

[Swampgator]

Excellent point.

Of course, in 2020, meat consumption is absolutely nothing like it was during the 300,000 years of evolution. Surely we can agree that processed foods have a vastly different nutritional profile, and therefore impact upon human health, than wild and genetically diverse game with no additives, the type of foodstuff Homo Sapiens evolved to eat. Unfortunately only the tiniest fraction of Americans eat exclusively wild and genetically diverse game with no additives so I'm not sure if your point has any bearing.

I believe that obesity is one such increased health risk, which affects almost 40% of American adults. Can you please explain that anomaly? Particularly in other animals, like you asked for, such as cats, and dogs. Cats in particular usually maintain a meat-based diet. And cat obesity and its negative affects are on the rise.

Adult Obesity Facts | Overweight & Obesity | CDC

https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/136/7/1940S/4664725


Just to make the thought complete... Can you also address why a plant-based diet leads to better health? Please explain this paper in particular:
A plant-based diet for overweight and obesity prevention and treatment

View attachment 512059

Oh boy.

Agree, processed meat not equal to suitability raised animal meat. But, even grain finished beef is superior in nutritional profile to any plant.

Dogs and cats get fat when not fed a species appropriate diet. There are no fat wild dogs, or cats.
Cats are obligate carnivores, period. Feeding them plant material will not result in optimal health.

There is no anomaly in humans regarding obesity. Most humans are not eating a species appropriate diet. Most humans are fat or heading that direction given enough time.

And that last study did not address "better health" (must have been your cognitive bias)
But as far as weight, it is possible to lose weight on a plant based diet. These guys just did that experiment: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/aim-medical-imaging-vegan-january-1.5459062

 

[ladysbff]

Agree, processed meat not equal to suitability raised animal meat.

Well, I'm glad we agree, but this agreement is not in line with your previous post:

Think about this from a 30,000 foot view. Meat has been the foundation for Homo Sapiens diet for the entire history of our species. (300,000 years) What other animal is at a increased health risk from eating the diet which they evolved?

Unfortunately the majority of Americans consume processed meat as their primary source of meat: Americans consume same amount of processed meat since 1999, study shows
So, clearly we are not an animal that is "eating the diet which they evolved." Therefore, I am not sure what to make of your metaphor.

But, even grain finished beef is superior in nutritional profile to any plant.

If you could cite your sources on this that would be wonderful. Please also specify what you mean by "superior" as it applies to humans.

Dogs and cats get fat when not fed a species appropriate diet. There are no fat wild dogs, or cats.
Cats are obligate carnivores, period. Feeding them plant material will not result in optimal health.

Can we work backwards from this analysis? Does that mean not being fat = following a species-appropriate diet = optimal health?

There is no anomaly in humans regarding obesity. Most humans are not eating a species appropriate diet. Most humans are fat or heading that direction given enough time.

Okay, what is a species-appropriate diet for humans in that case? Keeping in mind that not being fat = optimal health per the above.

(must have been your cognitive bias)

No need for unpleasantness

There is no anomaly in humans regarding obesity. Most humans are not eating a species appropriate diet. Most humans are fat or heading that direction given enough time.

And that last study did not address "better health" (must have been your cognitive bias)
But as far as weight, it is possible to lose weight on a plant based diet. These guys just did that experiment: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/aim-medical-imaging-vegan-january-1.5459062

Glad we agree on this point - the vast majority of humans are fat or heading that direction, and a plant-based diet helps promote weight loss over a meat-based diet, due to the fact that the majority of Americans eat processed meat. Furthermore, as obesity is one of the greatest health risks currently facing humans, the correlation we can draw is that better health is achieved through maintaining a healthy weight, which is better for humans.

 

[Swampgator]

Well, I'm glad we agree, but this agreement is not in line with your previous post:

Unfortunately the majority of Americans consume processed meat as their primary source of meat: Americans consume same amount of processed meat since 1999, study shows
So, clearly we are not an animal that is "eating the diet which they evolved." Therefore, I am not sure what to make of your metaphor.


If you could cite your sources on this that would be wonderful. Please also specify what you mean by "superior" as it applies to humans.


Can we work backwards from this analysis? Does that mean not being fat = following a species-appropriate diet = optimal health?


Okay, what is a species-appropriate diet for humans in that case? Keeping in mind that not being fat = optimal health per the above.


No need for unpleasantness


Glad we agree on this point - the vast majority of humans are fat or heading that direction, and a plant-based diet helps promote weight loss over a meat-based diet, due to the fact that the majority of Americans eat processed meat. Furthermore, as obesity is one of the greatest health risks currently facing humans, the correlation we can draw is that better health is achieved through maintaining a healthy weight, which is better for humans.

Enjoy your plant based diet. You seem very content with it. You are clearly wanting to argue with proven facts in order to justify your plant based eating preferences.

Now as to you asking me to cite sources showing that even grain fed beef is superior to any plant in nutritional profile:

1 pound of ground beef, lets go 80/20 as this is the cheapest.

1# provides 65 grams of highly digestible protein, containing all essential amino acids. It contains B12, iron (heme), zinc, phosphorus. It provides fat for energy. It provides Omega 3 and 6 although the ratio is not ideal, as it is in grass finished beef . Still, a human being can live eating only steak or ground beef, meeting all of their nutritional needs, for YEARS.

Now, would you kindly provide 1 plant food that can do that before we are deleted from this thread?

I'm not sure why you want to conduct this discussion on the climate change forum when I have DM'd you and that is a better place for this discussion.
Mods, maybe we need a diet forum now?