[jwi]

Motivated reasoning + scientific training + Google Scholar =/= a well formed opinion.

The downside being that that probably describes most scientists, at least up to post doc level!

Ah.... but the trick is to get it past reviewer three and the junior editor at a prestige journal.

[Danny]

Motivated reasoning + scientific training + Google Scholar =/= a well formed opinion.

The downside being that that probably describes most scientists, at least up to post doc level!

I'd give him the time of day on anything nutrition. But he's not a climatologist, or an ecologist, or an earth system scientist.

He's also not a nutritionist, AFAIK, he's just done what you rubbished above...

Most postdocs I know exhibit less motivated reasoning than profs. Motivations aside, there's a big difference in the baseline knowledge of actual experts that matters too. For example, where different labs work on competing theories they must know the other side(s) extremely well.

As for Maccy D on nutrition, he has a degree in sports science (I think) and a masters in human nutrition. So yes, I expect his baseline knowledge in nutrition to be far higher than in climatology. I'd accordingly give him the time of day on the former, and I see his frantic Google-scholaring for what it is on the latter.

[Bradders]

Fair enough, although I think comparing him to 9/11 truthers (and by extension all sorts of other conspiracy theorists) is extremely harsh. He's not some swivel eyed loon denying events which thousands of people witnessed with their own eyes; he's debating how we approach a problem to which we don't know the answer.

Then again, I haven't read all of his posts   

[andy moles]

Fair enough, although I think comparing him to 9/11 truthers (and by extension all sorts of other conspiracy theorists) is extremely harsh.

To be fair he didn't do that, he just used it to illustrate the point that the fact of having done research does not necessarily land you on the truth.

[petejh]

So yes, I expect his baseline knowledge in nutrition to be far higher than in climatology. I'd accordingly give him the time of day on the former, and I see his frantic Google-scholaring for what it is on the latter.

I get your criticism of him not being an expert in the subject of climate science, but I wonder what specifically you disagree with about the points he made? As far as I can see he's made a fairly straightforward argument. He's advocating for lower-impact farming practices all round - not just for meat but for all foodstuffs, to minimise flying, and to pressurise petrochemical companies to assume full responsibility for capturing their CO2 emissions. Why the downer on him for not being a prof?

[MischaHY]

So yes, I expect his baseline knowledge in nutrition to be far higher than in climatology. I'd accordingly give him the time of day on the former, and I see his frantic Google-scholaring for what it is on the latter.

I get your criticism of him not being an expert in the subject of climate science, but I wonder what specifically you disagree with about the points he made? As far as I can see he's made a fairly straightforward argument. He's advocating for lower-impact farming practices all round - not just for meat but for all foodstuffs, to minimise flying, and to pressurise petrochemical companies to assume full responsibility for capturing their CO2 emissions. Why the downer on him for not being a prof?

Slight segway from the burger boy but I can understand the desire for peer review and legitimisation by the wider scientific community when it comes to making statements/claims which steer away from the common angle of discussion. The problem is it's very possible to make compelling claims with the right sort of language which sound legitimate to people who haven't studied that particular area in depth, but are actually pseudoscientific - this happens often in climate discussion.

Randall Carlson is an example of this with his proponing of the Younger Dryas Impact Theory. It's a compelling idea when you don't know much about the subject but looking closer shows that the evidence presented is vanishingly small and can be attributed to other established events. When you look at his website etc you quickly realise he's a bit mad but if you heard a soundbite without context it'd be easy to misinterpret what he says for legitimate science.

Obviously I'm not comparing Dave to him!

[Danny]

So yes, I expect his baseline knowledge in nutrition to be far higher than in climatology. I'd accordingly give him the time of day on the former, and I see his frantic Google-scholaring for what it is on the latter.

I get your criticism of him not being an expert in the subject of climate science, but I wonder what specifically you disagree with about the points he made? As far as I can see he's made a fairly straightforward argument. He's advocating for lower-impact farming practices all round - not just for meat but for all foodstuffs, to minimise flying, and to pressurise petrochemical companies to assume full responsibility for capturing their CO2 emissions. Why the downer on him for not being a prof?

It’s aways trickier to disentangle confident claims than it is to make them in the first place. But let’s take just one of the cherry-picked papers offered up:

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2688-8319.12191

As Dave says, “here is a paper just out this week demonstrating that carefully managed grasslands with livestock are already increasing soil health and biodiversity in the UK.”
(As an aside, this nicely reveals he’s been digging around for this stuff in the past week only.)


Some points:

1.   It is not controversial that low stocking densities of livestock have some specific, positive outcomes for alpha diversity. Organic/grass fed systems are an even less efficient way to produce calories for us all than “conventional beef” (with soy input, etc.). If this is the way we want to go, fine, but it would put about three steaks per year on everyone’s plates in the UK (total guess, but you get the point). I suppose we might get around this with multiple transatlantic Deliveroos of fillet mignon, whilst also congratulating ourselves for not taking that trip to Bishop.   

2.   Dave doesn’t seem to be aware of the important differences between alpha, beta, and gamma diversity. This paper is about diversity in a specific kind of habitat (agricultural grassland) and so cannot be extrapolated to “soil heath and biodiversity in the UK”. Look at an aerial photo of Britain and tell me the key to reversing UK gamma (landscape) biodiversity declines lies in tweaking grassland management.

3.   The “control” group in in this study is agriculturally semi-improved grassland. The authors are making a narrow and specific comparison of different grazing, or simulated grazing systems. The problem with this should be obvious. See the land sparing vs land sharing debate for more.

4.   You only have to read the abstract to discover that many of the outcomes for soil health are equivocal, or worse, rather than good, as Dave claims.

Unlike Dave, I am happy to be wrong on the internet. Although I’m a reasonably well published ecologist, this kind of ecology is not in my wheelhouse at all.
 

[Danny]

Why the downer on him for not being a prof?

Not getting this. None at all, to be clear. I'm pretty happy to listen to him on nutrition, as someone with a postgrad degree on the topic, and lots of focus over years. No prof quali required.

[petejh]

Not the nutrition stuff - you seem to not be happy with him talking about climate science/ecology?

It’s aways trickier to disentangle confident claims than it is to make them in the first place. But let’s take just one of the cherry-picked papers offered up:

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2688-8319.12191

As Dave says, “here is a paper just out this week demonstrating that carefully managed grasslands with livestock are already increasing soil health and biodiversity in the UK.”
(As an aside, this nicely reveals he’s been digging around for this stuff in the past week only.)


Some points:

1.   It is not controversial that low stocking densities of livestock have some specific, positive outcomes for alpha diversity. Organic/grass fed systems are an even less efficient way to produce calories for us all than “conventional beef” (with soy input, etc.). If this is the way we want to go, fine, but it would put about three steaks per year on everyone’s plates in the UK (total guess, but you get the point). I suppose we might get around this with multiple transatlantic Deliveroos of fillet mignon, whilst also congratulating ourselves for not taking that trip to Bishop.   

2.   Dave doesn’t seem to be aware of the important differences between alpha, beta, and gamma diversity. This paper is about diversity in a specific kind of habitat (agricultural grassland) and so cannot be extrapolated to “soil heath and biodiversity in the UK”. Look at an aerial photo of Britain and tell me the key to reversing UK gamma (landscape) biodiversity declines lies in tweaking grassland management.

3.   The “control” group in in this study is agriculturally semi-improved grassland. The authors are making a narrow and specific comparison of different grazing, or simulated grazing systems. The problem with this should be obvious. See the land sparing vs land sharing debate for more.

4.   You only have to read the abstract to discover that many of the outcomes for soil health are equivocal, or worse, rather than good, as Dave claims.

Unlike Dave, I am happy to be wrong on the internet. Although I’m a reasonably well published ecologist, this kind of ecology is not in my wheelhouse at all.

Why not post exactly that on his insta in response to his post about that study? And see if he has a response? That would be exactly the kind of feedback that would add valuable knowledge to the discussion, and who knows he might make some valid points in return, or he might even want to reconsider his views? I feel I should caveat this with - not that I'm ever going to be that arsed about looking at Dave mac's or any climber's insta - this is the first time I've ever looked at Dave Mac's because it's far a more interesting topic than someone climbing for a 'job'!

Slight segway from the burger boy but I can understand the desire for peer review and legitimisation by the wider scientific community when it comes to making statements/claims which steer away from the common angle of discussion. The problem is it's very possible to make compelling claims with the right sort of language which sound legitimate to people who haven't studied that particular area in depth, but are actually pseudoscientific - this happens often in climate discussion.

Have you been following Daves' posts? If so, do you think your paragraph is a fair representation of what Dave's doing?

[spidermonkey09]

This is a tricky topic because the uncharitable way of reading Danny's post (which I actually agree with) is as a recourse to authority, that DMacs opinion is worthless because it isn't backed by an academic qualification and that reading around a subject as a lay person is essentially pointless. To clarify, I don't at all think this is what Danny is saying and agree with his points.

Its a balance isn't it; its very possible as a lay person to read about something and understand it very well without having any formal qualifications. Its also very possible for people who do this to buttress their points in a quasi academic way as Mischa has laid out without any acceptance of knowledge gaps and an overreliance on single papers/articles to back their points up. To those who are just learning about the topic its very easy to be convinced by this sort of 'populist academic' stuff. Climate science is a good example of it being misused, political polling is another (see Matt Goodwin's descent into cherry picking).

I can't be arsed to read DMacs entire insta but theres an interesting tension here; eg I read a lot about politics but would like to think I know quite a lot about it, but I wouldn't dream of doing 28 insta posts to a massive audience about it because I think I'm likely to have understood a lot of things wrong and over simplified it in my head. I find it interesting that Dave hasn't had that thought process about the fields he is a lay person in, such as ecology.

[Johnny Brown]

The obvious problem is that Dave is going to the ecological literature from the starting point of justifying a meat heavy diet.

Anyone starting with the ecological literature and using it to select the best diet for the environment will have different conclusions.

Yes, grazing can have ecological benefits in many circumstances. Is widespread grazing for meat capable of feeding 8 billion? No.

Living in the Highlands and pointing out that eating local beef is not a net negative is fine. Wider application of the same principle does rather condemn those living in Lincolnshire to living on beet though.

[petejh]

I can't be arsed to read DMacs entire insta but theres an interesting tension here; eg I read a lot about politics but would like to think I know quite a lot about it, but I wouldn't dream of doing 28 insta posts to a massive audience about it because I think I'm likely to have understood a lot of things wrong and over simplified it in my head. I find it interesting that Dave hasn't had that thought process about the fields he is a lay person in, such as ecology.

I get that and I think it's good to point out where people are making claims beyond their expertise. But when I read those posts from Dave I felt I was reading them in full knowledge that he's no expert in the subject. I can read someone's opinion without taking it as gospel, and take away some interesting information but not treat the experience like I've just had 'The Truth' given to me. I also think he's probably just a pretty intense character and goes all-in on whatever he takes on as a focus be it a new boulder or learning about nutrition. But surely most people can see that's what he's like when they read his opinions, and not assume he's an expert climatologist or ecologist.

[MischaHY]

Not the nutrition stuff - you seem to not be happy with him talking about climate science/ecology?

It’s aways trickier to disentangle confident claims than it is to make them in the first place. But let’s take just one of the cherry-picked papers offered up:

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2688-8319.12191

As Dave says, “here is a paper just out this week demonstrating that carefully managed grasslands with livestock are already increasing soil health and biodiversity in the UK.”
(As an aside, this nicely reveals he’s been digging around for this stuff in the past week only.)


Some points:

1.   It is not controversial that low stocking densities of livestock have some specific, positive outcomes for alpha diversity. Organic/grass fed systems are an even less efficient way to produce calories for us all than “conventional beef” (with soy input, etc.). If this is the way we want to go, fine, but it would put about three steaks per year on everyone’s plates in the UK (total guess, but you get the point). I suppose we might get around this with multiple transatlantic Deliveroos of fillet mignon, whilst also congratulating ourselves for not taking that trip to Bishop.   

2.   Dave doesn’t seem to be aware of the important differences between alpha, beta, and gamma diversity. This paper is about diversity in a specific kind of habitat (agricultural grassland) and so cannot be extrapolated to “soil heath and biodiversity in the UK”. Look at an aerial photo of Britain and tell me the key to reversing UK gamma (landscape) biodiversity declines lies in tweaking grassland management.

3.   The “control” group in in this study is agriculturally semi-improved grassland. The authors are making a narrow and specific comparison of different grazing, or simulated grazing systems. The problem with this should be obvious. See the land sparing vs land sharing debate for more.

4.   You only have to read the abstract to discover that many of the outcomes for soil health are equivocal, or worse, rather than good, as Dave claims.

Unlike Dave, I am happy to be wrong on the internet. Although I’m a reasonably well published ecologist, this kind of ecology is not in my wheelhouse at all.

Why not post exactly that on his insta in response to his post about that study? And see if he has a response? That would be exactly the kind of feedback that would add valuable knowledge to the discussion, and who knows he might make some valid points in return, or he might even want to reconsider his views? I feel I should caveat this with - not that I'm ever going to be that arsed about looking at Dave mac's or any climber's insta - this is the first time I've ever looked at Dave Mac's because it's far a more interesting topic than someone climbing for a 'job'!

Slight segway from the burger boy but I can understand the desire for peer review and legitimisation by the wider scientific community when it comes to making statements/claims which steer away from the common angle of discussion. The problem is it's very possible to make compelling claims with the right sort of language which sound legitimate to people who haven't studied that particular area in depth, but are actually pseudoscientific - this happens often in climate discussion.

Have you been following Daves' posts? If so, do you think your paragraph is a fair representation of what Dave's doing?

Ah no I wasn't attempting to draw parables between the two cases but rather make the point that as a layman it's difficult to assess the quality of presented information.

I have a deep respect for Dave and his scientific approach but also don't kid myself as having the kind of specific knowledge to make a judgement about whether what he's laying out is legitimate. This is why a jury of peers is so important within scientific disciplines. Perhaps I should have chosen a less obviously controversial/nutjob example.

[abarro81]

Its also very possible for people who do this to buttress their points in a quasi academic way as Mischa has laid out without any acceptance of knowledge gaps and an overreliance on single papers/articles to back their points up.

It's also quite possible for "someone with a postgrad degree on the topic, and lots of focus over years" to do this, e.g. Tyler Nelson... If there's one thing I guess we might all agree on, it's that it's not always easy to know when to defer to authority and when the "authority" is being an idiot or missing the wood for the trees.

[spidermonkey09]

Totally agree! Thats why I think its a tricky topic. Having an academic qualification on a topic can still mean that person misrepresents information.

But surely most people can see that's what he's like when they read his opinions, and not assume he's an expert climatologist or ecologist.

I guess thats the interesting question, and its pretty much unanswerable. I think its fair to say that my internal red flags went up when I read the 'paper published just last week' example; even if the intentions are good (which they probably are) this is a poor formulation because it gives the impression of a really shallow and selective bout of google scholaring to back up a specific point. Lots of people will be able to see past that and see it as just his opinion as you say but it still leaves me a bit uncomfortable/suspicious!

[petejh]

Is widespread grazing for meat capable of feeding 8 billion? No.

One obvious outcome of any policy to reduce grain-fed beef would be some very wealthy smallholders with 4 acres of prime boggy paddock, selling angus beef only to those prepared to pay top dollar.

[joeisidle]

I can't be arsed to read DMacs entire insta but theres an interesting tension here; eg I read a lot about politics but would like to think I know quite a lot about it, but I wouldn't dream of doing 28 insta posts to a massive audience about it because I think I'm likely to have understood a lot of things wrong and over simplified it in my head. I find it interesting that Dave hasn't had that thought process about the fields he is a lay person in, such as ecology.

I get that and I think it's good to point out where people are making claims beyond their expertise. But when I read those posts from Dave I felt I was reading them in full knowledge that he's no expert in the subject. I can read someone's opinion without taking it as gospel, and take away some interesting information but not treat the experience like I've just had 'The Truth' given to me. I also think he's probably just a pretty intense character and goes all-in on whatever he takes on as a focus be it a new boulder or learning about nutrition. But surely most people can see that's what he's like when they read his opinions, and not assume he's an expert climatologist or ecologist.

Fair play to you if you're that disciplined in what you take in on social media. My worry is that most people reading Dave's posts are unlikely to be reading IPCC/Climate Change Committee reports (or whatever placeholder you want to use for an expert institution's consensus) as a counter balance before they decide what they think about the information he's providing or whether it's in line with wider expert opinion or not. Particularly when it's on something as emotive as personal diet, which seems to be one of the areas that people are most naturally unwilling to shift their beliefs on regardless of climate impact.

[teestub]

Living in the Highlands and pointing out that eating local beef is not a net negative is fine. Wider application of the same principle does rather condemn those living in Lincolnshire to living on beet though.

The Lincolnshire farmers all need to give up their evil monocropping sugar production and turn their farms as extensively grazed fenland of course 😄

[SA Chris]

principle does rather condemn those living in Lincolnshire to living on beet though.

Couild be worse, living in Central London and living off free range rats, pigeons and remnants of Thames fish population (EELS EELS!)

[Johnny Brown]

They can eat cash. Good luck with the bitcoins!

[moose]

This podcast might be of interest to contributors to this thread, this week's Ezra Klein Show (a NYT pod):

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-leah-garces.html

...also available via other podcast providers.

Show description:

About 50 years ago, beef cost more than $7 a pound in today’s dollars. Today, despite high inflation, beef is down to about $4.80 a pound, and chicken is just around $1.80 a pound. But those low prices hide the true costs of the meat we consume — costs that the meat and poultry industries have quietly offloaded onto not only the animals we consume but us humans, too.

Animal agriculture is responsible for at least 14.5 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, with some estimates as high as 28 percent. It uses half the earth’s habitable land. Factory farms pose huge threats as potential sources of antibiotic resistance and future pandemics. And the current meat production system loads farmers with often insurmountable levels of debt. Our meat may look cheap at the grocery store, but we are all picking up the tab in ways we’re often starkly unaware of.

Leah Garcés is the chief executive and president of Mercy for Animals and the author of “Grilled: Turning Adversaries Into Allies to Change the Chicken Industry.” Few animal rights activists have her breadth of experience: For years, she’s been steeped in the experiences of farmers who raise animals, communities that live alongside industrial animal operations and, of course, the farmed animals that live shorter and more miserable lives. So I invited her on the show for a conversation about what meat really costs and how that perspective could help us build a healthier relationship to the animals we eat and the world we inhabit.

We discuss what it’s like to live next to a hog farm, factory farming’s role in growing antibiotic resistance, how the current system of contract farming saddles individual farmers with debt, the lengths the U.S. government — and taxpayers — goes to subsidize industrial animal farming, the possibility that the next pandemic will emerge from a crowded factory farm, how high costs — like deforestation in the Amazon — are hidden from consumers at the grocery store, the challenge of helping children make sense of routinized cruelty, whether regenerative agriculture can help undo the damage done by industrial animal farming, the historic animal welfare case currently in front of the Supreme Court and more.

[Fiend]

What was the conclusion of another fascinating extreme diet experiment? I don't follow him on insta or whatever...

[SA Chris]

I started reading it, but then realised I don't really care.

[remus]

Don't think he's done a proper write up yet. There's some discussion of his blood results on his insta. A video is in the works with a more detailed discussion of the results.

[Andy W]

I listened to the careless talk podcast, initially I thought it was going to be hard work, but in fact was a very good discussion. I think Aiden and Sam are doing a good job and recently several discussions, touching on dare I say quite political subjects have been quite engaging and thought provoking.