No, not a return to talking the piss out of Fiend for liking food.
Has anyone else been following Dave McLoud's Twitter thing where he is eating only McDonald's parties?
Fascinating
No, not a return to talking the piss out of Fiend for liking food.
Has anyone else been following Dave McLoud's Twitter thing where he is eating only McDonald's parties?
Fascinating
Haven't seen the Twitter thread but didn't Morton Spurlock try this in Super size Me with scary health implications?
where he is eating only McDonald's parties?
Also some milk in his tea too, but thats all he's claiming he is going to eat for a month, unless i'm misunderstanding
Additionally, we are puzzled by the reference to more empirical standardised methods for selecting the TMREL for risk factors in GBD 2019. For protective factors, it appears that considerable care was taken to select the level of exposure with the lowest level of risk that was supported by the available data. The GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators recognised that projecting beyond the level of exposure supported by the available studies could exaggerate the attributable burden for a risk factor. Hence, for protective dietary components, the TMREL was set using the 85th percentile of levels of exposure included in the published cohort studies or randomised controlled trials. By contrast, the TMREL for risk factors viewed as harmful was, by default, set to zero. Therefore, the red meat TMREL changed from 22·5 g per day to 0 g per day. The assumption of a red meat TMREL of zero is counterintuitive given the role of meat in evolutionary diets and in contemporary hunter-gatherer populations, in which cardiometabolic diseases were and still are uncommon. Furthermore, recently published results from one of the largest multinational studies, which was conducted in five continents and examined the association between different types of meat and health outcomes, the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study, contradicts this premise. It is of considerable importance that the GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators provide the empirical evidence for this change in TMREL and confirm that there was no projection beyond the available evidence.
We further question if the totality of nutritional effects of red meat have been considered in the meta-regressions. If the TMREL is assumed to be zero, red meat would then de facto be presented as an inherently harmful food. This assumption would ignore the well documented nutritional benefits with respect to the supply of essential nutrients and bioactive components. If the current public health message advising moderate consumption of red meat as part of a healthy balanced diet is replaced by the message that any intake of red meat is harmful, this change will probably adversely affect iron deficiency anaemia, sarcopenia, and child and maternal malnutrition—these conditions and their associated risk factors are already responsible for considerably greater global disease burdens than a diet high in red meat, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries.
Since publication, GBD 2019 has been cited by 635 documents, including 351 scientific papers and nine policy documents. Using data from GBD 2019, Chung and colleagues concluded that global increases in the red and processed meat trade contributed to an abrupt increase of diet-related non-communicable diseases. The GBD 2019 Stroke Collaborators recently reported that greater numbers of stroke and subarachnoid haemorrhage DALYs were attributable to diets high in red meat, than were attributable to diets high in salt, in 11 of 21 world regions. Of great concern is the extensive quoting of GBD 2019 risk factor data in the evidence document of the UK's National Food Strategy. Figures in this policy document indicate that diets high in red meat are responsible for greater numbers of DALYs than diets high in salt, trans-fatty acids, or sugar-sweetened beverages.
Given the substantial influence of GBD reports on worldwide nutritional policy decision making, it is of considerable importance that the GBD estimates are subject to critical scrutiny and that they continue to be rigorously and transparently evidence-based. Hence, we call on the GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators to address two key concerns. First, the GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators should clarify where the peer-reviewed publications of their updated or new systematic reviews are that comprehensively address the 27-item PRISMA statement and the 20-item GATHER statement checklists; that justify the updated dose–response curves of the relative risks of red meat for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, and subarachnoid haemorrhage; and that provide the empirical evidence for the changing of the red meat TMREL from 22·5 g per day to 0 g per day. Finally, the GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators should clarify if the additional deaths and DALYs from iron deficiency anaemia, sarcopenia, and child and maternal malnutrition that would result from the imposition of a red meat TMREL of zero have been included in the GBD 2019 estimates.
Unless, and until, all new or updated reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to all dietary risk factors are published, having undergone comprehensive independent peer review, we think it would be highly inappropriate and imprudent for the GBD 2019 dietary risk estimates to be used in any national or international policy documents, nor in any regulatory nor legislative decisions.
No, not a return to talking the piss out of Fiend for liking food.
Has anyone else been following Dave McLoud's Twitter thing where he is eating only McDonald's parties?
Fascinating
Unusually clickbaity for DM.
Never mind. Sounds daft. Unusually clickbaity for DM.
I'm not saying he's mental but this diet does sound mental to me
I'm not saying he's mental but this diet does sound mental to me
Dave (he’s climbed so hard that I’m obliged to only use his first name right?) usually seems more down to earth than other top-level pros then he does these odd food things and you realise in some ways he’s possibly the weirdest of the lot.
No, not a return to talking the piss out of Fiend for liking food.
Has anyone else been following Dave McLoud's Twitter thing where he is eating only McDonald's parties?
Fascinating
Haven't seen the Twitter thread but didn't Morton Spurlock try this in Super size Me with scary health implications?
Dave is only eating the patties. Apparently the minimum he would need to hit minimum caloral intake (~1670) is 16-18 but he's currently only stomaching around 12-16.
In the end it's just minced beef and salt cooked on a griddle. Even the anti-oil brigade on his page don't seem too concerned. I assume he's trying to make the point that even the meats we perceive as some of the most unhealthiest in society are actually healthy enough when not eaten in combination with loads of refined carbs and fats. It's part of his general narrative that meat has been unfairly ostracised as a healthy food by groups with other agendas (i.e. sugar industry, vegan activists, producers of meat alternatives).
I'm always amazed at the level of emotional responses he gets on his page. Growing up vegetarian (but eating meat since 6 years) I naturally came across some of this discussion but nothing like this kind of intensity.
arguing that McDonald's is totally fine for the environment and that mass global meat production and consumption is having no effect on the planet is crazy.
I find Dave's responses to people on social media pretty weird. As has just been said, arguing that McDonald's is totally fine for the environment and that mass global meat production and consumption is having no effect on the planet is crazy.
Eating less meat (ideally going plant based) is a common thread on pretty much everything I've either watched or read about reducing the planets temperature. The % of US agricultural land that's used for beef alone is startling, can't remember the stat exactly but it's over 80% I think (pls shoot me down if wrong).
Personally I think Dave's experiment is well gash.
I find Dave's responses to people on social media pretty weird. As has just been said, arguing that McDonald's is totally fine for the environment and that mass global meat production and consumption is having no effect on the planet is crazy.
Eating less meat (ideally going plant based) is a common thread on pretty much everything I've either watched or read about reducing the planets temperature. The % of US agricultural land that's used for beef alone is startling, can't remember the stat exactly but it's over 80% I think (pls shoot me down if wrong).
Personally I think Dave's experiment is well gash.
Latest news: Dave has accused me of drawing a false equivalence between animal cruelty and eating meat. Which I would accept, if he wasn't tacitly implying the industrial livestock management by a multinational corporation was anywhere near "cruelty free"
https://twitter.com/davemacleod09/status/1592871283116867585
Latest news: Dave has accused me of drawing a false equivalence between animal cruelty and eating meat. Which I would accept, if he wasn't tacitly implying the industrial livestock management by a multinational corporation was anywhere near "cruelty free"
https://twitter.com/davemacleod09/status/1592871283116867585
I may be wrong, but I read that interaction as his response quite specially to what you posted, rather than his response to a critique of McDs current sourcing/farming practices or anything else. It may or may not tacitly imply what you say, but in the context of that interaction it's not obvious to me that it does.
If it's about not wanting to kill/harm animals then I get it.
Dave lives in Scotland... lots of the terrain (steep, hilly, floods, too cold, too wet, short hours of sunlight, shit soil etc) up there is not suitable for arable farming
but in them the animal also died a second death. Severed from the form in which it had lived, severed from the act that killed it, it vanished from human memory as one of nature's creatures.
I now almost never eat beef and have all but given up coffee, chocolate and palm oil.
Well, yes in reality it is. But at least you'll feel good about yourself!
There are 4 choices any of us in the developed world will make that will have a meaningful impact on contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541). Of those #1 is by an order of magnitude the biggest impact:
1. one fewer children. ~58t CO2e per year
2. driving or not driving a car.* ~2.4t CO2e per year
3. one fewer transatlantic flight per year. ~1.6t CO2e per flight
4. not eating meat for one year. 0.8t CO2e per year (based on US meat industry, not UK which is likely lower)
Anything else has a vanishingly small impact on personal CO2 contributions.
Isn't the easiest way to understand it in terms of thinking about the null future human that didn't pop into existence as a direct consequence of a current human's choice?
I now almost never eat beef and have all but given up coffee, chocolate and palm oil.
I think these one value graphs are always going to be inaccurate, and the supporting decisions that D Mac would apply to eating his normal locally reared beef can be used to select a decent coffee too (to pick an example close to heart!). There are plenty of examples of regenerative coffee growers being sold by UK companies now, where that GHG portion for farming is going to be way inaccurate. If you’re interested in drinking a bit more coffee without the GHG guilt then there are decent options out there.
One I’ve had recently https://www.darkartscoffee.co.uk/collections/coffee/products/golden-axe-el-salvador
Interesting that you support your training on mainly just fish and nuts, I had assumed you’d be smashing in the whey and BCAAs!
Who would have thought D Maccy could have lead to an interesting thread 😄
The bold is quite amusing. Surely fish and nuts are at least as good as whey and BCAA's???
edit: but yes the figure doesn't represent reality of the extra emissions per year of having one child, so could be considered misleading especially in terms of an issue that requires timely reductions of CO2 within the next 10-20 years.
Yep, I think we probably agree on this - the figure for an extra child is calculated in a completely different way to the figure for e.g. not driving a car and they shouldn't really be compared on a single chart.I'd say you just need the chart to have caveats, and to make it clear what's going on. Sometimes comparing things that aren't easily comparable is a worthwhile thing to do - this is a perfect example of that. Though I agree it doesn't make sense not to have a taper applied to the future emissions.
To look at it slightly differently if you want to compare the 2 you could argue that lifestyle changes that reduce you annual CO2 should also be projected on to your future generations in the same way as having a child is. This would mean that a 10% reduction in your emissions would also reduce your child related emissions by 10%, so for a two child family this would mean a near 12 tonne reduction in CO2 (2*10% of 58) rather than say 1.6 tonne (based on American emmisions). Pretty crude but maybe a bit more realistic way to think about the numbers.IMO this is not a very good idea when it comes to how to apply the taper when it relies on individual choices around eating, flights, cars etc. Better to apply some kind of generic learning rate.
Yep, I think we probably agree on this - the figure for an extra child is calculated in a completely different way to the figure for e.g. not driving a car and they shouldn't really be compared on a single chart.I'd say you just need the chart to have caveats, and to make it clear what's going on. Sometimes comparing things that aren't easily comparable is a worthwhile thing to do - this is a perfect example of that. Though I agree it doesn't make sense not to have a taper applied to the future emissions.
It's just a tool for assessing the likely impact of your future actions/options - obviously the kid option becomes moot once they are born!
I'm not sure what you disagree with? You think that because it's not simple to directly compare these things it's not worthwhile? What if I want a way to gauge and compare the likely climate impact of life choices, and one I want to include is having a kid? You have two options that I can see: either come up with an imperfect method or just say it's too hard and give up. The former is more likely to be useful to me than the latter, even if it requires some thinking on my part and subtlety to interpret. I don't disagree that you need to be careful about how you present the results in that context, but just saying "oh we can't compare them" is no use to anyone.
If you want to compare back assigned future emissions impact surely you can only compare that to back assigned future emission reductions impact.If I understand you right, this is what I suggested:
Perhaps they would have done better to present the data using a metric like "CO2e total" (ie. total impact of the choice assuming that you make it now and then capture all future impact) rather than "CO2e/year"...
Isn't the overall question here (to IanP) whether you fundamentally agree or disagree with the headline that not having a child has the biggest impact?
Perfect, tweak the method to account for emissions declining and we're done!
I wasn't sure whether you disagreed with the idea of comparing the things per se, or only the methodology and metric/unit used.
I'm still unclear in that regard - half that post says you shouldn't compare them, half says you can but you don't like the methodology.
Isn't the overall question here (to IanP) whether you fundamentally agree or disagree with the headline that not having a child has the biggest impact?
It's not 'not having a child', it's having one fewer children. Big difference.
Perfect, tweak the method to account for emissions declining and we're done!
You can't compare them because the methodology is different - one is 100s of years of future emissions divided into the 50 year lifespan of a person (basically), the other is actual emission changes for a single year. They simply mean different things so you have to look at different way of calculating one or the other if you want to compare them.
But people aren't doing that, they're arguing that this is a useful comparisonIt clearly is though.
each child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions
Quoteeach child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions
I don’t feel I need to explore the methodology here because this so is clearly not a useful answer to any sensible question.
Quoteeach child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions
I don’t feel I need to explore the methodology here because this so is clearly not a useful answer to any sensible question.
Not useful or not likely to be accurate? It's very useful if accurate... The problem is that it's not likely to be accurate if we assume that we get anywhere near net zero goals!
It’s very useful. Now that I realise how much CO2 I have saved by not having another 6 children, I’m pretty much free to have any carbon footprint I want, it’s a carbon free bonanza.Well yes. In a world where one side excuses their family size on the basis of what type of milk they drink, and the other half excuses their lifestyle on the basis that they're a genetic dead end, then we're all fucked. But at least everyone's got someone else to blame.
Quoteeach child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions
I don’t feel I need to explore the methodology here because this so is clearly not a useful answer to any sensible question.
Not useful or not likely to be accurate? It's very useful if accurate... The problem is that it's not likely to be accurate if we assume that we get anywhere near net zero goals!
Not accurate as you say, not useful because it doesn't the define the period that the 9441 tonnes is emitted over (200, 300, 500 years?) and then it arbitrarily applies all those emissions back into the 50 year lifespan of the orginator as a yearly number. Why not just divide by the total emission period?
not useful because it doesn't the define the period that the 9441 tonnes is emitted over (200, 300, 500 years?)I've not checked but presumably they just worked out whatever figure you trend towards over time, it will presumably be asymptotic to some value.
and then it arbitrarily applies all those emissions back into the 50 year lifespan of the orginator as a yearly number.See my post. We can divide all our numbers by 50 or not. Who cares! It's the same - it's an arbitrary decision that it doesn't affect the result at all. I don't think you've really read my posts - just think of this as arbitrary units covering a total impact from a single decision, you're getting hung up on the conversion to "per year of life left" but it doesn't change anything.
Why not just divide by the total emission period?As above. Because then you'd need to divide your other impacts by that period to allow for comparison - you're just saying divide by 500 (actually probably infiity) instead of 50. It doesn't change the ratios. Dividing only one thing by that figure is terrible idea since it doesn't answer the question of "what overall impact does choice X have" (and would be rejected by any sensible reviewer!). Again - see my post. Whether we use "CO2e total" or "CO2e per year life remaining" makes no difference to the conclusions.
It’s very useful. Now that I realise how much CO2 I have saved by not having another 6 children, I’m pretty much free to have any carbon footprint I want, it’s a carbon free bonanza.
I have read your comments , not really sure what you don't understand.Why not just divide by the total emission period?As above. Because then you'd need to divide your other impacts by that period to allow for comparison - you're just saying divide by 500 (actually probably infiity) instead of 50. It doesn't change the ratios. Dividing only one thing by that figure is terrible idea since it doesn't answer the question of "what overall impact does choice X have" (and would be rejected by any sensible reviewer!). Again - see my post. Whether we use "CO2e total" or "CO2e per year life remaining" makes no difference to the conclusions.
I find Dave's responses to people on social media pretty weird. As has just been said, arguing that McDonald's is totally fine for the environment and that mass global meat production and consumption is having no effect on the planet is crazy.
Eating less meat (ideally going plant based) is a common thread on pretty much everything I've either watched or read about reducing the planets temperature. The % of US agricultural land that's used for beef alone is startling, can't remember the stat exactly but it's over 80% I think (pls shoot me down if wrong).
Personally I think Dave's experiment is well gash.
Not shooting you down as such but that number seemed very off to me and wanted to check for my own knowledge... Googling '% of USA farmland used for cattle' gave me the number 40% still pretty high but slightly different ball park.
Yes we need to reduce Co2 but Methane is a massive issue too and meat production is a huge contributor to the gas which is up to 80 times worse (especially in the short term) than Co2.
The UK's birth rate is circa 1.5 per woman. This is problematic because it is too low. Damned if.you do, damned if you don't.
I don't know how to explain it more clearly, but I'll give it one more go.
I don't know how to explain it more clearly, but I'll give it one more go.
You really don't need to. I understand what you're trying to say, just don't agree with your conclusions. Similarly I could try to explain my position again but I'm on my phone and I'm sure it wouldn't change your views either 😃.
I don't know how to explain it more clearly, but I'll give it one more go.
Starting Q: "What is the impact of choices X, Y and Z on total future emissions?"
Method:
1. Work out total future emissions arising as a result of choice X/Y/Z (using an assumption of, say, 50 yrs of life for the person under consideration)
2. Either present those figures ("CO2e total"), or adjust to a more relatable metric/unit e.g. "CO2e per year of life remaining for the person making the choice" by dividing the total values by your assumption for remaining lifespan. Since you get the same ratio either way, it doesn't really matter what you choose. You can even use arbitrary units to make it easier for people to understand. Whichever you choose it allows you to sensibly compare total impact on emissions for those choices.
After carefully reading all of the posts and examining the data on this thread I have concluded that Dave Mac is a silly sausage.
After carefully reading all of the posts and examining the data on this thread I have concluded that Dave Mac is a silly sausage.
Why does he insist on calling this an experiment when it's clearly no such thing.Why is it not? If I tried doing 6 hrs aerocap a week I'd call it an experiment with my training... Obviously an n=1 one, but there's only one n I care about! "Experiment" seems fine, possibly as shorthand for "experiment on myself"; something like "study" would seem more weird
I don't agree that dividing the CO2e total by the lifespan simply doesn't matterIt doesn't matter to the maths (we can't agree to disagree on that, it's just maths!)
- why does that make the figure more relatable as opposed to more confusing?Personally I agree it's less useful than just presenting total, but I can see why people would think using a per year metric would be more relatable, the logic being that people are more used to thinking about things in that form. Again to me it's arbitrary as it's easy enough to spot that the ratios are unaffected by this choice
CO2 emissions that happen in the future happen in the future - if you want to place the CO2e total in context then give the total and period over which the total is calculated. Assuming the calculation is for an infinite converging series you could for example give the time period over which 90% of the emissions occur or give actual CO2e number for the lifespan of the individual (i.e. actual emissions) and divide by the 50 to give the impact over the persons lifespan, then give the post lifespan CO2e total. If you want more context then what are the average CO2 emissions per year for years 50-100, 100-200 etc?But all of this would mean you were no longer able to compare total emissions without doing your own maths.
To me stating "CO2e per year of life remaining for the person making the choice" is not simply an abstract choice it is a contextually disingenuous way of presenting the data.I guess this is the bit where we can agree to disagree
The original statement:I agree the wording here is far from ideal - this is where I think the wording chosen is probably a little disingenuous.
'We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year)'
Questions:None of that has anything to do with total cumulative emissions; again best solved with some kind of discount rate to weight the importance of near-term emissions given the current context. That other link you posted sidesteps this by using net zero targets so that future emissions in the long term are downrated to zero, making this additional discount rate redundant (we don't need to discount 0). But we still get the same answer that having one fewer child is the best GHG choice you can make by a fair margin, even in a relatively short term!
If I avoid car travel will I save on average 2.4 tCO2e next year - yes
If I avoid car travel for the next 50 years will I save on average 120 tCO2e - possibly depending on what happens to CO2 emissions from car travel over the next 50 years but it is relatively sensible estimate of the potential scale of the number.
If I don't have a child now will I save on average 58.6 tCO2e next year - no, nowhere near the actual number will be much smaller.
If I don't have a child now will I save over the next 50 years on average 2930 tCO2e - no, nowhere near the actual number will be much smaller.
Haha. I considered posting a response but since we just seem to be clogging the thread talking to each other I think it's better that I don't :)I don't agree that dividing the CO2e total by the lifespan simply doesn't matterIt doesn't matter to the maths (we can't agree to disagree on that, it's just maths!)
But we still get the same answer that having one fewer child is the best GHG choice you can make by a fair margin, even in a relatively short term!
There is potentially an interesting discussion to be had (on a different thread or somewhere else!) about the actual real time impact on CO2 emissions of having children. I agree its significant (though there are other questions about how avoiding children might impact developed countries with stable ageing populations) but as to how big that 'fair margin' is nobody seems to be suggesting any numbers.
More seriously, Nigel did you watch the video with Myles Allen linked to by DaveMac? You should, if you're interested in quantifying who contributes what emissions.
Info overload on his IG right now. Almost becoming a torrent.
Better for who?The people reading that are trying to work out what his very long-winded point is.
Really quite an astonishing amount of effort to not be wrong on the internet.
I think his point, long ago, was pretty much "I'm doing this funny experiment on myself, I wonder what will happen" [actual quote: "it's just a personal experiment. It’s not science. I just want to see if eating Mcdonald’s beef has any divergent effects from my previous animal based diet experiments of mostly steak"]. Then hundreds of people jabbed him endlessly about eating meat so he dumped all his thoughts on the topic into various posts. Insta obviously isn't exactly an ideal format for anything long, and the comments are useless for anything more then sycophantic bollocks or calling somewhat a knob, so it all became a bit jumbled.
Unlike others on here, I don't really see this as a hill he's dying on, that he's lost it, etc. He just should have written a blog post instead!
I think his point, long ago, was pretty much "I'm doing this funny experiment on myself, I wonder what will happen" [actual quote: "it's just a personal experiment. It’s not science. I just want to see if eating Mcdonald’s beef has any divergent effects from my previous animal based diet experiments of mostly steak"]. Then hundreds of people jabbed him endlessly about eating meat so he dumped all his thoughts on the topic into various posts. Insta obviously isn't exactly an ideal format for anything long, and the comments are useless for anything more then sycophantic bollocks or calling somewhat a knob, so it all became a bit jumbled.
Unlike others on here, I don't really see this as a hill he's dying on, that he's lost it, etc. He just should have written a blog post instead!
Really quite an astonishing amount of effort to not be wrong on the internet.
Implying that....he's right?
Really quite an astonishing amount of effort to not be wrong on the internet.
Implying that....he's right?I think his point, long ago, was pretty much "I'm doing this funny experiment on myself, I wonder what will happen" [actual quote: "it's just a personal experiment. It’s not science. I just want to see if eating Mcdonald’s beef has any divergent effects from my previous animal based diet experiments of mostly steak"]. Then hundreds of people jabbed him endlessly about eating meat so he dumped all his thoughts on the topic into various posts. Insta obviously isn't exactly an ideal format for anything long, and the comments are useless for anything more then sycophantic bollocks or calling somewhat a knob, so it all became a bit jumbled.
Unlike others on here, I don't really see this as a hill he's dying on, that he's lost it, etc. He just should have written a blog post instead!
Seconded. At the very least he's clearly done A LOT more research than, I suspect, 99.9% of people have and has formed a view from that. As opposed to half arsing it by reading a few Guardian articles and then virtue signalling on social media.
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...
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!
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...
Fair enough, although I think comparing him to 9/11 truthers (and by extension all sorts of other conspiracy theorists) is extremely harsh.
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.
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?
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?
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 (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.
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.
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.
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 (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?
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.
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.
Is widespread grazing for meat capable of feeding 8 billion? No.
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.
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.
principle does rather condemn those living in Lincolnshire to living on beet though.
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.