These wankers just never stop in trying to tell other people how to live their lives, and trying to get government to make it happen
Brits should only eat a burger once every 2 WEEKS to save the planet, climate scientist claims
Whether you have yours with pickles, extra cheese or covered in sauce, a burger can be one of the most satisfying meals to tuck into.
But people should limit their intake to one every two weeks to help curb climate change, according to an expert.
Paul Behrens, a British Academy Global Professor at the University of Oxford, claims Brits must cut down on their meat and dairy intake to help save the planet.
He argued that long–term climate change could make it impossible to grow food in a third of current production areas.
‘A shift to plant–rich diets in the UK would free an area almost the size of Scotland,’ he wrote on The Conversation.
Bugger off, wanker.
Consistent stress on the food system could even cause collapse, according to some experts, prompting civil unrest and riots.
‘This trajectory of climate–driven food price hikes – leading to social unrest and political decay – is not inevitable,’ Professor Behrens added.
‘The scientific consensus shows that the biggest opportunity we have for reducing food’s environmental impacts across many countries is increasing the amount of plants we eat and reducing meat and dairy intake.’
Once consensus is mentioned it’s no longer science.
Once a blogger types this…:
… it is no longer reason.
Scientific consensus educates policy makers. It’s not proven that smoking tobacco causes cancer, yet we have policies banning the sale to minors. We encourage restaurants to ban smoking.
None of which has any impact on whether the consensus is correct or not.
History teaches us that “scientific” consensus is often wrong, but rather is a result of popular theories and the inability of groups to accept criticism.
Once a commenter implies:
If everyone in a lab coat agrees on it, then it can’t be wrong.
… it is no longer reason. It is superstitious religion of the worst sort, with the capacity to do grievous harm.
Repeat after me: Consensus is not science. Science is not consensus. Anyone who tries to imply otherwise, like Ellie here, is at best pig-ignorant of the many times “scientific consensus” messed up royally, like luminiferous aether, eugenics, geocentrism, the rejection of germ theory, pandemic lockdowns, and anthropomorphic climate change; at worst, a power-mad charlatan.
So which are you, ED: Ignoramus or demagogue? Useful idiot or Lenin? Scientifically, all evidence points to the former. The consensus around here says the same.
You’re not going to argue with consensus, are you?
FOP,
A consensus of idiots is still idiocy!
Every far-right commenter here feels trump is a great president. That’s a consensus, too! But only 34% of Americans agree.
We get it. A central objective of MAGAtism is to end “expertise”. Youse rubes believe the opinions of dumbasses are just as valid as a consensus of experts! All opinions are equal!!
The FOP may not understand but scientific theories are rarely, if ever, proven!!
Try this one!
The theory of greenhouse gas dependent global warming is observable and measurable and is supported by multiple lines of evidence, and there is a clear consensus of experts in the field. No more, no less. Please present the evidence to falsify the theory!!
One can undo the consensus with evidence! Carry on!
In the USA we have beef prices at historical highs. We now have fewer cattle that at any time since the 50s
The average national price of ground beef is over 6 bucks per pound.exactly when is Trump’s Day One going to happen ?
Consensus means overwhelming agreement. That has been achieved. A theory in science means the best possible explanation of observed phenonoma, it also must withstand robust attack.
The current cattle herd is about 1/2 of what it was in 1975 even though US population has increased by 50%.
How many does it take to “dis-prove” a theory? One person with the proper data. Why not a consensus? Because the number agreeing or disagreeing is irrelevant.
Which brings to mind in 1931 when 100 authors wrote essays disputing Einstein’s theory of relativity. He reportedly said “Why 100? If I’m wrong it only takes one”.
That’s right, Jl. A single, credible, reproducible finding can falsify a theory! “Why 100? If it’s wrong it only takes one”.
Let’s say that it’s discovered that the CO2 measurements were completely in error, and CO2 has not been increasing. AGW falsified!
If the temperature measurements were shown to be incorrect or wrongly calculated (like Christy’s and Spencer’s miscalculations on UAH satellite data). Falsified!
If it was shown that CO2 did NOT absorb infrared radiation. Game over. (Although a new hypothesis to explain warming would need to be tested).
So what is the evidence that falsifies the theory of AGW? (We know, we know, your response is that AGW is “not proven!”, therefore there is nothing to falsify!). Just a scientific consensus built on evidence.
But yes, a scientific consensus can be wrong!! That’s the grace of scientific endeavor. It is ALWAYS conditional.
It turns out ulcers are caused by a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, which weakens the mucus coat of the stomach and duodenum, not by stress or spicy foods.
And vaccine experts like RFK Jr are trying to disprove that childhood vaccines prevent diseases and save lives. Most experts disagree with him based on the evidence.
There was a lay and religious consensus that intercessory prayer for ill people could result in miraculous cures.
If 99% of physical scientists are wrong and the Earth is not warming from our CO2 and as a result we transition to non-CO2 sources for energy anyway, what’s the harm?
We understand the deniers talk about having all your billions taken and given to poor brown people. We understand your “fear” of living in caves.
But if they are correct and the Earth is careening toward uncontrolled warming and we have done nothing???
People view science as different from any other human activity. But it isn’t. It is best by politics, fads, infighting, etc.
Today, in the foundations of physics, there is a tremendous amount of ‘science’ done that is not testable. The principle means of determining if a theory is popular is whether the mathematics are aesthetically pleasing. Some of it cannot be tested – not just today, it is fundamentally not testable – and there are no observations you can make to support or contradict the “theories.” And yet they call it science.
I’ve been using road trip gummies daily in regard to on the other side of a month at the moment and I’m indeed impressed by the absolute effects. They’ve helped me perceive calmer more balanced and less restless from the beginning to the end of the day. My snore is deeper I wake up refreshed and even my nave has improved. The attribute is distinguished and I cherish the natural ingredients. I’ll categorically carry on buying and recommending them to everyone I be aware
Well, I’ll just have to step up my burger eating then won’t i?