Do you have any documentation for these claims about Danish law? They don't match e.g. the rulings in the big Umbrella case from some years ago.

It's nonsense.

See for example the Danish "Operation Umbrella" where more than 1000 cases of possession of CSAM were prosecuted because a video of two fifteen year olds had been shared around on FB messenger.

Those who had received and opened it did not get punished. Those who had passed it on or requested it did.

Perfectly sensible.

Hmm... But it was my understanding that the black team evaded arrest though? 🤔🤔🤔

Hmm, vi har desværre overuddannet folk de sidste årtier. Kæmpe procentdele af årgange kørt gennem lange videregående uddannelser for at stå tilbage først arbejdsløse, så genuddannet til noget mere praktisk.

Uddannelse er vigtigt, og vi er en vidensøkonomi, men der er en balance der skal holdes. At sende folk gennem kandidatuddannelser de ender med ikke at bruge er et spild af alle folks tid og penge.

[citation needed]

Sorry, mistook you for Jet I guess. They linked the Alpeh 2020 site as a substantiation of this claim, but I can't find it on the website:

Anyway what I'm getting at is carnivore eaters don't eat more meat than a regular omnivore, we just deprive soap and candle makers of more fat

In terms of the description of Aleph 2020, I don't find it clear sorry. Digging in further, they write

ALEPH2020's interdisciplinary scientific consortium consists of 44 experts who endorse, review, and/or provide the website's content.

So it's a scientific consortium with a website.

on a non-remunerated basis, [the founder] serves on the Scientific Board of World Farmers' Organization, the FAO/COAG Sub-Committee on Livestock, and the Sustainable Livestock Intergroup of the European Parliament

With a political element and connections to the World Farmers' Organisation?

Vegan activists advocate for eradicating livestock entirely, deeming it an immoral exploitation even with welfare measures in place. Some wish to pursue this through coercion, seeking legal enforcement of a 'vegan project'.

With sections on policy and ethics?

And graphics about how mainstream reporting is a vegan tech conspiracy?

It's an interesting project, but I'm not sure how to understand it. It's not a neutral research effort like CERN, it's not a farmer lobby, it's not an activist organisation like Amnesty. I guess it's like a very long opinion piece? Or how would you classify it?

I think classification is useful in terms of how the text should be read - a text from Amnesty should be read differently from a text from CERN.

Yes, I did, though it is not clear to me whether the group is meant to be a neutral observer of food production (as implied by "interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts" and working based on "scientific foundations"), or an explicitly pro meat production lobby organisation as e.g. indicated through sentences like "Throughout (pre)history, animals (hunted or domesticated) and animal-sourced foods have always held [connotations of strength, vitality, fertility, and generosity]."

How would you describe them? And could you link the numbers you mentioned?

Oxygen Not Included. Quite enjoying it, though there's a lot of unintuitive systems and weird behaviours from pipes etc.

But always fun to have gas/fluid simulation!

ok, following this logic, let's turn off all electricity generation, air travel, shipping, etc...

I agree. We should look at all sources of emission as try to reduce them, starting with those that have highest GHG impact with lowest societal value.

food is foundational to society and health, we can't deny the planet healthy food and expect to solve all our other problems.

Agreed!

https://www.aleph2020.org/

Thanks! I can't find the numbers you refer, could you link them directly? Is Aleph 2020 a pro meat production project?

I don't think most of GWP-100 is from food production. I think food production is a significant part of human GHG emissions. But I don't think it's the majority.

Sure - if we reduce the meat production to what is medically necessary and required for topsoil, I'm sure that would be a major reduction in livestock and climate pressure.

I am not saying get rid of all meat. I'm saying that each piece of meat you eat is increasing the pressure on the climate.

Ruminant meat is essential to human health

But what do you mean "essential"? What about the people that live long, healthy lives without it?

Global demand for beef isn't increasing in the English speaking world. It's probably the masses of China increasing beef intake. Luckily they also are world leaders in renewable energy.

Sure. That also doesn't change the fact that no matter where in the world you are, no matter how much energy is produced renewably, each time you eat a piece of meat, you're part of increasing the pressure on our climate.

Once the planet has stopped heating catastrophically, there might be some budget of GHG that we can spend on producing and eating meat more or less sustainably. But until then, it's all part of increasing the pressure.

Anyway what I'm getting at is carnivore eaters don't eat more meat than a regular omnivore, we just deprive soap and candle makers of more fat

First of all, this point holds whether you eat meat once a year, or every day. It's not about more or less than the average, each piece of meat contributes.

Second, interesting point, I'd love to read more about the numbers going into that calculation if you can link them.

And just to make it clear: no judgement, these are just facts you need to make an informed decision.

No need to ignore GWP-100 or GWP-20 or accept losing topsoil. We can reduce the carbon footprint from beef production and from other food production and work on sustainable and healthy diets for all.

We probably have to do all of them at the same time, in fact.

But I don't know how we best fight climate change. My point was just that eating less beef translates into a clear and significant reduction of pressure on the climate. What you do with that fact is up to you.

Sure, nothing wrong with any of that.

But global demand for beef is rising, and therefore so is production. No matter how you shape your diet, each time you eat a piece of meat, you're part of increasing the pressure on our climate.

No judgement from me, I think that's completely my own and your own prerogative. But I think it's important we make the decision based on facts.

We aren't increasing production.

As in people who consume beef aren't increasing the production of beef? How so? Do you mean to say that supply and demand are unlinked?

Who cares what would happen if the thing that isn't happening happens

Where's the peck of pickled peppers Peter Piper picked?

Methane has a average atmospheric lifetime of 10-12 years according to wikipedia. So yes, over a long period, a stable herd will have a stable methane cloud I guess.

But

• What happens when we increase production of beef? More methane.
• How can we reduce the amount of methane (and greenhouse effect)? By producing less beef.

I feel like he kind of missed the point of the republican counterattack here.

They want Obama to come off as elitist and out of touch, so they try to spin it as him looking down on regular people who go to Cheesecake Factory.

Which requires some mental gymnastics, but that's clearly why they ignore the Hussein part.

Should we try and get there?

That's why it's called the Iodine Quotient

I'd consider it part of characterising the narrator. The false starts, the confident statement retracted. It's quite effective in painting the narrator as a certain type of story teller.