Deplorable in manners. Laughable at their mentality of prioritizing highest-value food items for consumption regardless of taste & variety. Still smarter than those buffet eaters that pig out on carbs.

Hope they don't sick from all the cholesterol from the shrimps.

Absolutely agree with you, but if I can't convince someone intelligent like you to eat a plant-based diet, I don't like my chances att convincing Sharleen and Damien from having 5 kids :-)

The other thing is if you look at the consumption in Western civilisation, we use somethng like 80% of the resources, even though our populations are the smallest. Which would suggest it's mostly lifestyle related.

Try not having kids then. Cutting your per capita consumption in half does less than nothing when you also double the number of consumers. The worst thing most people can do to nature is breed.

There's plenty wrong with decimating their natural habitats and then shooting them when they have nowhere else to look for food.

Animals might not understand how to write a contract but they understand territory very well.

We walk through their land and then we get upset if they aggressively defend it.

And the vast majority of this habitat loss is so someone can stick a cow on the land because that's what consumers are demanding. We're effectively replacing the planet's wonderful biodiversity with 5 animals and 5 types of crop to feed these farm animals. We must change our consumption habits, otherwise nature will change it for us in about 50 years.

Read the link please. It says anything more than 300g of RED meat, and ANY processed meat consumption will lead to cancer.

Most people go over these recommendations every single day.

I've never conceded anything. I'm not responding to your rant. I just want this to be clear in case anyone reads your rant and mistakes your loudness for insight.

What I find most interesting is that these fancy watch companies really are trying to make good watches despite their technology being entirely obsolete insofar as making a tool for keeping time goes. Though there are surely a lot of people who are fascinated by and appreciate fine clockwork, they probably aren't the ones buying $50,000 watches and keeping the watchmakers in business. The people buying them are buying them as jewelry for the sake of conspicuous consumption, so for them it's really enough that it's fashionable and expensive enough to be exclusive. I find it so curious because the watchmakers are still doing actual engineering rather than just saying "art" the way a fashion designer might and just trading on the exclusivity of the brand.

However, Bay Area Metro (Caltrans) has no problem with alcohol consumption. Just sayin'

Apples to oranges.

80,000 alcohol deaths from my quick google are of a medical nature due to consumption. Those numbers are from users dying from disease(direct and indirect). If the 11,000 homicide gun deaths were gun owners dying because they owned guns i don't think it would be quite the issue.

Good point, I was too lazy to post the link, my bad. List of quotes from people who Gary has misrepresented: http://www.bodyforwife.com/an-open-letter-to-gary-taubes/

(for newtboy, notice how this is not a vegan website, nor are the people complaining about Gary Taubes vegan researchers)


Sugar consumption going down since the late 90s https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/02/25/surprise-american-sugar-consumption-is-on-the-decline

Indeed this video is about sugar, but it's a common strategy to use sugar to demonise carbs(the only research you will ever find where "carbs" are bad for you, always use sugar of some type). Every single popular diet today uses this kind of shitty research to back up their diets. They're all variations of low-carb: atkins, paleo, keto, isogenics etc because this is what sells the most animal products, which is a far more lucrative industry than grains and beans. But possibly more importantly it doesn't work in the long run! So you have repeat customers. They lose weight quickly for 6 months, then in 12-18 months time they are heavier than how they started.



BTW this is vegan http://www.blogto.com/restaurants/doomies-toronto/

You don't have to eat healthy all the time once you are at a stable weight and your other biosigns are good, pig out every now and then .

Life won't be so short this way ;-) (on average 13 years longer)

They're talking about sugar, not carbs.

"Gary Taubes, who's made a living misrepresenting science."
How so? If you're going to make such a claim, back it up.

"Despite sugar consumption going down"
Really? I have yet to see any evidence that that's the case.

"Stuff your face with this food "
Eh, life is way too short to eat vegan food.

How ironic that the part where they talk about misrepresenting studies that they reference Gary Taubes, who's made a living misrepresenting science.

It's a common thing to compare fat vs sugar to make carbs look bad. But when you actually eat proper carbs (not sugar) then carbs win every time.

These people who ate 80% carbs, and only 10% fat, and effortlessly lose weight without calorie restriction or exercise: https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/stars/stars-written/

Also the fat you eat really is the fat you wear. They can radioactively mark it and find it again in your body.

Despite sugar consumption going down, diabetes and heart-disease is rising too.

Regardless of any study. Try eating 80/10/10 for a few weeks, and you'll see the results for yourself. Stuff your face with this food https://www.forksoverknives.com/recipes/?recipe_type=wraps-and-burgers

There's no portion or calorie restriction. Eat yourself thin.

Edit: And yes fat does definitely contribute to weight gain and heart-disease, take it from the only cardiologist to ever reverse heart-disease https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_o4YBQPKtQ&feature=youtu.be&t=6

Now what is the average caloric expenditure for the "average American" over the same period? I bet that in addition to the average caloric consumption going up 800/day, the average caloric expenditure went down due to a lot less people working in physical jobs now compared to 50 years ago...

It seems calories-in/calories-out would be a much simpler explanation for the "obesity epidemic" compared to eating high/low fat high/low carbs etc. etc.

I don't support our pulling out of the Paris Accord. I think it was the wrong thing to do. And I don't mind GDP growth for other nations, even China. What I do mind is the notion that the world's greatest polluter can increase its amount of Co2 emitted and still be touted as successfully contributing to reduced Co2 emissions worldwide.

"Telling China to limit their total CO2 emission to pre 2005 values is like telling a teenager in the middle of puberty to limit their food consumption to the same amount as when they were 9 years old. It's just not an option."

Who's telling China to do that? I only suggested that China's pledge to reduce their Co2 emissions to 60-65% of their 2005 levels as a ratio of GDP isn't all that it's made out to be. Your analogy is faulty because food consumption is necessary for life, but spending billions on destroying coral reefs while making artificial islands in the South China Sea is not. The CCP certainly has the funds necessary to effect a bigger, better and faster transition to green energy. Put another way, I believe that China has the potential to benefit both their people through economic growth and simultaneously do more in combating global climate change. I simply don't trust their current government to do it. I've been living in China now for over 19 years...and one thing that strikes me is the prevalence of appearance over substance. Perhaps you simply give them more credence in the latter, while my own perception seems to verify the former.

"But their total emissions is still increasing! This is just a farce and they're doing nothing!"

The second half of your statement is a strawman. They are doing something, just not enough, imho. And China's emissions have yet to plateau, therefore it's not an achievement yet.

"Now you may say "China's not putting funds towards green energy!" Well, that's also not true. China already surpassed the US, in spending on renewable energy. In fact, China spent $103 billion on renewable energy in 2015, far more than the US, which only spent $44 billion. Also, they will continue to pour enormous amounts of resources into renewable energy, far more than any other country."

This is also misleading. What I'm suggesting is that China could do more. It's certainly a matter of opinion on whether the Chinese government is properly funding green initiatives. For example, both your article and the amounts you cite ignore the fact that those numbers include Chinese government loans, tax credits, and R&D for Chinese manufacturers of solar panels...both for domestic use AND especially for export. The government has invested heavily into making solar panels a "strategic industry" for the nation. Their cheaper manufacturing methods, while polluting the land and rivers with polysilicon and cadmium, have created a glut of cheap panels...with a majority of the panels they manufacture being exported to Japan, the US and Europe. It's also forced many "cleaner" manufacturers of solar panels in the US and Europe out of business. China continues to overproduce these panels, and thus have "installed" much of the excess as a show of green energy "leadership." But what you don't hear about much is curtailment, that is the fact that huge percentages of this green energy never makes its way to the grid. It's lost, wasted...and yet we're supposed to give them credit for it? So...while you appear to want to give them full credit for their forward-looking investments, I will continue to look deeper and keep a skeptical eye on a government that has certainly earned our skepticism.

""But China is building more coal plants!" Well that's not really true either. China just scrapped over 100 coal power projects with a combined power capacity of 100 GW . Instead, the aforementioned investments will add over 130GW in renewable energy. Overall, Chinese coal consumption may have already peaked back in in 2013."

Well, yes, it really is true. China announcing the scrapping of 103 coal power projects on January 14th this year was a step in the right direction, and certainly very well timed politically. But you're assuming that that's the entirety of what China has recently completed, is currently building, and even plans to build. If you look past that sensationalist story, you'll see that they continue to add coal power at an accelerating pace. As to China's coal consumption already having peaked...lol...well, if you think they'd never underreport and then quietly revise their numbers upwards a couple of years later, then you should more carefully review the literature.

"So in the world of reality, how is China doing in terms of combating global warming? It's doing a decent job. So no "@Diogenes", China is NOT the single biggest factor in our future success/failure, because it is already on track to meeting its targets."

Well, your own link states:

"We rate China’s Paris agreement - as we did its 2020 targets - “medium.” The “medium“ rating indicates that China’s targets are at the last ambitious end of what would be a fair contribution. This means they are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort."

And if the greatest emitter of Co2 isn't the biggest factor, then what is? I'm not saying that China bears all the responsibility or even blame. I'm far more upset with my own country and government. But to suggest that China adding the most Co2 of any nation on earth (almost double what the US emits) isn't the largest single factor that influences AGW...I'm having trouble processing your rationale for saying so. Even if we don't question if they're on track to meet their targets, they'll still be the largest emitter of Co2...unless India somehow catches up to them.

To restate my position:
The US shouldn't have withdrawn from Paris.
China is not a global leader in fighting climate change.
To combat climate change, every nation needs to pull together.
China is not "pulling" at their weight, which means that other nations must take up more of the slack.
Surging forward, while "developed" nations stagnate will weaken the CCP's enemies...and make no mistake, they view most of us as their enemies.
The former is part of the CCP's long-term strategy for challenging the current geopolitical status quo.
I believe that the Chinese Communist Party is expending massive amounts of resources abroad and militarily, when the bulk of those funds would better serve their own people, environment and combating the global crisis of climate change.

While you can try to be idealistic and point the finger at total CO2 emissions, it's not a practical target for developing countries like China.

It's not a matter of them trying to "grow their economy faster than their emissions". They are a developing country, and their economy will grow fast, whether you like it or not. Telling China to limit their total CO2 emission to pre 2005 values is like telling a teenager in the middle of puberty to limit their food consumption to the same amount as when they were 9 years old. It's just not an option.

Now you may say "But their total emissions is still increasing! This is just a farce and they're doing nothing!" Well, saying that they're doing nothing is not true. Do you know what China's emissions would look like if they did nothing to limit them? Having China's emissions plateau is already quite an achievement, as the alternative is far far worse.

Now you may say "China's not putting funds towards green energy!" Well, that's also not true. China already surpassed the US, in spending on renewable energy. In fact, China spent $103 billion on renewable energy in 2015, far more than the US, which only spent $44 billion. Also, they will continue to pour enormous amounts of resources into renewable energy, far more than any other country.

"But China is building more coal plants!" Well that's not really true either. China just scrapped over 100 coal power projects with a combined power capacity of 100 GW . Instead, the aforementioned investments will add over 130GW in renewable energy. Overall, Chinese coal consumption may have already peaked back in in 2013.

So in the world of reality, how is China doing in terms of combating global warming? It's doing a decent job. So no "@Diogenes", China is NOT the single biggest factor in our future success/failure, because it is already on track to meeting its targets.

Don't let China distract us from our own responsibilities and how shitty of a job Trump is doing.

Huge huge miscalculation on his part here.

Electric motors all have efficiency curves which show the efficiency (power output to power input) relative to the RPMs of the motor. Without addressing that, the rest of this experiment is meaningless. If he tested it on ten different motors he'd come up with ten completely different results.

What he SHOULD have done was to use a motor that he can fix the RPMs, adjust it to the peak efficiency RPMs for each setup and then measure windflow and power consumption. That would give him some numbers he can use.