Spoiler Alert: That's not what the study says at all. Study is in the replies of the original post. Link to post: https://xcancel.com/thetwitcher65/status/2023881539365597236
As much as the bad science hurts my organs, it’s (kinda) funny seeing chuds accept that climate change is real but completely chudify the science behind it.
Westoids gonna west. Like is it bad I don’t care that these dipshits accuse me of elitism?
They literally claim they know everything and everyone except for them is an idiot. And that’s not elitist?
Gather 'round, kids, it's another instance of The_Filthy_Commie's unposted comments he saved up. This time on how ''elitism'' can be good:
When I was still a lib, I was one of those ''elitist'' pricks. If something was popular I became suspicious. If too many people were believing something, and I found out it was bullshit, or that it was a morally wrong position to have, I would tell myself, see? this is why you have to be suspicious of things if they're popular, because ''the masses don't know anything''. It saved me many times from falling into that groupthink of western bullshit, the kind we see with Ukraine, the hatred towards Muslims, Russians, and Chinese, and other vitriol. I would also have present this thought when assessing new things: ''for something to be mainstream, it has to be for the common denominator, and the common denominator has bad taste, hence what is mainstream is in bad taste.'' Looking back, its funny how adopting an ''elitist'' position like that, which apparently many westerners believe they represent, as arbiters of ''truth'' and ''universal values'', helped me to overcome them with their own tools. What I mean is that by looking down at those looking down on the world, I was able to understand the world better. At the very least, I was able to get closer to a sort of ''internationalism'', and not close myself within western nonsense, because I knew that the positions held in the West were not the only ones, and that more often than not, they were not only incorrect, but immoral.
But, just as socialism will come to the world bearing the birthmarks from capitalism, so, too, I became a communist bearing the birthmarks of an ''elitist'' prick. At least, it helped me maintain critical thinking, introspection, reflection, self-criticism and what I call ''good taste'', which is simply not being a piece of shit. It makes me laugh to see how something that could have turned out so badly, this intellectual ''elitism'', was actually helpful in my case. Nowadays, I'm more humble, even if we ''tankies'' keep being right all the dang time.
I share a similar origin story, and I have a somewhat simple update to this heuristic that hopefully kills the elitism part: "if consent is manufactured, why wouldn't 'taste' be manufactured too?"
Especially when it's something that is parroted in the media too much, that shit does not come for free.
Yeah, you're right. Now I understand that it's sort of like a chicken and egg thing. You think it's that ''people are dumb'', but why are they like that? because they're not taught to be critical, or education isn't inspiring. But it's by design, and that reproduces itself.
If I'm reading the abstract correctly, the actual claim is that if you raise cattle on pasture, the methane and CO2 they emit are fully or close-to-fully offset by the carbon sequestered by the pasture. It also says this is not true for partially pastured, partially confined cattle fed on grain and grain byproducts. Which is to say, beef can be produced in a carbon-neutral way, but not on the scale Burgerlanders expect it to be.
basically replace all cattle ranching (also kill all cattle ranchers) with a return to multi-million head bison herds freely roaming the plains managed by indigenous nations who can choose to export whatever amount they feel like
it also means you cant overgraze that pasture, cos that degrades it and releases the captured carbon, which probably precludes most pasture grazed cattle as well.
The oxygen part of this claim is obvious and funny but also the bison part is wrong…
Or rather the diet they eat.
Feeding cows energy dense foods like grain produces more emissions, like more than 3x the emissions of a grass-based diet.
And wild bison produce even less when eating a wild diet because that’s what they fucking evolved to eat and digest efficiently so yeah you could massively greater numbers of bison with less emissions.
Even just feeding cows on grass instead of enriched grain that they can digest better would be a huge reduction in emissions.
Or, you know, eat the grain instead of feeding it to a cow.
It's like...the whole reason we domesticated animals lol. They eat things we can't so we can still get the most use out of the land. There's no reason for it in today's world because we have ways of utilizing farmland our ancestors couldn't. You can damn near grow just about anything anywhere (like alfalfa in Nevada).
These people don't care about destroying the world or ending animal suffering as long as they get their treats.
Pretty much all of what you say is also the conclusion of the actual paper, which the frothing chuds couldn't be arsed to read the abstract of.
i know that the rest of the world is just a dlc to these people, but you can't seriously be so absolutely devoid of curiosity that you think the only cattle are the 80 million in 
Isnt it something like 60 billion farm animals consumed a year?
Yeah more than enough calories to feed cows (which are much larger than humans) to about an order of magnitude.
Q: How come before the industrial revolution when there were tons of bison we didn't have global warming?
A: The liberels and their gender!
Also comparing absolute measurements of oxygen, methane and co2 really slaps if you're a stupid. It's like "well I've eaten a grape before so how can you tell me that eating a grape sized (6 g) ball of fentanyl will kill me? Nice try, lib!".
Fun fact^[It's the exact opposite of fun ofc.]: There is a devout carnist on lemmy^[@jet@hackertalks.com] praising cholesterol and non-saturated fats. Very evangelical, with multiple comms dedicated to their "cause"^[CW carnism https://discuss.online/c/carnivore]^[CW carnism https://discuss.online/c/ketogenic]^[CW carnism https://discuss.online/c/metabolic_health]. This is the sort of thing they'd preach I believe.^[Footnotes are a very underrated feature of Lemmy and should be used more often]
Lmao they got into an argument with someone about whether cancer is a parasite to be treated with ivermectin or a metabolic disorder to be treated with an all-meat diet
It would be even funnier if they weren't going to get some innocent dumbasses killed
Them
“i hate big pharma…but don’t pass universal healthcare. I would never ever ever ever ever ever want to harm their profits, I promise!”
Populism is a cancer. This is literal postmodernism. “But I don’t want to think about the consequences! Let me stuff myself with big macs! So big macs must be good for everyone!”
Literal children putting their pleasure above everything.
I wonder how a cow emitting oxygen cancels out the methane and CO2 it also emits
what's the mechanism? maybe the oxygen attacks and subdues the other gasses, because it's beef strong
Somewhat true. 80 million cattle do not destroy the world. However, same can't be said for 1,6 billion cattle
The elites won’t tell you this
The current elite of the federal health institutions is screaming at us to cook everything in beef tallow. Pretty sure if there was any way for them to spin this, they would.
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.