Exactly the way I see it & I only read the first paragraph.bclagge said:Wasting less food won't magically get more food to hungry people. Poor people still can't afford enough quality food and third world countries still won't have enough food. The only thing that would directly come of a reduction in food waste in the US is less landfill consumption and some people in the food industry would lose their jobs.
I'd like to see more people work to eat a healthy, sustainable diet, personally.
You got it right there.muddytire said:.............but they thought that underestimated the issue so they came up with this model...which cranks out a number that they like better. I read that as "reality was proving that we were wrong so we made up this ******** model that supports our argument."
Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy. It reminds me of the "mark to model" shenanigans that helped create the sub-prime crisis.
I don't like that people are going hungry...but I really don't like people making up biased studies and trying to pass them off as scientific research to get their way. It's dishonest at it's core and we deserve better than that.
Two entirely different measures of evidence. How anyone can deny that human activity is not having an impact on the global climate is absurd.Airborne said:It really is sad that "science" and "research" has come to this. Pretty much the same way they get the data to support "global climate change" or whatever they are calling it this week.
Agree. I just facepalmed hard 'nuff to leave a handprint on my forehead.stumblemumble said:Two entirely different measures of evidence. How anyone can deny that human activity is not having an impact on the global climate is absurd.