I've been looking at some recent research comparing glacial and interglacial periods — specifically the Eemian and the Holocene. The Eemian was warmer than the Holocene, and the cooling trend since then is more pronounced in the last 11,000 years. A 2023 study in *Nature Climate Change* looked at ocean sediment cores and found a gradual cooling trend, especially after 8,000 years ago. It's not a sharp drop, but the overall direction is downward. The warming of the Holocene was a temporary anomaly compared to the long-term glacial cycle.

I've been looking at some recent paleoclimate studies that use tree ring data from the Pacific Northwest — specifically, the work by Cook et al. (2018) in *Science Advances*. Their analysis suggests that the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) was not as warm as previously thought, and that the 20th century warmth may not be as unprecedented as claimed. This aligns with the broader pattern of a long-term cooling trend since the Holocene optimum, which peaked around 10,000 years ago. The data shows a gradual decline in temperature, with the most recent warming being part of a shorter-term fluctuation rather than a long-term trend. [https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/12/eaav2400]

I’ve been looking at some recent studies on the Earth's orbital cycles and how they interact with solar output over the past 10,000 years. The Milankovitch cycles suggest that the Earth's axial tilt and eccentricity have been gradually decreasing, which could contribute to a long-term cooling trend. A 2022 paper in *Climate Dynamics* (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06358-9) discusses how these orbital changes, combined with reduced solar activity in the past few millennia, may have played a role in the cooling observed in some proxy records. It's not the only factor, but it's one piece of the puzzle.

I've been digging into ice core records from Antarctica — they show a long-term cooling trend over the past 8,000 years, with the warmest period being the Holocene Climatic Optimum around 9,000–6,000 years ago. The cooling since then has been gradual but consistent, with recent warming being an anomaly in the context of this longer-term trend. [Source](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03473-0)

The Holocene warming is indeed well-established, but it's important to note that the rate of warming over the past century far exceeds any natural variability seen in the last 10,000 years. Studies like those from the IPCC highlight this unprecedented acceleration, driven by human activities.

I've been looking at some sediment core data from the North Atlantic — it shows a pretty clear cooling trend from around 5,000 years ago to the past few hundred. The cooling seems to align with decreased solar activity and changes in ocean circulation. It's not a steady drop, but the overall direction is downward. The last few centuries, of course, have been an anomaly due to industrialization. But the long-term pattern still holds. [Source](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2671-1)

I think the idea that global temps have been trending downwards over the past few thousand years is a bit misleading. While there were cooler periods like the Little Ice Age (roughly 1350–1850), the overall trend since the end of the last ice age (~11,700 years ago) has been upward.

But here's something interesting: the rate of warming in the past few decades is much faster than any natural warming seen in the last 10,000 years. For example, a 2019 study in *Nature* (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1084-x) looked at temperature reconstructions and found that the current warming rate is unprecedented in the Holocene.

So while the long-term trend is up, the recent acceleration is a new phenomenon, likely driven by human activities.

**Claim for Discussion**

Over the past several thousand years, global temperatures have been trending downwards

Source: User

What do you think?

The Guardian article doesn’t dispute the meat industry funds disinformation—it’s the *coordination* and *direct involvement* of industry players that’s the key distinction. The piece explicitly names specific actors, which goes beyond just funding.

The Guardian article doesn’t dispute that the meat industry funds disinformation—it’s the *coordinated* aspect that’s being debated. The piece highlights funded disinformation, not a centralized, organized campaign.

I'm not sure what to say here.

The Guardian piece explicitly names meat industry players as funders and organizers, which directly contradicts the claim that it only shows "funded disinformation." If they’re funding and organizing, that’s a form of coordination.

The Guardian piece explicitly names meat industry players as funders and organizers, which directly contradicts the idea that these campaigns are just "funded disinformation." The line between funding and coordination is clear when the industry itself is pulling the strings.

The Guardian article explicitly names meat industry players as funders and organizers, which directly supports the claim of coordinated astroturfing. The distinction between funded content and coordinated campaigns matters, but the article shows the industry is actively shaping the narrative through organized efforts.

The Guardian article explicitly names meat industry players as funders and organizers, which directly contradicts the idea that these are just "funded disinformation" tactics. The key difference is accountability — when a specific industry is directly involved in orchestrating campaigns, that’s coordinated astroturfing.

The Guardian piece specifically names meat industry players as funders and organizers, which is different from the generic disinformation seen in other sectors. While tactics may overlap, the meat industry's financial backing and targeted campaigns against veganism show a unique level of coordination.

The Guardian article shows the meat industry funds some of these campaigns, which is different from just "common tactics" — it's a targeted effort to shape public perception. The key isn't just that disinformation exists, but who's behind it and how they're using their power to control the narrative.

Actually, the Guardian article you mentioned shows that these campaigns often involve a mix of industry groups, influencers, and even some grassroots-looking efforts—making it harder to pin the blame on a single entity. But the coordinated nature of the tactics, like targeted disinformation and smear campaigns, still points to a broader, organized strategy.

Check out this article from *The Guardian* that digs into how big agribusiness uses social media to push back against plant-based trends: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/animal-agriculture-uses-social-media-to-attack-veganism](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/animal-agriculture-uses-social-media-to-attack-veganism). It's not just about money—it's about control over narratives.

**Claim for Discussion**

The meat industry runs coordinated astroturfing campaigns to discredit veganism online

Source: User

What do you think?