It's coming over the next few months, but it seems that there is more to making a localised version than just understanding the language(s). They are obviously attempting to do more with the product on the desktop than they did on the phones.
I suppose it's understandable that they delayed it. If they made a crappy version available with plans to improve it later, then people would test it with their new Windows 10 setups, find it to be worthless and never touch it again. That said, I'll be turning it off if I do end up upgrading to Win10.
That's just what I came here to say. I walk around in the absolute minimum amount of clothes, and yet am still forced out of the office sometimes when someone goes into the meeting room and cranks up the controls. When I have to stay in the office during those times, I have to fight the urge to fall asleep. Today, the air-con stopped working and we all froze; but the productivity didn't fall because of it.
I still can't figure out why people feel the need to be warmer inside when it is cold outside. I don't dare warm clothes in the winter when going to work, because I know that I will burn up when I get inside. Instead, I wear layers of clothes, with my summer clothes underneath for when I am at work. Don't people know how thermostats work? You don't need to give hints to make it warmer by turning up the dial; if the cold outside has made the temperature go down in the building then the temperature controls will keep heating until it goes back up. It's not like it goes into overdrive and heat faster just because you push it to the max.
Finally, who actually thinks that people set temperature controls based on studies done in the 1960s? More often it will just be set on what seems reasonable by the person who operates the controls.
There are enough people who do say it though, which was why I brought it up. Generally they pop up when there is any mention of building a renewable power supply, as if they shouldn't build those and just go nuclear.
howcome i read she wants all homes solar powered by 2027?
You didn't. You read that she wants to have 33% of all energy from renewables which is enough to power all the homes. This was not about the ludicrous notion of attempting to segregate domestic and industrial power and then wholly supplying one if those networks with renewable energy.
The headline was misleading, possibly in an attempt to turn the people who only read the headlines against the idea. I guess it is a good lesson of why you shouldn't just read the headlines.
I know what you mean, although at least this is a story about one side making a proposal to combat climate change. It's better than hearing more stories of yet another research organization having their funding cut in a bid to muzzle the scientific community and stifle the debate.
But if it all counts for nothing because neither side can agree then this proposal will just be one big waste of time.
Nuclear plants easily offset air pollution as well, even more-so that solar. That must be the part you don't get.
If you think that we can discount the pollution caused by nuclear plants, why did you mention the pollution caused by solar plants then? You say that I don't get it, but you were the one that brought up this piece of FUD in the first place. You were being completely disingenuous and deliberately misleading by bringing up non-problems with one technology while ignoring that exactly the same non-problem exists with another.
With the exception that you had to qualify your statement by saying air pollution rather than all pollution (like I said) because you know that nuclear power DOES actually produce a hazardous waste.
Even solar has pollution problems when it comes to manufacturing.
While nuclear power plants grow organically without generating any pollution, and then run without generating any waste? A solar power plant easily offsets the pollution required to build it over its lifespan. I can't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
And people aren't fixated only on one or two power sources, as opposed to the ones who trot out the line "there is one solution - nuclear".
It has always been about creating a workable mix. Even Hillary Clinton's recent proposal was to only generate 33% of America's electricity by 2027.
And nothing will be changed, resolved, or decided.
When does anything on/. get changed, resolved or decided? We are fortunate that the world isn't run by the comments on forums like here.
Although now I write that, I'm not quite sure that this is true considering the inability for our leaders to solve these sorts of problems to date due to political backlash. What was supposed to be a funny quip just got depressing.
You can't be serious! If you are willing to lie about science then there is a HUGE fortune to be made selling your services to energy companies and conservative think-tanks.
There is a reason why the same people keep cropping up shilling for the large corporations with their anti-climate messages. Often those scientists turn out to be talking outside their fields of expertise, like physicists and geologists (hmm, what are the chances that a geologist works for a mining company?). In fact, some have managed to become "experts" in climate change now after having also been "experts" in health back in the days when they would attempt to debunk the links between smoking and cancer.
This whole unfounded notion that climate scientists are just greedily in it for the money is just a lazy way lobbyists attempt to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. You can't argue with the science, so you attack the scientists. Seriously, what has it got to do with a story about additives for making feed more efficiently digested by cows. Farmers are very serious when it comes to any improvements to how they can make to how they do their business. Would you have belittled the scientists if this has simply been a story about feed efficiency to reduce the amount that you need to feed cows and improve nutrition? Why is it only because this has an aspect regarding climate change that you cynically paint those involved a greedy liars out to suck taxpayer dollars.
When this story never mentions costs or government involvement at all, why is the most prominent response from the climate change deniers about "oodles and gobs of new governmental regulations and spending"? It is simply the usual denier FUD that gets trotted out when they have nothing useful to say about the science. It's pathetic!
The great thing is that I don't have to pick and choose what to believe. If someone makes a discovery that blows the current climate change theories out of the water then I can celebrate. I will consider it a win that would be well, and will happily cheer alongside you. You can say that you told us all so to your hearts content, but since you cannot now actually give a reason why you think that it was wrong that doesn't mean much.
And that's the problem. This is not about winners and losers in a side. This is about those who seek the truth no matter where it takes them, and those who will deny any truth but the one that they want. It is you and your fellow deniers who are wedded to a particular outcome, and you make the mistake in assuming that all those you call alarmists must be similarly rigid in their stance; that they want global warming to be real.
If I say that the sky is blue, while you insist that it is actually green, then I can happily report when the sky changes colour and that it is now red...and black...and gray. And if by some miracle the sky turns green then I will say that it is green. You will keep your head in the sand while you insist that it is green, and then once it becomes green you will see that as proof that it was green all along. No matter what I see, I will be right, but you can only be right if the world changes to be like your preconceived viewpoint. There is no stress in being right all the time. It seems to me that it must be stressful to have to keep constantly rejecting reality. If you are always searching the sky for green airplanes to so that you can stare at that and claim that the rest of the sky is also green then you have to put a lot of energy into blocking the parts of the sky that you don't want to see.
I do not feel stress for you. I feel sorry for you.
All the reports and studies that have been published regarding climate change, and the only thing that you talk about is a tweet by a non-scientist. You worry about the lack of evidence, and yet make claims of fraudulent behaviour on a massive scale without a shred of evidence. With all the leaked emails and all the hundreds of thousands of participants involved you think that we would be swimming in a deluge of frank admissions from people who are disillusioned with that their choice of profession turned out to be one big lie.
But no, there is nothing except heated debate about the choice of specific words, oft-repeated but long-debunked "holes" in the theories, and vague idea that we should follow the money - but only for those scientists that you don't agree with (because you don't need to concern yourself with the brave scientists who dare to challenge the establishment, but who just happen to have links to mining industries or conservative think-tanks).
So feel free to keep saying "fraud" and "scam" of often enough and it might easily replace the need to back up your ludicrous claims with evidence. Like Nero, you can keep fiddling while Rome burns.
It's a good thing then that we have free thinkers like you to tell us that all the scientists in the world have joined up in the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind, that vaccines cause autism, that the halocaust was a lie, that aliens landed at Roswell, that all of Shakespeare's works were actually written by another person who was also named Shakespeare, that we didn't land on the moon, and there really was cake.
No, that is not the whole contention on the subject. This subject is simply about reducing the methane output of cows. The whole argument of saying that it is a bad thing because of the guvment is just off-topic nonsense. And now you are going further off topic by saying that it is all one giant conspiracy; that the scientists are making alarm noises and saying that we must change the economic system.
But look at the article. Do you see anyone saying that we need to change the economic system? No, they simply want to make cow feed more efficiently digested. Are they wrong to want this? Does it matter that you don't believe the hype? Will you lament to your grandchildren of how you miss the days when cows farted and burped?
Before today, did you know that these scientists were studying how to make cows burp less? I doubt it. But your ignorance didn't mean that they weren't studying this topic. Similarly, your claim that the IPCC doesn't study anything but man made climate change shows that you haven't read the IPCC reports where they discuss both man-made and natural causes of climate change. But again, your ignorance of the subject doesn't mean that they don't do it.
The problem is that it isn't evenly spread throughout the entire atmosphere as it rises to the top layer, so your figure is misleading. And for someone who values accuracy and correctness, doesn't it seem strange that the people who study this all their lives are worried about methane while you with your reading of the Wikipedia page know enough to say that they are all wrong? With your history of getting the wrong message from reading articles, you should be concerned.
So we should stop trying then? There is nothing yet to suggest that this idea will cost the government oodles of money nor a lot of regulation. As I have said, if a company offers farmers a more efficient feed and it happens to reduce the methane output of the cows then this will naturally happen without government intervention.
Other initiatives will require the government to get involved. Tough. If we the public are not going to take responsibility for our impact on the environment then i guess someone has to do it. Yes I know that some people here will accuse me of advocating for a police state (and they pretty much have done), but I don't think that it is too unreasonable to have to use a low wattage light bulb.
That's a very cynical attitude. There are programs that extract the methane from the waste products of farm animals, but there isn't an easy way to capture a burp. Therefore the focus is on reducing the output rather than harvesting tiny gas emissions.
I applaud you for having the courage of your convictions. I'm afraid the thing that is encouraging me to reduce my meat intake is the awareness that my arteries contain more cholesterol than blood.
34?... I saw the other guy citing 20... which of you is wrong?
Who cares? You are more wrong than either of us. At first I thought that you might have been trying to be funny with your original post. It turns out I was being optimistic. If the messages that you managed to read from the article was that they were trying to convert you to vegetarianism AND whine to the government for funds, then I think that it is probably good that you are moving on.
It does indeed matter what cows are doing. While methane is short lived in the atmosphere, it has 34 times more effect on the temperature than CO2. Fortunately the entire point of this study is to reduce the methane produced by cows so that we can still eat our lovely meat. They are not trying to turn you into a vegetarian. If you can smell an anti meat progressive lobby then you must have trod in it before you came in.
One wonders how much money changed hands on that one.
I would say none. The actual study said that the we were coming in a period of exceptionally low sunspot activity (a Maunder Minimum), as was last seen during the mini ice age. It did not claim that this would cause the mini ice age (in fact it happened long after the period started), nor did it say that it would cause one now.
But all they needed to do was mention the two events in the one document and it was enough for the media to go into overdrive reporting that another ice age was coming. I'm sure that a lot of people reported it because they had a right-wing agenda to push, but I imagine that a lot of the misreporting was done out of ignorance. But I doubt that any underhanded payments were made because of it.
I think that you are getting fixated on the exact numbers here. Yes, it might not add up to 1.2%, it might be less. If the calculated figure had been 0.7% I would have simply said that it would take 14 projects of a similar savings to make an overall 10% reduction. Any savings that it produces will still contribute to the overall reduction in greenhouse gas emission.
But does that make it cost effective? Since nobody knows what this will cost (or indeed if it will actually save money), then it is far too early to state that this is "one of the most stupid ideas to reduce greenhouse emissions" as the OP stated or that we cannot afford to implement this plan (and that this was not the smart approach) as you suggested.
Now I'm not presupposing what any study into this topic will conclude. It may be that has problematic side-effects or that it is not cost-effective for the benefits. We will just have to wait and see, but if that is the case then we should not bother with it. I am willing to do what makes sense, but everyone I ask here who is against this can't justify why this is not the thing that makes sense. It is simply too early to make the call.
Governments have done a lot of things over the years, but that is not what we are talking about. You made a specific claim about me:
You realize you are trying to discuss rationally the administrative problems of a policy with people who have no trouble with the idea of setting up an Orwellian police state to enforce those policies, and with no real concern about the ostensible goal.
I have not argued for or against an Orwellian state. You made that up. And you pretended that you were being rational while you did it. You were not making an argument, you were simply being abusive.
This chemical makes the feed more effective, and more of the nutrients gets digested by the cows. Why would farmers not want a more effective feed? How is that naive?
All the complaints here are predicated on the idea that this will cost a lot of money and that farmers will not be willing to pay for it so the it will have to be mandated by a government decree. Nobody has provided any evidence of these claims.
The scientists say that more studies need to be done on this subject, and that they still don't have all the answers. I don't claim to have all the answers. But the people who are against the idea seem to have all the answers; enough to judge this idea as unworkable and call anyone who wants them to justify their claims as naive, irrational, thoughtless and have no business commenting.
But like the OP says, if you think about what it would take to implement this, which you clearly didn't, you would have realized that likely a much lower outcome even with great expense.
Since you have obviously put the thought into this topic, exactly how much is it going to cost to implement this? How does it compare to the costs to get the same savings from other sources? You say that the smart approach is what makes sense, but why is this not the smart approach?
If the conclusion of this study was that some feed energy not lost as methane was used by the cows to retain body weight that would have otherwise been lost in early lactation, isn't this a win/win solution for the farmers? They can combat climate change and make their feed more effective. How is that not a smart approach?
Slashdot Mirror
Why, then, is it not available for Windows 10?
It's coming over the next few months, but it seems that there is more to making a localised version than just understanding the language(s). They are obviously attempting to do more with the product on the desktop than they did on the phones.
I suppose it's understandable that they delayed it. If they made a crappy version available with plans to improve it later, then people would test it with their new Windows 10 setups, find it to be worthless and never touch it again. That said, I'll be turning it off if I do end up upgrading to Win10.
That's just what I came here to say. I walk around in the absolute minimum amount of clothes, and yet am still forced out of the office sometimes when someone goes into the meeting room and cranks up the controls. When I have to stay in the office during those times, I have to fight the urge to fall asleep. Today, the air-con stopped working and we all froze; but the productivity didn't fall because of it.
I still can't figure out why people feel the need to be warmer inside when it is cold outside. I don't dare warm clothes in the winter when going to work, because I know that I will burn up when I get inside. Instead, I wear layers of clothes, with my summer clothes underneath for when I am at work. Don't people know how thermostats work? You don't need to give hints to make it warmer by turning up the dial; if the cold outside has made the temperature go down in the building then the temperature controls will keep heating until it goes back up. It's not like it goes into overdrive and heat faster just because you push it to the max.
Finally, who actually thinks that people set temperature controls based on studies done in the 1960s? More often it will just be set on what seems reasonable by the person who operates the controls.
There are enough people who do say it though, which was why I brought it up. Generally they pop up when there is any mention of building a renewable power supply, as if they shouldn't build those and just go nuclear.
But I agree, it is all about having a mix.
howcome i read she wants all homes solar powered by 2027?
You didn't. You read that she wants to have 33% of all energy from renewables which is enough to power all the homes. This was not about the ludicrous notion of attempting to segregate domestic and industrial power and then wholly supplying one if those networks with renewable energy.
The headline was misleading, possibly in an attempt to turn the people who only read the headlines against the idea. I guess it is a good lesson of why you shouldn't just read the headlines.
I know what you mean, although at least this is a story about one side making a proposal to combat climate change. It's better than hearing more stories of yet another research organization having their funding cut in a bid to muzzle the scientific community and stifle the debate.
But if it all counts for nothing because neither side can agree then this proposal will just be one big waste of time.
Nuclear plants easily offset air pollution as well, even more-so that solar. That must be the part you don't get.
If you think that we can discount the pollution caused by nuclear plants, why did you mention the pollution caused by solar plants then? You say that I don't get it, but you were the one that brought up this piece of FUD in the first place. You were being completely disingenuous and deliberately misleading by bringing up non-problems with one technology while ignoring that exactly the same non-problem exists with another.
With the exception that you had to qualify your statement by saying air pollution rather than all pollution (like I said) because you know that nuclear power DOES actually produce a hazardous waste.
Even solar has pollution problems when it comes to manufacturing.
While nuclear power plants grow organically without generating any pollution, and then run without generating any waste? A solar power plant easily offsets the pollution required to build it over its lifespan. I can't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
And people aren't fixated only on one or two power sources, as opposed to the ones who trot out the line "there is one solution - nuclear".
It has always been about creating a workable mix. Even Hillary Clinton's recent proposal was to only generate 33% of America's electricity by 2027.
And nothing will be changed, resolved, or decided.
When does anything on /. get changed, resolved or decided? We are fortunate that the world isn't run by the comments on forums like here.
Although now I write that, I'm not quite sure that this is true considering the inability for our leaders to solve these sorts of problems to date due to political backlash. What was supposed to be a funny quip just got depressing.
You can't be serious! If you are willing to lie about science then there is a HUGE fortune to be made selling your services to energy companies and conservative think-tanks.
There is a reason why the same people keep cropping up shilling for the large corporations with their anti-climate messages. Often those scientists turn out to be talking outside their fields of expertise, like physicists and geologists (hmm, what are the chances that a geologist works for a mining company?). In fact, some have managed to become "experts" in climate change now after having also been "experts" in health back in the days when they would attempt to debunk the links between smoking and cancer.
This whole unfounded notion that climate scientists are just greedily in it for the money is just a lazy way lobbyists attempt to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. You can't argue with the science, so you attack the scientists. Seriously, what has it got to do with a story about additives for making feed more efficiently digested by cows. Farmers are very serious when it comes to any improvements to how they can make to how they do their business. Would you have belittled the scientists if this has simply been a story about feed efficiency to reduce the amount that you need to feed cows and improve nutrition? Why is it only because this has an aspect regarding climate change that you cynically paint those involved a greedy liars out to suck taxpayer dollars.
When this story never mentions costs or government involvement at all, why is the most prominent response from the climate change deniers about "oodles and gobs of new governmental regulations and spending"? It is simply the usual denier FUD that gets trotted out when they have nothing useful to say about the science. It's pathetic!
The great thing is that I don't have to pick and choose what to believe. If someone makes a discovery that blows the current climate change theories out of the water then I can celebrate. I will consider it a win that would be well, and will happily cheer alongside you. You can say that you told us all so to your hearts content, but since you cannot now actually give a reason why you think that it was wrong that doesn't mean much.
And that's the problem. This is not about winners and losers in a side. This is about those who seek the truth no matter where it takes them, and those who will deny any truth but the one that they want. It is you and your fellow deniers who are wedded to a particular outcome, and you make the mistake in assuming that all those you call alarmists must be similarly rigid in their stance; that they want global warming to be real.
If I say that the sky is blue, while you insist that it is actually green, then I can happily report when the sky changes colour and that it is now red...and black...and gray. And if by some miracle the sky turns green then I will say that it is green. You will keep your head in the sand while you insist that it is green, and then once it becomes green you will see that as proof that it was green all along. No matter what I see, I will be right, but you can only be right if the world changes to be like your preconceived viewpoint. There is no stress in being right all the time. It seems to me that it must be stressful to have to keep constantly rejecting reality. If you are always searching the sky for green airplanes to so that you can stare at that and claim that the rest of the sky is also green then you have to put a lot of energy into blocking the parts of the sky that you don't want to see.
I do not feel stress for you. I feel sorry for you.
All the reports and studies that have been published regarding climate change, and the only thing that you talk about is a tweet by a non-scientist. You worry about the lack of evidence, and yet make claims of fraudulent behaviour on a massive scale without a shred of evidence. With all the leaked emails and all the hundreds of thousands of participants involved you think that we would be swimming in a deluge of frank admissions from people who are disillusioned with that their choice of profession turned out to be one big lie.
But no, there is nothing except heated debate about the choice of specific words, oft-repeated but long-debunked "holes" in the theories, and vague idea that we should follow the money - but only for those scientists that you don't agree with (because you don't need to concern yourself with the brave scientists who dare to challenge the establishment, but who just happen to have links to mining industries or conservative think-tanks).
So feel free to keep saying "fraud" and "scam" of often enough and it might easily replace the need to back up your ludicrous claims with evidence. Like Nero, you can keep fiddling while Rome burns.
It's a good thing then that we have free thinkers like you to tell us that all the scientists in the world have joined up in the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind, that vaccines cause autism, that the halocaust was a lie, that aliens landed at Roswell, that all of Shakespeare's works were actually written by another person who was also named Shakespeare, that we didn't land on the moon, and there really was cake.
Keep the faith!
No, that is not the whole contention on the subject. This subject is simply about reducing the methane output of cows. The whole argument of saying that it is a bad thing because of the guvment is just off-topic nonsense. And now you are going further off topic by saying that it is all one giant conspiracy; that the scientists are making alarm noises and saying that we must change the economic system.
But look at the article. Do you see anyone saying that we need to change the economic system? No, they simply want to make cow feed more efficiently digested. Are they wrong to want this? Does it matter that you don't believe the hype? Will you lament to your grandchildren of how you miss the days when cows farted and burped?
Before today, did you know that these scientists were studying how to make cows burp less? I doubt it. But your ignorance didn't mean that they weren't studying this topic. Similarly, your claim that the IPCC doesn't study anything but man made climate change shows that you haven't read the IPCC reports where they discuss both man-made and natural causes of climate change. But again, your ignorance of the subject doesn't mean that they don't do it.
The problem is that it isn't evenly spread throughout the entire atmosphere as it rises to the top layer, so your figure is misleading. And for someone who values accuracy and correctness, doesn't it seem strange that the people who study this all their lives are worried about methane while you with your reading of the Wikipedia page know enough to say that they are all wrong? With your history of getting the wrong message from reading articles, you should be concerned.
So we should stop trying then? There is nothing yet to suggest that this idea will cost the government oodles of money nor a lot of regulation. As I have said, if a company offers farmers a more efficient feed and it happens to reduce the methane output of the cows then this will naturally happen without government intervention.
Other initiatives will require the government to get involved. Tough. If we the public are not going to take responsibility for our impact on the environment then i guess someone has to do it. Yes I know that some people here will accuse me of advocating for a police state (and they pretty much have done), but I don't think that it is too unreasonable to have to use a low wattage light bulb.
That's a very cynical attitude. There are programs that extract the methane from the waste products of farm animals, but there isn't an easy way to capture a burp. Therefore the focus is on reducing the output rather than harvesting tiny gas emissions.
I applaud you for having the courage of your convictions. I'm afraid the thing that is encouraging me to reduce my meat intake is the awareness that my arteries contain more cholesterol than blood.
34?... I saw the other guy citing 20... which of you is wrong?
Who cares? You are more wrong than either of us. At first I thought that you might have been trying to be funny with your original post. It turns out I was being optimistic. If the messages that you managed to read from the article was that they were trying to convert you to vegetarianism AND whine to the government for funds, then I think that it is probably good that you are moving on.
You are quite right. That was a lot of bullshit!
It does indeed matter what cows are doing. While methane is short lived in the atmosphere, it has 34 times more effect on the temperature than CO2. Fortunately the entire point of this study is to reduce the methane produced by cows so that we can still eat our lovely meat. They are not trying to turn you into a vegetarian. If you can smell an anti meat progressive lobby then you must have trod in it before you came in.
Keep moving on.
One wonders how much money changed hands on that one.
I would say none. The actual study said that the we were coming in a period of exceptionally low sunspot activity (a Maunder Minimum), as was last seen during the mini ice age. It did not claim that this would cause the mini ice age (in fact it happened long after the period started), nor did it say that it would cause one now.
But all they needed to do was mention the two events in the one document and it was enough for the media to go into overdrive reporting that another ice age was coming. I'm sure that a lot of people reported it because they had a right-wing agenda to push, but I imagine that a lot of the misreporting was done out of ignorance. But I doubt that any underhanded payments were made because of it.
For a good summary of what happened, you can watch or read the story made by Australian TV's Media Watch.
I think that you are getting fixated on the exact numbers here. Yes, it might not add up to 1.2%, it might be less. If the calculated figure had been 0.7% I would have simply said that it would take 14 projects of a similar savings to make an overall 10% reduction. Any savings that it produces will still contribute to the overall reduction in greenhouse gas emission.
But does that make it cost effective? Since nobody knows what this will cost (or indeed if it will actually save money), then it is far too early to state that this is "one of the most stupid ideas to reduce greenhouse emissions" as the OP stated or that we cannot afford to implement this plan (and that this was not the smart approach) as you suggested.
Now I'm not presupposing what any study into this topic will conclude. It may be that has problematic side-effects or that it is not cost-effective for the benefits. We will just have to wait and see, but if that is the case then we should not bother with it. I am willing to do what makes sense, but everyone I ask here who is against this can't justify why this is not the thing that makes sense. It is simply too early to make the call.
Governments have done a lot of things over the years, but that is not what we are talking about. You made a specific claim about me:
You realize you are trying to discuss rationally the administrative problems of a policy with people who have no trouble with the idea of setting up an Orwellian police state to enforce those policies, and with no real concern about the ostensible goal.
I have not argued for or against an Orwellian state. You made that up. And you pretended that you were being rational while you did it. You were not making an argument, you were simply being abusive.
This chemical makes the feed more effective, and more of the nutrients gets digested by the cows. Why would farmers not want a more effective feed? How is that naive?
All the complaints here are predicated on the idea that this will cost a lot of money and that farmers will not be willing to pay for it so the it will have to be mandated by a government decree. Nobody has provided any evidence of these claims.
The scientists say that more studies need to be done on this subject, and that they still don't have all the answers. I don't claim to have all the answers. But the people who are against the idea seem to have all the answers; enough to judge this idea as unworkable and call anyone who wants them to justify their claims as naive, irrational, thoughtless and have no business commenting.
But like the OP says, if you think about what it would take to implement this, which you clearly didn't, you would have realized that likely a much lower outcome even with great expense.
Since you have obviously put the thought into this topic, exactly how much is it going to cost to implement this? How does it compare to the costs to get the same savings from other sources? You say that the smart approach is what makes sense, but why is this not the smart approach?
If the conclusion of this study was that some feed energy not lost as methane was used by the cows to retain body weight that would have otherwise been lost in early lactation, isn't this a win/win solution for the farmers? They can combat climate change and make their feed more effective. How is that not a smart approach?
Then what is this about:
I am saying getting farmers to implement this will be problematic.