i am more than willing to engage on any positive claim you want to make (i probably agree with a lot of them). what i’m not willing to do is tolerate personal attacks and dogpiling.
- 0 Posts
- 23 Comments
1·6 days agosaying they’re incorrect doesn’t make them so. i’ve also pointed out why your links aren’t actually proof for your claims.
this quote shows no evidence of them conducting a single LCA. the fact that they used poore-nemecek’s method outs them. they just combined a bunch of disparately methodized studies. it’s junk science.
except all the evidence I have provided
xu didn’t conduct any LCA studies at all. they combined multiple LCA studies
everything I’ve said is true
the LCA studies themselves are disparately mthodized. they can’t be combined at all.
you have yet to articulate how it is bad.
only if you’re illiterate
the study is not proof for its estimate. it’s not good science.
so you say, but i had to explain the issue with the LCA data to you, so i don’t believe you.
you haven’t explained why you think combining disparately methodized lca studies produces good data.
maybe you should try understanding the underlying science
yeah. using somebody else’s LCA methodology doesn’t make their methodology any good.
if you had read this study, and understood the underlying science, the fact that I skimmed it would not interfere with your abilitiy to defend it.
LCA studies are custom built for each product comparison. by combining multiple LCA studies that have desperate methodology, they have muddied the results. none of this is reliable. it’s not good science.
well I skimmed specifically for lca study combinations, and found them quickly. that invalidates all the data. if I read further, who knows what else i might find
I haven’t said anything about AI.
but that Xu et al 2021 paper has some dubious methodology. the conclusions might be correct but the methodology can’t prove it.
all of agriculture is only like 1/5 of our emissions, and we need to eat.
1·15 days agono, she wasn’t
your claim that livestock are a problem was supported by a dubious study. pointing out its inability to actually support that claim is highly relevant.