you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 1 point 2 months ago (37 children)
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (35 children)

    all of agriculture is only like 1/5 of our emissions, and we need to eat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (34 children)
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (33 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (32 children)
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (31 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (30 children)
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    you haven't explained why you think combining disparately methodized lca studies produces good data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    the LCA studies themselves are disparately mthodized. they can't be combined at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    xu didn't conduct any LCA studies at all. they combined multiple LCA studies

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (19 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (18 children)
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    maybe you should try understanding the underlying science

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    so you say, but i had to explain the issue with the LCA data to you, so i don't believe you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    yeah. using somebody else's LCA methodology doesn't make their methodology any good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    you have yet to articulate how it is bad.

    only if you're illiterate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [โ€“] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    except all the evidence I have provided

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)