• NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    this analysis suffers from the same flawed methodology present in poore_nemecek 2018: they combine LCA studies, which cannot be done because the data is gathered using disparate methodology. to make matters worse, they didn’t actually do all his work themselves; they pulled in poore-nemecek as one of their references.

      • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I don’t need sources to be skeptical. you made a claim. I’m asking you to support that claim with good science.

      • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The sources are in the references to the papers that you’re presenting. The LCA studies themselves often come with a warning that it shouldn’t be combined with other LCA studies, but poore-nemecek actually took an even lazier approach were they compiled meta studies that were ignoring this guidance and didn’t actually source many if any LCA studies themselves. when reading the meta studies that they gathered, you can see that all of them say that LCA guidance discourages combining studies as they have done, but they’re just going to do it anyway.

        it’s bad science.