commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 12 Oct 15:48
nextcollapse
this is just poore-nemecek, and it is bad science.
socphoenix@midwest.social
on 12 Oct 16:54
collapse
Do you have something to contradict it?
Edit: well I can’t find anything refuting this poore-nemecek they referenced besides a correction issued to the paper itself so guess I’ll just link it here in case anyone else is interested like I was.
Here I was trying to figure out what a chocolate cow was…
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 12 Oct 15:21
nextcollapse
if they could prove it, this would be worth discussing. these are just guesses.
EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
on 12 Oct 19:38
collapse
Prove what? Cows produce a shit ton of methane, and methane is bad for the environment. Why act like this is up for debate just bc this one study wasn’t done properly? Cows are objectively shit for the planet, I don’t get the point of defending them or obfuscating facts about them
this paper doesn’t tell us how much methane is produced. it’s as detailed as your comment.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 12 Oct 15:47
nextcollapse
the more I dig into this paper the worse it gets. it’s calculating inputs from feed and land use change. this is as bad as poore-nemecek. but it’s not even using data from the operations, instead it’s just guessing.
no one should take this paper seriously, except academic rhetoricians who need to show their colleagues how the trappings of science are used to spread claims without evidence.
edit:
page 65: this report is an extrapolation based on ivanovich et al, which itself is an extrapolation based on poore-nemecek. this is bad science built on bad science.
I’m totally open to the claims that are presented, but the evidence used to support it simply can’t do that.
threaded - newest
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
Well not that shocked.
Don’t worry, nothing will be done. Bacon and nuggies are more important to people than the world their children inherit.
While pork and poultry are not great for the environment either, they have nothing on the methane emissions of ruminating animals like cows.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5b9a0d3a-b9de-43b5-b134-aac3318e8e8b.png">
this is just poore-nemecek, and it is bad science.
Do you have something to contradict it?
Edit: well I can’t find anything refuting this poore-nemecek they referenced besides a correction issued to the paper itself so guess I’ll just link it here in case anyone else is interested like I was.
article
the paper compiles LCAs from disparate sources. but LCAs are not transferable between studies. the entire basis of the analysis is bad science.
Here I was trying to figure out what a chocolate cow was…
if they could prove it, this would be worth discussing. these are just guesses.
Prove what? Cows produce a shit ton of methane, and methane is bad for the environment. Why act like this is up for debate just bc this one study wasn’t done properly? Cows are objectively shit for the planet, I don’t get the point of defending them or obfuscating facts about them
what is the data? how much do they produce?
You need me
To send you proof
That cows produce methane?
You know Google exists right?
this paper doesn’t tell us how much methane is produced. it’s as detailed as your comment.
the more I dig into this paper the worse it gets. it’s calculating inputs from feed and land use change. this is as bad as poore-nemecek. but it’s not even using data from the operations, instead it’s just guessing.
no one should take this paper seriously, except academic rhetoricians who need to show their colleagues how the trappings of science are used to spread claims without evidence.
edit:
page 65: this report is an extrapolation based on ivanovich et al, which itself is an extrapolation based on poore-nemecek. this is bad science built on bad science.
I’m totally open to the claims that are presented, but the evidence used to support it simply can’t do that.
Just Stop Cows