What is the issue with the methodology exactly? In any case, the lower end of estimates is still twice the emissions of all of the digital economy. We would do more for climate change going vegan than we would fighting data centers.
I mentioned AI because that is the topic of the thread we are in.
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
Skimming is usually not a great way to make definitive conclusions about a study. Would you care to elaborate on what about the LCA methodology “invalidates all the data”, and how you could make such a claim with certainty simply by skimming it?
Where did they combine LCA methodologies exactly? They cited exactly one LCA methodology, so I’m not sure what you are referencing when you mention “combining”.
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.
“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.”
It’s really quite irrelevant to the overall point I was making, and was one of several studies that puts the estimate for animal agriculture between 10-20%. Anything else you would like to nitpick about that is irrelevant to the actual discussion?
What is the issue with the methodology exactly? In any case, the lower end of estimates is still twice the emissions of all of the digital economy. We would do more for climate change going vegan than we would fighting data centers.
I mentioned AI because that is the topic of the thread we are in.
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
Skimming is usually not a great way to make definitive conclusions about a study. Would you care to elaborate on what about the LCA methodology “invalidates all the data”, and how you could make such a claim with certainty simply by skimming it?
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.
I have not had any issue defending it, but you apparently have an issue with providing rigorous citations for your claims.
you haven’t explained why you think combining disparately methodized lca studies produces good data.
Where did they combine LCA methodologies exactly? They cited exactly one LCA methodology, so I’m not sure what you are referencing when you mention “combining”.
the LCA studies themselves are disparately mthodized. they can’t be combined at all.
No one combined them. Xu, who you are calling into question, used one LCA methodology.
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.
They use someone else’s LCA methodology. It honestly sounds like you are just making shit up. Maybe try skimming a bit more thoroughly?
maybe you should try understanding the underlying science
I do understand the science, and nothing you have said negates my point.
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 actually made a single point that is relevant to the discussion.
yeah. using somebody else’s LCA methodology doesn’t make their methodology any good.
It also doesn’t make it bad, and you have yet to articulate how it is bad.
only if you’re illiterate
This you?
“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.”
It’s really quite irrelevant to the overall point I was making, and was one of several studies that puts the estimate for animal agriculture between 10-20%. Anything else you would like to nitpick about that is irrelevant to the actual discussion?
the study is not proof for its estimate. it’s not good science.
You are very good at saying things that have zero meaning.