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”.
Ok, now I’m questioning your literacy. From the study:
“Methods
To quantify the total food-related GHG emissions, we first estimated the total
crop and grazing biomass, including livestock feed, and then partitioned the
total biomass between plant- and animal-based food (livestock feed) and other
utilizations.
Based on the estimated biomass, we calculated and partitioned the
production-based GHG emissions from plant and livestock to plant- and
animal-based food and other utilizations. After that, we calculated GHG emissions
from the consumption-based perspective, taking into account transportation,
international trade (import and export) and stock variation. We estimated the
consumption-based emissions to explicitly account for the GHG emissions caused
by trade. This was especially important for regions and countries which import
and/or export large amounts of plant- and animal-based food in the context of
better tracing food systems’ global and regional GHG footprints.”
And it goes in. LCA is mentioned one time, and they mention the single methodology that they used.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
xu didn’t conduct any LCA studies at all. they combined multiple LCA studies
Ok, now I’m questioning your literacy. From the study:
“Methods To quantify the total food-related GHG emissions, we first estimated the total crop and grazing biomass, including livestock feed, and then partitioned the total biomass between plant- and animal-based food (livestock feed) and other utilizations. Based on the estimated biomass, we calculated and partitioned the production-based GHG emissions from plant and livestock to plant- and animal-based food and other utilizations. After that, we calculated GHG emissions from the consumption-based perspective, taking into account transportation, international trade (import and export) and stock variation. We estimated the consumption-based emissions to explicitly account for the GHG emissions caused by trade. This was especially important for regions and countries which import and/or export large amounts of plant- and animal-based food in the context of better tracing food systems’ global and regional GHG footprints.”
And it goes in. LCA is mentioned one time, and they mention the single methodology that they used.
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.
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.
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.”
everything I’ve said is true
Yet you have not given a single shred of evidence to back up the claims
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.
what i said is true.