• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 days ago

    poore-nemecek is based on misreading LCA studies. LCA as a measurement is not transferable between studies. poore-nemececk just went through and did averages. it’s not good science. it’s not even science.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      Do you have a source more reputable than the Science journal and the Oxford university?

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          I don’t have the current knowledge nor the time to reach the level of researchers in the domain to make my own meta analysis. Where can I read a reputable rebuttal to this meta analysis?

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 days ago

            you can read the sources that poore-nemecek cite. they are explicit that their research cannot be combined with other LCAs

            • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 days ago

              I am skeptical that researchers and reviewers of Science wouldn’t have accounted for that. I made some research about rebuttal to this study, so far the only ones I have found are from farmer related or anti-vegan communities, which are likely more biased than a scientific journal. I will need at least a contradictory peer reviewed article to convince me this meta analysis is incorrect.

                • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 days ago

                  When you are not an expert of the domain, it is easy to get mislead by arguments such as the one you gave, maybe you’re correct, maybe you’re misleading, I don’t have the knowledge to verify by myself. That’s why I need to rely on reputable source, and it’s hard to do more reputable than a meta-analysis in Science. If you are correct, the rebuttal will eventually be published in a peer reviewed journal, I’ll will be happy to read the conclusions then.