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?
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.
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?
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
except all the evidence I have provided
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.
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.