The ENTIRE POINT of the study you just quoted was that “there is a lack of synthesised open access LCA data in the public domain available to consumers to inform decision-making. Therefore this paper presents a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of food LCA studies in the last 15 years to assess the GWP of fresh food.” Thus, they appropriately synthesized the data using a meta-analysis. You’ve literally just disproven your own point. I hope you don’t actually believe that people reading this comment will fall for this.
I’m not trying to taunt you, rather I’m being completely serious: did you read the study you just linked beyond what you quoted?
they were honest enough to acknowledge that these studies varied so widely in methodology that combining them would be bad science, but went on to do it anyway. poore-nemecek doesn’t even acknowledge their faux pas.
That’s your characterization here? That’s the level of bad faith you’re acting on? That they spent an entire paragraph right upfront citing other papers talking about potential pitfalls for the express purpose of intentionally implicating themselves before doing it? Are you high? Or just deeply scientifically illiterate?
The entire point of that paragraph is to show that there are pitfalls if taking a naïve approach, but that an appropriately thought-out meta-analysis can meaningfully synthesize LCAs into one set of data, which they go on to explain in their ‘Methodology’.
Is your pattern of posting multiple replies to the same comment some kind of strategy? One reply per user per comment (sometimes two in weird, extenuating circumstances) isn’t enforced, but it’s the norm because doing what you do makes the comment chain extremely chaotic and messy. I can’t imagine you’re trying to use the comment chain structure itself to muddy the waters, are you? Surely this can’t be an ideal experience for you either?
I was just genuinely curious because I’ve seen this pattern from you a lot before, and it’s highly unconventional. I latched onto this comment because I think it had the least salient/debatable/falsifiable point, namely “their methodology isn’t good”.
You’ve accused me elsewhere of appealing to scientific authority (which, yes, neither of us are qualified or experienced in this field in any way; we have to weigh what the relevant experts say and do), then you quote an authority to show that this is actually allegedly bad. But then that same authority says actually, no, this is good. And if you’re referring to the papers they cite in that paragraph as your sources of choice (still an appeal to authority), then you now have the challenge of explaining why those numerous authors whose papers are cited haven’t rebutted not now just one (Poore & Nemecek 2018) but two meta-analyses synthesizing hundreds of LCAs.
it’s absolutely falsifiable: show how the problems of analyzing diverse LCA models have been rectified. they don’t do this, though, they just charge ahead compiling the data.
they don’t do this, though, they just charge ahead compiling the data.
Actually, they do exactly this, and how they do it is detailed fairly extensively in the study in Section 2: ‘Methodology’. I hope you understand the preview that Elsevier gives you isn’t the full article. I’m accessing this through the Wikipedia library, but this article happens to be available publicly through Lancaster University.
Section 2.1, “Systematic review strategy”, describes how they gathered articles and what criteria they used to include or exclude them. Next, Section 2.2 (about 2.5 pages) goes into detail about “Synthesizing results for comparison”, detailing how the Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of all of the 369 LCAs were converted into a common functional unit (thereby enabling comparison) for analysis. Finally, a brief Section 2.3 shows how the actual meta-analysis was performed.
I strongly prefer to keep each comment to one idea. it helps break up Gish gallops. if you don’t like my style, you’re free to block me and remove me from you Lemmy experience.
It’s exceptionally funny to me that you didn’t link to the study you’re quoting, because if you did, people would find out that you’re quoting a systematic review & meta-analysis of 369 LCA studies in the same vein as Poore & Nemecek 2018 did with 1530 LCA studies.
The ENTIRE POINT of the study you just quoted was that “there is a lack of synthesised open access LCA data in the public domain available to consumers to inform decision-making. Therefore this paper presents a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of food LCA studies in the last 15 years to assess the GWP of fresh food.” Thus, they appropriately synthesized the data using a meta-analysis. You’ve literally just disproven your own point. I hope you don’t actually believe that people reading this comment will fall for this.
I’m not trying to taunt you, rather I’m being completely serious: did you read the study you just linked beyond what you quoted?
they were honest enough to acknowledge that these studies varied so widely in methodology that combining them would be bad science, but went on to do it anyway. poore-nemecek doesn’t even acknowledge their faux pas.
That’s your characterization here? That’s the level of bad faith you’re acting on? That they spent an entire paragraph right upfront citing other papers talking about potential pitfalls for the express purpose of intentionally implicating themselves before doing it? Are you high? Or just deeply scientifically illiterate?
The entire point of that paragraph is to show that there are pitfalls if taking a naïve approach, but that an appropriately thought-out meta-analysis can meaningfully synthesize LCAs into one set of data, which they go on to explain in their ‘Methodology’.
that doesn’t make their methodology any good.
Is your pattern of posting multiple replies to the same comment some kind of strategy? One reply per user per comment (sometimes two in weird, extenuating circumstances) isn’t enforced, but it’s the norm because doing what you do makes the comment chain extremely chaotic and messy. I can’t imagine you’re trying to use the comment chain structure itself to muddy the waters, are you? Surely this can’t be an ideal experience for you either?
this doesn’t address what I said. it’s a pure red herring attacking my style instead of the facts.
I was just genuinely curious because I’ve seen this pattern from you a lot before, and it’s highly unconventional. I latched onto this comment because I think it had the least salient/debatable/falsifiable point, namely “their methodology isn’t good”.
You’ve accused me elsewhere of appealing to scientific authority (which, yes, neither of us are qualified or experienced in this field in any way; we have to weigh what the relevant experts say and do), then you quote an authority to show that this is actually allegedly bad. But then that same authority says actually, no, this is good. And if you’re referring to the papers they cite in that paragraph as your sources of choice (still an appeal to authority), then you now have the challenge of explaining why those numerous authors whose papers are cited haven’t rebutted not now just one (Poore & Nemecek 2018) but two meta-analyses synthesizing hundreds of LCAs.
quoting their own source material is not an appeal to authority. it’s pointing out flawed methodology.
they temper their own conclusions by pointing out the problems with their methodology. poore-nemecek doesn’t even have the honesty to do that.
it’s absolutely falsifiable: show how the problems of analyzing diverse LCA models have been rectified. they don’t do this, though, they just charge ahead compiling the data.
Actually, they do exactly this, and how they do it is detailed fairly extensively in the study in Section 2: ‘Methodology’. I hope you understand the preview that Elsevier gives you isn’t the full article. I’m accessing this through the Wikipedia library, but this article happens to be available publicly through Lancaster University.
Section 2.1, “Systematic review strategy”, describes how they gathered articles and what criteria they used to include or exclude them. Next, Section 2.2 (about 2.5 pages) goes into detail about “Synthesizing results for comparison”, detailing how the Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of all of the 369 LCAs were converted into a common functional unit (thereby enabling comparison) for analysis. Finally, a brief Section 2.3 shows how the actual meta-analysis was performed.
I hope this helped. :)
I strongly prefer to keep each comment to one idea. it helps break up Gish gallops. if you don’t like my style, you’re free to block me and remove me from you Lemmy experience.
your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
your personal attacks are inappropriate.