370
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
370 points (97.9% liked)
Offbeat
1265 readers
59 users here now
The world is a weird place filled with even weirder news.
Post your funny, weird, strange, or quirky news stories here!
Lemmy.ca Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No porn.
- No Ads / Spamming.
Community Rules
- No editorialized titles
- No satire news sites (The Beaverton, The Onion, etc...)
- No politics
- Submissions must be no older than 2 months (i.e. the article should be "recent" news)
Similar Communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
this paper misuses LCA studies to draw hyperbolic conclusions. it's bad science.
Every time you show up to talk about this paper, you just say it "misuses LCA" and then never elaborate because you don't actually understand anything about the paper. See where the authors discuss their methodology? Please go there and point out how exactly it "misuses LCA". Make a pointed, falsifiable criticism of the paper, please.
false
Okay, so do what I asked. If you've said something substantive, thought-out, and falsifiable in the past, it should be trivial for you to copy-paste that here.
LCAs are not transferable between studies, and poore-nemecek ignores this guidance, compiling multiple LCA studies into their "meta-analysis". it's bad science.
"Um, ackshually, it's bad science to create a meta-analysis of 1530 studies." I hope you understand what a complete clown you come off as to any even moderately scientifically informed reader.
when the studies that are being compiled specifically have instructions on them that they are not to be compiled with other studies it is bad science
Oh, that's super cool: you've actually made a claim that can be addressed. So now substantiate it. You say "the studies", but ostensibly there are 1530 of them. Out of the 1530, how many say this? Because I imagine you're saying you've at least checked some subset of them. Can you point to even a single specific one which Poore & Nemecek used in their analysis? More importantly, can you point to even a single one of those authors (or hell, anyone else) who issued any sort of commentary calling this paper out for this alleged "bad science"?
After all, the scientific process isn't just being extremely credentialed; it isn't just meta-analyzing over 1500 papers; it isn't just standing up to the scrutiny of peer review prior to publication: it's knowing that at any time, someone else can read your paper, say "that's wrong/dubious, actually", demonstrate that objectively, and then publish that information. This is an extremely economically important topic with an industry who would be champing at the bit to publish a paper debunking this one, the work has been discussed in international news, and it's published in one of the most prestigious academic journals, so clearly it should have undergone some level of public scrutiny.
Clearly you as someone with (obviously) literally no background in this field can point out such an egregious error, so why hasn't any actual credible scientist? Or better yet, why haven't you compiled and submitted this information for publication?