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.

The moviegods channels have subscriptions

https://skullxdcc.com/

I’ve always found private trackers to be almost unusably bureaucratic

dcc is blazing fast. I get the full DL in like 5 mins

skullxdcc requires no VPN

nor does i2p

but they never actually mitigate the differences in methodology between the studies they selected.

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 temper their own conclusions by pointing out the problems with their methodology. poore-nemecek doesn’t even have the honesty to do that.

quoting their own source material is not an appeal to authority. it’s pointing out flawed methodology.

this doesn’t address what I said. it’s a pure red herring attacking my style instead of the facts.

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 personal attacks are inappropriate.

your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith

that doesn’t make their methodology any good.

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.

your characterization of my expertise is bare ad hominem. what I’m saying is true or false regardless of your opinion of me and my expertise.

First, it is often cited that LCA results should not be compared (Desjardins et al., 2012; Foster et al., 2006; McAuliffe et al., 2016; Röös et al., 2013) due to variation in methodology choices, functional units, as well as temporal and regional differences2. Second, no single comprehensive review was identified that adequately covers the breadth of fresh foods available to consumers and caterers. As Helle et al. (2013, p.12643) state ‘data availability and quality remain primary obstacles in diet-level environmental impact assessment’, while Pulkkinen et al. (2015) calls for the creation of a database that communicates data quality, uncertainty and variability to reliably differentiate between the GWP of food types. Previous studies have compiled LCA data to compare different foods (e.g. Audsley et al., 2009; Berners-Lee et al., 2012; Bradbear and Friel, 2011; de Vries and de Boer, 2010; Foster et al., 2006; Nijdam et al., 2012; Sonesson et al., 2010; Roy et al., 2009). While these are useful attempts, the identified studies are inadequate in the coverage of fresh foods available. Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) attempt to inform consumers of the environmental impacts (carbon, water and ecological footprint) of specific foods, however they also fall short in breadth of items covered at present. The most comprehensive attempt at carbon footprint labelling was performed by Tesco (2012), however failed to label key categories such as fresh fish, pork, lamb or beef before finishing in 2012 due to the scale of the labelling scheme and a lack of participation from other retailers (Head et al., 2013). Third, studies that do compare results may often present singular figures. Peters et al. (2010) and Röös et al. (2011) argue that a range of impacts should be reported from LCA’s to better represent the variety of environmental impacts, as opposed to a singular figure. Finally, there is a lack of synthesised open access LCA data in the public domain available to consumers to inform decision-making.

I’ve asked you before to point to even a single paper responding to this extremely high-profile meta-analysis with something even resembling this vague concern;

the references themselves say this explicitly.

it is not compelling, because the LCA references explicitly say that they cannot be combined with other LCA studies. poore-nemecek ignores this guidance and draws hyperbolic conclusions.

unsurprisingly, this “research” is also infected by poore-nemecek 2018