the more I dig into this paper the worse it gets. it’s calculating inputs from feed and land use change. this is as bad as poore-nemecek. but it’s not even using data from the operations, instead it’s just guessing.
no one should take this paper seriously, except academic rhetoricians who need to show their colleagues how the trappings of science are used to spread claims without evidence.
edit:
page 65: this report is an extrapolation based on ivanovich et al, which itself is an extrapolation based on poore-nemecek. this is bad science built on bad science.
I’m totally open to the claims that are presented, but the evidence used to support it simply can’t do that.
the more I dig into this paper the worse it gets. it’s calculating inputs from feed and land use change. this is as bad as poore-nemecek. but it’s not even using data from the operations, instead it’s just guessing.
no one should take this paper seriously, except academic rhetoricians who need to show their colleagues how the trappings of science are used to spread claims without evidence.
edit:
page 65: this report is an extrapolation based on ivanovich et al, which itself is an extrapolation based on poore-nemecek. this is bad science built on bad science.
I’m totally open to the claims that are presented, but the evidence used to support it simply can’t do that.