• EndlessApollo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 days ago

      Prove what? Cows produce a shit ton of methane, and methane is bad for the environment. Why act like this is up for debate just bc this one study wasn’t done properly? Cows are objectively shit for the planet, I don’t get the point of defending them or obfuscating facts about them

  • Makeshift@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    19 days ago

    I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

    Well not that shocked.

    Don’t worry, nothing will be done. Bacon and nuggies are more important to people than the world their children inherit.

    • magiccupcake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      19 days ago

      While pork and poultry are not great for the environment either, they have nothing on the methane emissions of ruminating animals like cows.

        • socphoenix@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          19 days ago

          Do you have something to contradict it?

          Edit: well I can’t find anything refuting this poore-nemecek they referenced besides a correction issued to the paper itself so guess I’ll just link it here in case anyone else is interested like I was.

          article

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            19 days ago

            the paper compiles LCAs from disparate sources. but LCAs are not transferable between studies. the entire basis of the analysis is bad science.

  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    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.