• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    LCAs are not transferable between studies, and poore-nemecek ignores this guidance, compiling multiple LCA studies into their “meta-analysis”. it’s bad science.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        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

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          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?