good science is recognizing that LCAs are not transferable between studies, so poore-nemecek’s analysis must be disregarded.

this is just recycled poore nemecek. it’s bad science gaining entrenchment.

this paper doesn’t tell us how much methane is produced. it’s as detailed as your comment.

what is the data? how much do they produce?

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

this is just poore-nemecek, and it is bad science.

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.

if they could prove it, this would be worth discussing. these are just guesses.

this isn’t evidence. it’s storytelling. and it’s not even an accurate storytelling. The people who do the killing are paid by somebody who isn’t me and they are paid long before I decide whether to buy my food.

oh, do you have some evidence to the contrary

Their suffering is identical in nature to your own. It harms us when we take pleasure in cruelty and violence.

these statements don’t smack of scientific rigor.

The humans you pay to kill animals

almost no one pays anyone to kill animals, except pests I think

most people don’t want to watch an appendectomy or live childbirth either. that doesn’t make them immoral or unnecessary. it sounds like you understand that your YouTube video is traumatizing, and spreading it to others is irresponsible.

the vast majority of the soybean product that is fed to animals is the byproduct of producing soybean oil. feeding animals industrial waste is a good use of it.

then there is no need to lie about the position the academy

this is a leap of logic. there is not direct correlation, and your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.

they have published a version of this position continually since the early '90s at least. if you look at the position paper that’s linked, you can see the specifics. this position has expired and not been renewed for years. that is good reason to believe that it will not be renewed and will no longer be the position of the academy.

it’s entirely true. they don’t care how it tastes, they care if they get paid

it’s not their current position, and linking it, and saying it is their position, is dishonest.

animals aren’t killed for taste. it’s usually for profit.