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.

there is no stipulation that the research must be non-profit.

it is pretty obviously scholarship and research

i know shoe exists, but i don’t really know much more beyond that and i don’t know who xan is at all. does all this lore really shade the video i linked tho? i think it’s good analysis.

i haven’t seen anything like that. i’m not saying they haven’t acted like that in the past, but in the last couple days, i haven’t seen anything like that.

i do think i found this channel a year or 2 ago. they did a scathing piece on bitcoin that had some good points but also i like bitcoin and i think maybe they don’t know everything they think they do.

I found him like 2 days ago. is there something I don’t know? this video was pretty good.