this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
292 points (99.0% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2247 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I've asked you before to point to even a single paper responding to this extremely high-profile meta-analysis with something even resembling this vague concern;

the references themselves say this explicitly.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So what I'm hearing here is that despite this being an ISO standard, thereby rendering this trivially obvious even to someone with zero background in this field:

  • Poore & Nemecek saw and see no issue with it.
  • The peer reviewers for one of the world's top academic journals see no issue with it.
  • None of the 100+ authors of the 40 papers cited see any issue with it.
  • Having read this, none of the hundreds upon hundreds of environmental scientists for whom this is their life's work and who are orders of magnitude more informed on this than you or I see no issue with it.
  • The animal agriculture industry – which again, absolutely has the means and the overwhelming financial motive to refute this – sees no issue with it.

I'm sorry for "appealing to authority" when all you have to offer is the same flimsy, nonsensical vagary over and over again. If you'll recall, I even asked you last time to point to one of the references calling what Poore & Nemecek did here unjustified, and you refused, likely because you've never actually read a single one of the 40 referenced papers in your life.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

your characterization of my expertise is bare ad hominem. what I'm saying is true or false regardless of your opinion of me and my expertise.