• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    it’s absolutely falsifiable: show how the problems of analyzing diverse LCA models have been rectified. they don’t do this, though, they just charge ahead compiling the data.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      they don’t do this, though, they just charge ahead compiling the data.

      Actually, they do exactly this, and how they do it is detailed fairly extensively in the study in Section 2: ‘Methodology’. I hope you understand the preview that Elsevier gives you isn’t the full article. I’m accessing this through the Wikipedia library, but this article happens to be available publicly through Lancaster University.

      Section 2.1, “Systematic review strategy”, describes how they gathered articles and what criteria they used to include or exclude them. Next, Section 2.2 (about 2.5 pages) goes into detail about “Synthesizing results for comparison”, detailing how the Global Warming Potentials (GWP) of all of the 369 LCAs were converted into a common functional unit (thereby enabling comparison) for analysis. Finally, a brief Section 2.3 shows how the actual meta-analysis was performed.

      I hope this helped. :)

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        but they never actually mitigate the differences in methodology between the studies they selected.