3 ms·

I'm curious how the stated article jives with the following research by the USDA [0] into it's current resource and greenhouse emissions and the work done by Bj

I'm curious how the stated article jives with the following research by the USDA [0] into it's current resource and greenhouse emissions and the work done by Bjorn Lomberg and team that showed a modest 2% reduction in total CI globally [1] if the entire population switched to a vegetarian diet. [0]https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAARS/bulletins/235c254 https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAARS/bulletins/2... [1]https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058333491623067648 https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1058333491623067648

epistasis 7y ago
Bjorn Lomborg's analyses are well known for being highly motivated to push contrarian agendas, and shouldn't be taken as evidence of any sort of honest analysis. His thoughts are only useful to drive out of the box thinking, and should not be taken earnestly in any way. This would be like asking "but how does all this new molecular biology work showing how smoking causes mutations that drive lung cancer square with Ronald Fisher's analysis showing that smoking is just correlated with lung cancer?" It just doesn't matter, because we need to realize when people are using statistics and analysis to push particular agendas, rather than using it to answer questions about the world.
- anarchimedes 7y ago
  Would you kindly provide evidence to the contrary and not just to what Bjorn has done but also the USDA? And no, it is nothing like Fisher's contrarianism to the smoking issue. Both links acknowledged that the current global diet has an impact on CI, but tries to find the most likely size of the effect. I ask because the science and evidence behind this stuff is complicated, and much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. I don't doubt that our current diets have impacts on CI, but I would like to see thoughtful analysis determining the effects. I'm sincerely asking this in good faith
  - epistasis 7y ago
    > much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. Could you kindly provide any evidence for this sort of claim? And could you provide any sort of evidence that we should even use effort to examine Lomborg's claims, much less try to use it as what we compare the USDA to? He has a history of being wrong, and ignoring that history in order to "stop alarmism" seems like an equal sin to any potential alarmism. Outlier analyses that have a history of producing incorrect analyses should not be taken as a gold standard of anything.
    - anarchimedes 7y ago
      I provided links to the USDA report and it's findings. I provided the link to Lomborgs tweet and in it the referenced links to the findings. In it, he addresses the 10% reduction in emissions argument and show that it is cherry picking the available data. That to me has an element of alarmism in it. "He has a history of being wrong" - if he does, I have not seen it. and I am open to changing my mind if there is evidence to the contrary - which I have asked you in good faith to provide.

epistasis 7y ago

Bjorn Lomborg's analyses are well known for being highly motivated to push contrarian agendas, and shouldn't be taken as evidence of any sort of honest analysis. His thoughts are only useful to drive out of the box thinking, and should not be taken earnestly in any way. This would be like asking "but how does all this new molecular biology work showing how smoking causes mutations that drive lung cancer square with Ronald Fisher's analysis showing that smoking is just correlated with lung cancer?" It just doesn't matter, because we need to realize when people are using statistics and analysis to push particular agendas, rather than using it to answer questions about the world.

anarchimedes 7y ago
Would you kindly provide evidence to the contrary and not just to what Bjorn has done but also the USDA? And no, it is nothing like Fisher's contrarianism to the smoking issue. Both links acknowledged that the current global diet has an impact on CI, but tries to find the most likely size of the effect. I ask because the science and evidence behind this stuff is complicated, and much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. I don't doubt that our current diets have impacts on CI, but I would like to see thoughtful analysis determining the effects. I'm sincerely asking this in good faith
- epistasis 7y ago
  > much of what is being said has a huge element of alarmism. Could you kindly provide any evidence for this sort of claim? And could you provide any sort of evidence that we should even use effort to examine Lomborg's claims, much less try to use it as what we compare the USDA to? He has a history of being wrong, and ignoring that history in order to "stop alarmism" seems like an equal sin to any potential alarmism. Outlier analyses that have a history of producing incorrect analyses should not be taken as a gold standard of anything.
  - anarchimedes 7y ago
    I provided links to the USDA report and it's findings. I provided the link to Lomborgs tweet and in it the referenced links to the findings. In it, he addresses the 10% reduction in emissions argument and show that it is cherry picking the available data. That to me has an element of alarmism in it. "He has a history of being wrong" - if he does, I have not seen it. and I am open to changing my mind if there is evidence to the contrary - which I have asked you in good faith to provide.