https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... d2e344385d
The article itself is pretty terrible, but I should say that the author, James Conca, has written a lot of great articles supporting Nuclear Energy, so I do give him credit for educating more people about the science and politics of it, and climate change seems to be something he cares about; I highly doubt he's trying to deceive anyone, or is a shill for the beef/dairy industry. But here, I think he should have picked his battle more carefully.
I'm not going to go through the whole article to give others a chance to add in (since more posts means more traffic) but I'm gonna prime the discussion first by pointing out a few key errors.
The article cites this study (which was funded by Blue Ocean Barns, a group that promotes 'sustainable' beef and dairy pseudoscience):
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 5.204958v1
Note I'm not linking their website (Blue Ocean Barns) because I don't want to increase their traffic; I've already visited their website twice and I do not want to add much more to that number because I'm telling people about it and sending an article with a link to their website.
Right away, there are two issues with this. Firstly, the study cited is posted on Rxiv sites (bio and med), which is a website where non-peer-reviewed, unpublished research is posted. It even says on the page:
What does this mean? They explain:This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review
So the 'study' that is being cited hasn't even been peer-reviewed yet. Granted, peer-review can take a while, but wouldn't it be a better idea to cite a peer-reviewed study, or at least wait until this study has been peer-reviewed? I'm guessing by the time it's peer-reviewed we'd get the real answer.Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally “peer reviewed.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns.
Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the bioRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before completing peer review and consequent certification by a journal. This allows other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on bioRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.
Secondly, the funding source. I figured it's common knowledge to be skeptical of studies funded by corporations whose products are falling out of favour with the public due to health/ethical/environmental reasons. Sure, it may have been an 'Independent' group, but that doesn't really mean much. Is it not possible that they're yielding deliberately biased results so they can keep getting funding from these people?
Also, this article about 'independent research' funded by certain corporations isn't really all that independent (even talks about the same University, UC Davis):
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/a ... ry/521379/
It's a long article, but a quick skim still gets the point across.
Also, I looked through the study. This caught my eye:
In vitro. In vitro is defined as:The red macroalgae (seaweed) Asparagopsis spp. has shown to reduce ruminant enteric methane (CH4) production up to 99% in vitro
To paraphrase Michael Greger AKA Antioxidant Supreme, what happens in a test tube/petri dish isn't exactly what happens in a human (or in this case, a cow). This is a problem with a lot of these types of experiments; It's always in specific lab conditions, not realistic ones.(of a process) performed or taking place in a test tube, culture dish, or elsewhere outside a living organism.
There are some other things in the article I have issues with, but I think the things I've addressed have already undermined the credibility of the study quite considerably. I know I said the author isn't trying to deceive anybody, but seriously, how can any intellectually honest person look at all of this and still consider the study credible?
But hey, I'm sure the beef/dairy industry got what they paid for.