Ok I just spent about 30 minutes analyzing this data and I am going to have to go into

education mode here. First and foremost article like this are good for one thing; opening
our eyes to something we had not thought of before. I bet nobody reading this thought
about greenhouse gasses while eating beef. I know I never did.
Beyond that, this article is like 99% of other articles published in the world and just a
bunch of number crunching, pontifcating, head up a researchers ass bullshit designed
to try to get somebody a tenured job at a university somewhere and increase their
research production.
Lets start with the basics. Why does scientifc research get done? (Side note: my
business is medicine and clinical research is mostly diferent but it is 100% bullshit in
itself and I do not have the time or energy to go down that road today). Scientifc
research is done by professors at universities. These professors need to do research
every year, they are contractually obligated, its how they get funding, its how they move
up .. its a necessity. Most of them usually have some broad subject as their life work
and then they become increasingly focused in one little area until they are constantly
evaluating and re-evaluating and looking at the same shit over and over as many
diferent ways as they can because they have a ton of data collected over the years and
they want to keep publishing it. This is why new studies on the same thing come out.
Now, here is the real kicker, and I just can't even begin to scratch the surface of this next
topic but let me start by saying that a printed "research article" is really not that at all. It
is a mathematically generated pile of steaming shit. Its statisticians playing games with
software that would blow our little peon minds away. Everything is based on assumption
and probability and taking a very small sample size and trying the best you can to apply
to it a much larger sample size. The thing is there are all these rules when you do this.
Whenever you are doing a study, the frst thing you need is to ask a question. This is
our hypothesis. Your goal is now to set out and prove the hypothesis to be correct or
sometimes to say that at least the opposite of your hypothesis is not the case. Now you
need to power your study and this is done through sample size. The bigger population
of subjects you want to apply your data to, the more sample size you need. Next, you
need to think about variables and how these efect the data. You need to try to isolate
out as many of these variables as possible. Then after you set this whole experiment up
and collect all the data, some egg head has to crunch all the numbers. Now, you've just
spent YEARS and millions of dollars doing the frst few steps how are you going to
feel if all that data you collected shows something you didn't want it to?? This is where
the pure bullshit and fucked up-ness of science comes in, because now is where the
magic happens. You spend months, sometimes years crunching those numbers in
ways David Fucking Copperfeld himself would be amazed at, to spit out something
favorable to you, your tenureship, your little paper and your career. This is just a minute
single pubic hair of things involved in the bush required to do research and publish an
article.
Now that we have that behind us, lets analyze this article. I clicked on the link to
supporting data for this article and read some abstract. I derived from that the notion
that everything in this article is based on speculation. I wanted to see their sample size
so I downloaded the data set. Look at fgure 1 below
Fig 1.
This is the frst thing I see when I go to look at data. Its never a good thing to see the
word assumption so fast, but whatever.
This is what one of their pages of data look like. I know this image is hard to read, but
all of the data from this article is contributed from other articles. Ok, so I now I realize
that Im dealing prospective analysis here. This is
not a double blind, placebo controlled study here.
This is a retrospective analysis of data (of sorts). So
basically what the authors of this paper did was take tons of data
collected by other researchers around the country and made a ton of
mathematical assumptions about all of it and printed out another steamy pile of shit. I
cannot even begin to explain the faw in this system. For this paper to have any
credibility,
frst we would
have to see
how all the
data was
collected
in the source papers and give every one of those a grade. Then we would need to go
through all of the data this article is claiming from these and see how much of this data
actually translates into what they are projecting. Because I doubt all of it does. Finally,
we would need them to list their methodologies so that we can see how they in fact did
manipulate the data and then fnally we could judge for ourselves and decide if we think
it is credible.
Im going to let you in on a secret, its not. It never is. IT IS ALL BULLSHIT (no pun
intended). Science as you know it, my friends, is bullshit. Plain and simple. We are all
fucked.
Now, one more comment on this paper. I opened up one of the source papers in the
data set to read it, I was interested in their particular favor of bullshit and this is an
excerpt from the Abstract (opening paragraph)
Look at all the
ways these
people suggest
we could reduce emissions and still enjoy our lovely beef!!!! This is one little paragraph
in one little paper. I bet there are tons of ways we could do this ... but we wont ever.
Why wont we? Dont be lame. You know the answer.
Why does science suck? Why are articles bullshit? Why wont we reduce emissions?
Why wont Nike die?
(And our instant gratifcation, wanting, needing, indulging, disrespecting, go without dare
not fucked up moral decay ... but thats another day as well.)
Tim Scott, DO
Perpetrator of crimes of moral decay
Convicted felon in the mutilation of science
Awaiting trial for crimes of rational thought in a medical feld and the daily practice of
common medicine