I wonder if AI can help better vet science to see if there's flaws. I was looking at a paper recently[0] about how Swedish men cause more emissions than women. I feel like it has big issues that could be fairly easily checked with an AI system to check for logical fallacies and statistical errors. I think most research is BS and it takes too long to tell if it's real or fake. The most common outcome unfortunately is that research is fake.
My issues are that more men than women live in rural areas[1] so on average men will have to drive more and use more fuel. This data also seems to come mainly from a study in 1998 but they continuously say "men today", the data is from two decades ago. It also suggests that buying local food is better for the environment then importing, but they probably don't grow food in Stockholm so it would come from regional areas. Men also need more calories so even though women emit more from their food, men are actually doing much better considering they are generally recommended to eat 1.25x more calories than women[2]. I'm also very sceptical about the energy used for clothing and furnishing in the study.
This study was widely shared in places like NPR[3], The Guardian[4], CNN[5, CBS[6] and The Independent[7]. I feel like the issues I've pointed out are super obvious and if there's a reason they are not problems then they should talk about why those issues are not relevant, especially in the news articles.
I haven't read the whole paper, I actually just looked at the study to see how much clothing emits per person(after an article on fast fashion was posted on here). It's very concerning to me that that is published in "pro-science" news papers. Perhaps even worse is the original paper is not even really casting blame but the articles all do.
My issues are that more men than women live in rural areas[1] so on average men will have to drive more and use more fuel. This data also seems to come mainly from a study in 1998 but they continuously say "men today", the data is from two decades ago. It also suggests that buying local food is better for the environment then importing, but they probably don't grow food in Stockholm so it would come from regional areas. Men also need more calories so even though women emit more from their food, men are actually doing much better considering they are generally recommended to eat 1.25x more calories than women[2]. I'm also very sceptical about the energy used for clothing and furnishing in the study.
This study was widely shared in places like NPR[3], The Guardian[4], CNN[5, CBS[6] and The Independent[7]. I feel like the issues I've pointed out are super obvious and if there's a reason they are not problems then they should talk about why those issues are not relevant, especially in the news articles.
I haven't read the whole paper, I actually just looked at the study to see how much clothing emits per person(after an article on fast fashion was posted on here). It's very concerning to me that that is published in "pro-science" news papers. Perhaps even worse is the original paper is not even really casting blame but the articles all do.
[0]https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.13176
[1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074301672...
[2]https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/wha....
[3]https://www.npr.org/2021/07/21/1018796496/men-spending-carbo...
[4]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/21/men-caus...
[5]https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/21/europe/climate-carbon-gender-...
[6]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carbon-footprint-men-more-women...
[7]https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/sustainable-liv...