your third link references multiple sources that may be reputable but I don’t believe that you have actually read that page or you understand any of those references. if you have and you can explain how they are relevant in any way to this discussion I’d love to hear it.
You asked me for evidence. I provided it. And yes, I read it. If you have an issue with a specific study, please explain why. Otherwise, you’re just doubling down on that head in the sand thing, as I predicted.
I would love to have a serious discussion, if you opt to do so.
I’ve already explained my problem with the methodology. That’s where we started this whole conversation. everyone of those studies attributes to livestock some environmental impact that is actually attributed to some other sector or aspect of the agriculture sector. when we give livestock crop seconds or silage or let them graze on otherwise unusable ground, we are conserving resources.
The second fluff piece you’ve linked seems to hinge entirely on Xu 2021, but that study itself depends on poor nemechek 2018 with which I take umbrage. their methodology is flawed.
I presented multiple articles lol. You’re a fuckin joke. You have no evidence backing your claim and I gave multiple articles that link to even more peer reviewed studies. Your comeback is that you don’t like the methodology of one such study, without explaining yourself. The conversation is over lol.
there are literally thousands of pages in the reports you just linked if you can’t show which one you think supports your case I’m not going to be doing all the reading for
Good. You’ll have plenty of reading to keep you busy. I’m still waiting for your sources where you refute Nemecek btw. To summarize, your arguments so far are the widely debunked “land for cattle feed can’t be used for human food or forests” and “Nemecek is inaccurate because I disagree with their math, despite the article being cited and confirmed by hundreds of other studies.”
the article has been cited but it has never been confirmed. it can’t be because it makes no sense to attribute the weight from pressing soybeans for oil to the livestock industry when the livestock industry is only using the waste.
poor nemechek is easy to refute. read it they attribute the water used to raise cotton for the textile industry as water used to produce beef. the methodology is fucked.
Tell me you didn’t read the study without telling me you didn’t read the study. This is hilarious and you can’t find one legitimate article backing you up
Bud, if you’re too lazy to google “how bad is beef for the climate,” I have nothing to say. I’m not your teacher and your head is buried incredibly deep in the sand, as you clearly don’t care about data or facts.
if you can explain how any of that relates to what we’ve been talking about I’d be all ears. your first and third links rely on poor nemechek 2018 again. those are flawed. The second one is a 2009 fluff piece based on a 2006 study that’s woefully out of date. and somehow I don’t think your earth.org fluff piece is really an academic source.
You trying to imply I’m uneducated after saying factory farms feed cows grass is probably the richest interaction I’ve ever had on Lemmy
this isn’t a refutation. it’s an appeal to ridicule. if you have some facts, you should present them.
Have some sources that you won’t read:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eating-less-red-meat-is-something-individuals-can-do-to-help-the-climate-crisis/
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study
https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/upshot/beef-health-climate-impact.html
In you defense, I was wrong earlier. I vastly underestimated the amount of deforestation attributed to animal ag
your third link references multiple sources that may be reputable but I don’t believe that you have actually read that page or you understand any of those references. if you have and you can explain how they are relevant in any way to this discussion I’d love to hear it.
You asked me for evidence. I provided it. And yes, I read it. If you have an issue with a specific study, please explain why. Otherwise, you’re just doubling down on that head in the sand thing, as I predicted.
I would love to have a serious discussion, if you opt to do so.
I’ve already explained my problem with the methodology. That’s where we started this whole conversation. everyone of those studies attributes to livestock some environmental impact that is actually attributed to some other sector or aspect of the agriculture sector. when we give livestock crop seconds or silage or let them graze on otherwise unusable ground, we are conserving resources.
TIL deforestation is just clearing unusable ground. Keep it up, this is hilarious.
that isn’t what I said
No, you made an absurd claim with 0 sources. I made many claims with multiple sources. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
arguing with a strawman
I don’t believe you can explain how any of this relates to what we’ve been discussing. I think that you just pulled six links off of Google.
The second fluff piece you’ve linked seems to hinge entirely on Xu 2021, but that study itself depends on poor nemechek 2018 with which I take umbrage. their methodology is flawed.
your fourth link is paywalled. if you’ve read it surely you can provide a summary or a capture.
Sorry, against the rules to copy and paste articles. Use your own tools, bud.
if you can’t present your own evidence, I’m not going to go looking for it for you.
I presented multiple articles lol. You’re a fuckin joke. You have no evidence backing your claim and I gave multiple articles that link to even more peer reviewed studies. Your comeback is that you don’t like the methodology of one such study, without explaining yourself. The conversation is over lol.
I explained my objection to the methodology in my first comment in this thread.
You didn’t lol
I don’t need evidence. your evidence is insufficient.
your first source flat-out contradicts the UN numbers I provided to you.
but they don’t show where they got their study.
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports
there are literally thousands of pages in the reports you just linked if you can’t show which one you think supports your case I’m not going to be doing all the reading for
Good. You’ll have plenty of reading to keep you busy. I’m still waiting for your sources where you refute Nemecek btw. To summarize, your arguments so far are the widely debunked “land for cattle feed can’t be used for human food or forests” and “Nemecek is inaccurate because I disagree with their math, despite the article being cited and confirmed by hundreds of other studies.”
the article has been cited but it has never been confirmed. it can’t be because it makes no sense to attribute the weight from pressing soybeans for oil to the livestock industry when the livestock industry is only using the waste.
Waiting for your evidence lol
80% of deforestation is for cattle feed. They don’t use waste
poor nemechek is easy to refute. read it they attribute the water used to raise cotton for the textile industry as water used to produce beef. the methodology is fucked.
Tell me you didn’t read the study without telling me you didn’t read the study. This is hilarious and you can’t find one legitimate article backing you up
Bud, if you’re too lazy to google “how bad is beef for the climate,” I have nothing to say. I’m not your teacher and your head is buried incredibly deep in the sand, as you clearly don’t care about data or facts.
I don’t need to support your argument. you need to provide your own evidence.
Linked some, but have more:
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/food#:~:text=Meat production often requires extensive,carbon dioxide stored in forests.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-greenhouse-hamburger/
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/
https://earth.org/meat-consumption-and-climate-change/
if you can explain how any of that relates to what we’ve been talking about I’d be all ears. your first and third links rely on poor nemechek 2018 again. those are flawed. The second one is a 2009 fluff piece based on a 2006 study that’s woefully out of date. and somehow I don’t think your earth.org fluff piece is really an academic source.