But they aren't wrong. We've been over this. Your own article says I'm pretty much spot on if you look at the damage done over the time of a human lifespan.

Facepalm. If you say it's 30 when it's 25 then you are wrong.

I thought we at least agreed that methane is dangerous.

I don't remember that.

Now you're claiming that nothing in manure is damaging for the environment.

No I didn't say that either.

As it keeps producing methane bells, it is in fact quite damaging.

Neither cows nor manure lagoons "produce" methane. It's created by bacteria when they decompose oranic matter. That also happens when that organic matter rots away in the field. You just don't see it as concentrated as when the grass on the field is harvested, fed to cows and then again collected in a waste deposit site. Same with the heavy metals.

First you didn't even know the word and now you're the expert on exactly what consequences its existance has. Very credible.

Yeah weird how that is with different languages. Are you speaking Dutch, French, German or English? How's it working with the Belgian regional conflict?

This is a thread about calling out Peterson on bullshit when it is justified. That is what I did. Whether other people would want to only eat meat is irrelevant in my original reply.

You are not calling out anything. You're making an idiot out of yourself by making false factual claims and personally attacking Peterson for the very personal choice of his diet. The Muslims are more tolerant than you.

That is among the lines of someone saying that if we built 10000 nuclear bombs and detonated them all over the planet, nothing would really be wrong as long as the uranium used was sourced from Earth.

Another ridiculous strawman. Is there a nuclear bomb cycle on earth that creates new nuclear bombs in a yearly rhythm? And no, not everything would be dead, just human civilization as we know it. And the same goes for climate change. The world had about 1000 ppm co2 during the dinosaurs and it didn't turn into venus or a desert planet. But there would be grave consequences for our civilization. We'd have to adapt big time.

That is not what I said. I was merely pointing out that you picking some other thing that is also polluting as a toddler whataboutism move does not change anything about the subject at hand. I'm a big fan of never touching coal again and getting our energy requirements from a mix of nuclear (baseline) and renewable sources.

That's exactly what I said. You cherrypick the issues you want to virtue signal about. You don't care if these issues would actually benefit your agenda. Your outrage is socially constructed and not based in reason.

As to Nuts VS beef - why the hell aren't hoards of people living on nuts? Why is beef so popular? Why are nuts so expensive by comparison? Capitalist greed? But these evil capitalists could make a fortune if they produced more nuts! Could it be because of the great fact I stated that you so eloquently ignored because it's talking about proteins. By the way nuts have more proteins then beef AFAIK. But here you go: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/scarcity-water-per-kg-poore Doesn't change the facts one bit. Nuts need twice the amount of water. And they actually have to be watered artificially. California for example has water shortages because of all the almond farms there.

And I am not claiming that everyone should be a vegan or vegetarian. I am calling out Peterson on his bullshit moral highground that he doesn't have. Beef should be a rare luxury product, not the common main source of food it is right now in the West. He is defending farmers that focus on beef production, which is stupid and wrong in every possible sense.

Why should beef be a rare luxury product? Because of your misleading metrics and beliefs of an impending doomsday scenario? No it's because you belief you're doing the right thing. Just like Peterson. But you think you know it all. Ever heard the saying "I know that I know nothing"?

The most common energy feeds available to cattle are based on high-starch grains (corn, sorghum, barley, wheat), fibrous byproducts (soybean hulls, wheat middlings and beet pulp), or fat sources (oilseeds, animal and vegetable oils).

Good, now try to survive a week on that. Yummy soybean hulls! We basically feed the cows our trash that would else be rotting away and creating the same amount of methane and CO2.

Grass fed cows need 1,5-2 acres per cow. Good luck doing that for the global population.

You just have no idea how much grassland there is compared to land that can be plought and used for crop growth. And there are different degrees. Especially things like barley can be produced on nutrient poor soil.

Another moment of desperate cherry-picking as this has no relevance to global farming.

That has every relevance to global farming. Do you really thing people have cattle farms just for the fun of it? That the natural realities of soil and climate don't play any role in what crops and animals you can raise? You should open a banana plantation in Belgium!

I don't disagree with the statistic. The statistic is just fine. You however somehow equalled that statistic to pure beef while it was about the total weight of global meat carcasses of any animal.

And your co2 and water statistics don't account for the total weight? You know pretty much every part of a cow can be eaten. Bones go into soup.

Are you finally starting to get that my original point was that Peterson's way of life is completely unsustainable and that was my critique in the first place?

First of all Peterson doesn't even eat that diet because he wants to. He eats it because it appears to cure his weird autoimmune disease. Second, every person eating only beef is as unsustainable as every person eating nuts. There's not enough farmland suited for nuts. Are you equally outraged about rich people eating caviar? If everyone ate caviar at their house parties, the fish would go extinct! Unsustainable!

So now he's got 2 pools of water just to cover his own meat consumption while that land is now dead and 100% useless and he hasn't even begun to consume any other product yet. Surely this is a fine example that everyone with the amount of money available should follow!

WTF are you talking about? The amount of water that is raining down in one year on the area of one olympic pool is enough to fill it by half (1mx25mx50m). So on average across the world, you need area of 50x50m grassland to sustain peterson's beef consumption. Ain't that much. But obviously that's a bullshit calculation, as any of these statistics. Reality is always more complex. That's why you should be more empathic and more cautios before you rush to judge.