I am not a rancher, so what I say may be not accurate. The meaning of this ask is to drastically reduce the size of free roaming herd OR switch to feedlot. To dangerously oversimplify the issue - feedlot is bad for the animals, meat quality, and the environment. Pasture raised beef has minimal impact of the environment and is better beef and healthier cows. So yes, I am against what is being asked in the first link.

These examples were illustrative, as a reply to a troll accusing me of inventing things

Sorry, I don't see a contradiction in anything I said.

This is fair criticism. However, based on my subjective experience observing various environmentalism causes I am simply unwilling to extend such courtesy. I am not going to try to look for unstated meanings and alternative interpretations. I do try to resist categorically dismissing them as green-washing rent seekers, but that is the extend of my mental effort.

Reputation destruction only works if your target cares what others think about them.

My view is that cattle has minimal deleterious environmental effects, none if they are pasture raised. Steel industry has minimal and it is acceptable considering how necessary steel is.

Car culture does have harmful effects that are getting reduced with improved technology. Cars are necessary for a free society to exist. Without cars, government would have much bigger role and say in our lives.

Yes it is, but effects of warming are not as dire and not as immediate as predicted. Also, climate change is a net of natural systems (Milankovitch cycles, etc.) and anthoropogenic, what percentage which is not settled science. It is also certainly not 100% anthropogenic.

No, we need environmental groups with better values. Human-centric. Capable of cost vs. benefit analysis.

You misunderstood. I am opposed to all these environmental groups because I disagree with how they frame problems. My desire for clean environment is of "no smog or toxins" kind and not at all of "unspoiled mother earth" kind they have.

This retraction makes it easier to litigate, because expert witnesses no longer can cite this paper and have ironclad defense.

Now, it has been some years since I left (and never looked back) research, I have not seen ANY evidence that there is any effort to address study replication problem. Just a lot of hand wringing.

Scientific journals, especially in the age of AI, need to rethink reluctance of publishing duplication/confirmation studies. Currently, it is almost impossible to publish such work, but it is much needed.

Narcc's behaviour can only be understood as heckler's veto.

Also mining, like potash in Canada. Most people won't get your point unless you immediately connect food and fertilizer.

Can you be more specific? What exactly do you see as bad faith argument?

UK is free to fine UK citizens for visiting 4chan.

I do not have a way to say how representative such views of a typical environmentalist. I don't believe I am engaging in nut-picking and I am open to seeing counter-evidence. I came up with these links by searching for key phrases (e.g., methane emissions from cows) and people (e.g., Suzuki) from memory and there were many similar links to chose from. Do you believe these views are not representative? If so, what makes you think so?

This is a valid criticism. My view is that I use expressing concerns as a proxy to opposition. I admit, the Science.org article must be read uncharitably to support my point, but then a) I didn't expect anyone to engage me in good faith debate b) I was demonstrating a point rather than engaging in nuanced debate of the issue. Here is cleaner example:Northwest Indiana environmental activists oppose Nippon Steel's potential Gary Works investment.

I think you are downplaying this, or at the very least "decent faction" putting a lot of unpaid overtime in making your point. I see this aspect as corel tenant of environmentalism. That is, misanthropy is essential part of worship of Gaia.

Then most of us would starve to death.

I do not, because most of such claims presuppose that the environment is static and pristine. The reality is that there is a great deal of change without any human involvement and often times what humans do is insignificant. While I agree with the goal of protecting humanity's habitat, it ought to be viewed as such - our habitat that should be utilized for humanity's needs.