Things appear to have changed; thanks for drawing my attention to that. I may start editing some articles in my broader area.

I can’t without doxxing myself more than I’d like. It wasn’t an article about himself, nor his research. This was about 10 years ago, so the rules may have changed. I’ll take a look and edit my post accordingly if so.

A problem with Wikipedia is that experts are not allowed to contribute to their areas of expertise because they’re “biased” (see edit below). I know a professor at a top university who used to spend his free time editing Wikipedia outside of his specific area but in his broad area of expertise as a method of disseminating science knowledge to the public. When the higher-up Wikipedia editors found out who he was, they banned his account and IP from editing.

Having the lay public write articles works when expertise isn’t required to understand something, but much of Wikipedia around science is slightly inaccurate at best. (This is still true, probably owing to the neutral point of view rule [giving weight to fringe ideas as a result] or the secondary source prioritization over primary sources.)

Edit: current Wikipedia editing rules and guidelines would not support this ban, so things appear to have changed. Wikipedia still recommends against primary sources as authoritative sources of information (recommending secondary sources instead), which is not great. But, they explicitly now welcome subject matter experts as editors.

No? They merely state that their results are consistent with one of Poore and Nemecek’s findings. The methods, article scope, and more differ.

I’m not going to defend the article further. If you all want to believe a website over a scientific publication, feel free.

It’s a Nature article; there’s no better source for information. Not sure where you’re getting the 2/3s idea or meat idea from that article–it does not use such language.

Your graphic uses the same larger type of metric of greenhouse gases as does the Nature article. If you click on the greenhouse gas equivalents bit in the header where the figure came from, it makes that clear:

Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, but not the only one. To capture all greenhouse gas emissions, researchers express them in “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO₂eq). This takes all greenhouse gases into account, not just CO₂.

You’re not wrong about meat not comprising two-thirds of any person’s total GHG emissions, and I’ve never suggested otherwise. I just wanted to provide a better source of information than that graphic.

I know how to: .71 * 18 = 12.78 Gt, which is more than double what your graph ascribes to agriculture.

Also, there’s no need to be rude, even if I had been wrong.

That graph is wrong/misleading:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9