I try (but don't always succeed) to judge content on its own merit and not on the labels attached to it or domain names

See the rest of my post:

The point I am making is that, when the sites that say this are very clearly biased, you have no reason to trust anything they cite as fact, and have no reason to think they are giving you all relevant information.

As to the study you cite at 51%, it is very clear that the authors of the paper were very much trying to get every last little bit of emissions out of animals, going so far as to even count their every last breath as an emission source.

The reality is more neutral than that, and probably lies between the 20 and the 50 percent statistics, and is probably closer to 30 from what I have seen online.

Of course, even if cattle did take up fifty percent of worldwide emissions, I wouldn't care very much. Cattle aren't something that is like fossil fuels, something that creates massive amounts of carbon purely in releasing/burning carbon stored eons ago. Any emissions from cows, assuming we do not continue to expand land for more cows, is going to be offset by growing the crops to feed them in the first place.

Seriously, their "scientific" article starts off with "What if climate change was caused by cows pigs and chickens". That isn't reasonable.

These so called facts are nothing but insulting and misleading.