This statement is indisputable; factual and certainly questions what they say about enteric methane and any impact it may have on global warming.
This is one example of the facts not supporting climate theory and it seems that in other cases when this has happened climate scientists have been manipulating the facts so that they do support their theories as we have seen with the climate gate emails. I have not got too excited about climate gate. The content of the emails does shed these scientists in a bad light but I am not sure they were in a good light in the first place. In amongst it is Michael Mann who lied to us all with the infamous hockey stick graph so I am surprised anyone is surprised by this, did they think he would suddenly stop lying? I don’t know if it is a coincidence or not but there has been a lot of stories about melting ice since climate gate broke. Damage control maybe? NIWA also decided it was a good time to release their conclusion that NZ has warmed one degree since 1930. There have been questions raised about their data. The Climate Conversation Group and the NZ Climate Science Coalition put out a report showing that NIWA adjusted pre 1950 temperature data downwards to make it look like temperatures were increasing in NZ when they weren’t. The graph shows the un adjusted temperatures and the adjusted temperatures.
Jim Salinger and NIWA claim they had to adjust them because some recording stations were moved and have released all the raw data on their website if you are interested. I am not particularly interested because when it comes to agricultural emissions there is nothing to show any warming has had anythingto do with agricultural emissions. As Jim Salinger said to push his cause, “it is simple, put more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and the planet will warm” What Jim is saying supports what we say because enteric methane adds no more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere therefore according to Jim Salinger agricultural emissions can’t have anything to do with global warming. Thanks Jim.
MAF have had to change their story recently because what they have been saying does not stack up. They used to tell us that global warming occurred because in the process of a ruminant eating grass, CO2 became CH4 and CH4 is a better warmer than CO2. I challenged them that while this might seem logical at first glance, unless you increase methane in the atmosphere nothing is going to warm (Jim Salinger says this as well)and that the process they described did not do this because as much methane is oxidised to carbon dioxide and then absorbed by the growing pasture on a farm every day as there is being produced by that farm every day.. The story has now changed, and they don’t use that argument any more. I see that as a win for Pastural Farming Climate Research.
The Minister of Agriculture uses this as his evidence instead;
“From a historical perspective, ruminant livestock have contributed to changes in atmospheric concentrations of methane. This is evident by the fact that, globally, we now have nearly double the numbers of livestock than at the turn of the 19th century. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has increased when examined over this period.”
That my friends is it, that is all they have got to back up the claims they have made. Claims that have been used to attack an industry, claims that are used by a range of ill informed people to espouse that eating meat is bad for the planet. Claims they use to impose a tax. I am incredulous that the agricultural industry in New Zealand can not win the argument against such weak evidence.
They could use for example the fact that global consumption of meat and dairy products has doubled in the last 30 years and the methane concentration in the atmosphere has not increased in that time. That counters David Carter’s argument and while the latter is not evidence of anything, neither is what David Carter said but more importantly it makes the conclusions he draws for his evidence null and void. It puts him and NIWA and MAF and the whole IPCC in fact the world of agricultural bashers without any argument at all.
NIWA and MAF and the IPCC have staked their reputations on the assumptions they have made about agricultural emissions. Continuing to challenge them on the science of these emissions is the way to discredit them. They are becoming decidedly uncomfortable with all this questioning which is heartening. I have replied to David Carter and explained to him that his evidence is not evidence and asked him once again for evidence that enteric methane alters the composition of the atmosphere as it is required to if it is a contributor to global warming. I suspect he will struggle with this. I have the same questions in to John Key and Nick Smith; they seem to be struggling with them as it has been a while.
In the meantime expect more melting ice images on tv and stories in the paper until the Copenhagen Conference is over.