BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR, 12/10/06

AT LAST, evidence that global warming is a load of hot air. Cow flatulence has attracted the attention of ministers after emerging as an environmental menace to rival factory chimneys, Chelsea tractors and cheap air travel.

Bovine emissions account for around one million tonnes of methane a year in the UK and now the government wants farmers to change what they feed the animals to cut down greenhouse gases.

Scientists have already conducted experiments on different cattle feed to determine which one best cuts down gaseous after-effects, and ministers have not ruled out action to force farmers to change their cows' diet.

Officials have worked out that agriculture contributes 7% of all the UK's greenhouse gas emissions. The sector accounts for 36% of Britain's emissions of methane, and farm animals - chiefly cows - contribute the vast majority of it.

The problem is worse in Scotland, which has a higher concentration of agriculture, meaning farm animals produce 46% of methane emissions.

Methane has been described by the United Nations as 23 times more "warming" than carbon dioxide. A UN report reveals that: "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems."

The answer, according to scientists at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), is for farmers to alter what they are piling into their cows' front ends.

A Defra spokeswoman said:

"We do encourage farmers to look at this research and consider acting on it. There is no regulation [saying] they will have to change fodder, although that may be something we will have to look into in the future."

Britain's attempts to get to grips with the issue are in line with a growing trend in research into cows' digestive systems around the world. Scientists at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen have recorded impressive reductions by introducing a mixture of organic sugars and a special bacterium into the animals' diet.

Belgian researchers have found that adding fish oil to fodder reduced methane emissions in cattle by up to 80%, while the Australians are even experimenting with a flatulence-reducing vaccine.

And the UK, too, is finally falling into line. In a parliamentary answer politely entitled "Bovine Emissions" last week, farming minister Ian Pearson said "recent research suggests that substantial methane reductions could be achieved by changes to feed regimes".

Related topic

Climate change http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=52 This article: http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1834432006

Last updated: 10-Dec-06 00:55 GMT

Comments1. AJ, Fife / 1:08am 10 Dec 2006 The heidline, for wance, is bang oan! Guff, jist Guff!

Report as unsuitable 2. Chairman Gordon, People's Republic of Stirling / 1:22am 10 Dec 2006 Aye, but stand by for a renewed offensive from the usual veggie wierdos.....

Report as unsuitable 3. Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh / 1:27am 10 Dec 2006 Eat more beef then ... less cows .. a solution ?

Report as unsuitable 4. Comment Removed This comment has been removed by a moderator. 5. AJ, Fife / 1:38am 10 Dec 2006 Fillet steak everynight........mmmmm!

Report as unsuitable 6. John M, Melbourne, Australia / 1:47am 10 Dec 2006 The amount of methane in the atmosphere has fallen across the last 30 years and no-one seems able to say why. There's a tentative suggestion that draining wetlands may be some of the reason but the greenies won't like that.

I'm sure there will be some people who'll say "thank goodness because we'd be hotter if it hadn't fallen" but this kind of myopic view means that they have no appreciation of the full range of climate forces and feedbacks (both positive and negative). The reality of the situation, as evidenced by the data, is that man-made (or cow-made) emissions of GHGs have no discernible impact on temperature.

Report as unsuitable 7. scottwebb.co.uk / 2:10am 10 Dec 2006 All they need to do is switch off the HAARP tech they're using and all this weather nonsense will disappear....but they need their Hegelian Law........THE HEGELIAN PRINCIPLE:

Step one: CREATE A "PROBLEM": Create it or take one that does exist and build it up out of all proportion to its real importance;

Step Two: PUBLICISE THE "PROBLEM": Make sure a story about this problem appears in the news media each and every day, in newspapers, news magazines, radio, and television. Hit it again and again in a "steady drumbeat" that soon has people who don't pay real attention to politics (which is the majority of them) clamoring for a "solution" to the problem;

Step Three: OFFER A "SOLUTION": A solution that takes away one or more of our rights and further undermines the constitutional protections we all are supposed to enjoy. One that involves higher taxes (to pay for this "solution," of course), and one we would not have allowed them to do without this previous conditioning of the public.

Report as unsuitable 8. macca, manila / 2:28am 10 Dec 2006 I am all for wind power, they will blame Hienz & the vegos in India next. on a seriuos note global warming is a problem pity the politicians are still playing politics.

Report as unsuitable 9. Paul Voltaire, www.paulvoltaire.spaces.live.com / 3:12am 10 Dec 2006 There is something organic about knowing one's flatulence has such power. Also, the hot air that comes from the mouth of Alex Salmond must be a contributory factor to global warming .

Report as unsuitable 10. stueysplace, Canada / 4:07am 10 Dec 2006 I sympathize with the cows. All the testing must be 'exhaust'ing. Problem is, I'm wondering, if the testing should be performed on other species more prevalent than cows. For example humans. There must be a connection between human flatulence and global warming. After all everything else we do appears to contribute to the problem. Besides we could be a major source of alternate fuels. Bring on the beans; we can heat our own homes in winter.

Report as unsuitable 11. Guga, Rockall / 4:26am 10 Dec 2006 I wish global warming really did exist. We could be doing with some of it here; all year round.

Anyway, the solution to the cow problem might be to have wee igniters at the rear end of the cows, and set them to light every time the cow lifts its tail.

Report as unsuitable 12. mark mccann, leighton buzzard(temp exile) / 7:31am 10 Dec 2006 Guffy: north eastern dialect specifically Doric and sometimes Scots: Englishman. Person from south of the border. as apposed to sassenach, which simply means southerner, which covers a whole host of people and places.

Report as unsuitable 13. Bozo, NSW Australia / 7:42am 10 Dec 2006 I have 2 answers on this global warming.With thes poor cows and there flatulance - place a small pilot light at the rear [with a wind shiled] of the cow and dipose of the methane gas immediately perhaps the heat generated could be used to pasturise the milk [raw milk is by far superior].now carbon emmissions isnt that carbon dioxide? What do we breathe out after inhaling isnt it CO2. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE many of you people are very inteligent therefore please dont cary on so much about global warming check out history for the past say 50,000 yrs and you will find we have had many ups and downs in climatic changes,decades of extra warmth and decades of extra cold,just because we are born into this period of time we are making mountains out of nothing.Iam reminded of that old hymn that tells me That He [GOD] has got the whole World in His hands,if this is the case what have we got to worry about,the Bible tell us He sends the rain [and heat] on the just and the unjust.The easiest way for you to not let it worry you is to accept it as it is,the more you winge about the heat [we have had it 40+ here] the more you feel it same as the cold we have had it -10 at times,ENJOY it and you dont feel it as much.

Report as unsuitable 14. Ozzy, Perth / 7:44am 10 Dec 2006 So how do we get the cows to stop eating grass? http://thespindoctor.info

Report as unsuitable 15. Bite-Back / 7:50am 10 Dec 2006 Make them smoke it instead, herds of stoned cattle who dont care one way or the other.

Report as unsuitable 16. Bite-Back / 7:54am 10 Dec 2006 This is getting silly now, how did the world survive when the american bison were roaming around in their millions.

Report as unsuitable 17. Guga, Rockall / 8:04am 10 Dec 2006 #16 That's because Buffalo Bill was really a tree hugger, and shot them all to save the world.

Report as unsuitable 18. Media 1, Cape Town / 8:17am 10 Dec 2006 EAT BEEEF! Leave the veggies for the tree huggers

Report as unsuitable 19. W Smith, Middle East / 8:23am 10 Dec 2006 Does the Scottish Executive have to set 'targets' for these 'emissions'?

Report as unsuitable 20. yanknscotia, north / 8:32am 10 Dec 2006 Forget the nooks?

Worry of the day; Cow Farts?

I've heard it all now. O.O

Report as unsuitable 21. Cant use my name anymore-Alex, Prisoner of the machine / 8:39am 10 Dec 2006 No 7 Scottweb has got it bang on. I wish everyone could grasp this and see what is being done.

Report as unsuitable 22. Pete39, Tassy / 9:17am 10 Dec 2006 Ah well, most Tassy cows fart like nuns, so keep your eyes off them. Milk is OK, cheese they keep selling to the heathens. You do not get any brownie points from selling cheese to the heathens. If you are really up against keeping cows, try milking whales.

Report as unsuitable 23. Niall Leighton, Perth / 9:31am 10 Dec 2006 This report isn't exactly news. I've been pointing it out for years.

Ok, let's try a few facts here. Atmospheric methane levels have been stable for the last three years (Google "atmospheric methane levels" and see what you get), but that doesn't mean to say that with the growth in the consumption of animal foods that they won't start to rise again.

I'm sure it doesn't help that forests are being destroyed to provide soya to feed all these cattle!

Adding fish oil to the diets of cows simply exchanges one problem for another. Overfishing is liable to result in the collapse of oceanic ecosystems (again, Google it!).

Obviously the solution - to the horror of all those human carnivores out there - is to move down the food chain.

Report as unsuitable 24. Teskey, Essex / 10:01am 10 Dec 2006 A shame that your headline gives further encouragement to the Lord Haw Haws and Flat Earthers who choose to deny the existence of climate change and the potentially disastrous influence of man on our planet.

It would be more constructive if you could give a little prominence to the scientific consensus rather than further encouragement to the uninformed or self-interested in the denial industry.

I quote from Science Magazine vol 306 of 03 Dec 2004:

"Policy-makers and the public who are not members of the relevant research community have had to form opinions about the reality of global climate change on the basis of often conflicting descriptions provided by the media regarding the level of scientific certainty attached to studies of climate. In this Essay, Oreskes analyzes the existing scientific literature to show that there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. Thus, despite claims sometimes made by some groups that there is not good evidence that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities, the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that such evidence is clear and persuasive"

Report as unsuitable 25. Harbinger, Fantasy Island / 10:15am 10 Dec 2006 This Oreskes garbage is repeated so many times it's quite ridiculous, because it was comprehensively shown to be untrue in a well researched and fully referenced paper by Dr Benny Peiser from Liverpool University. However "Science" refused to publish the rebuttal.

Here's some of it: "Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question. What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

These objections were put to Oreskes by science writer David Appell. On 15 December 2004, she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay."

However, it now forms a part of Al Gore's propaganda movie for getting him into the White House, and quoted by all and sundry around the world, including by our own Royal Society. So much for objective science.

Report as unsuitable 26. JD, Glasgow / 10:18am 10 Dec 2006 A correction to the above News Article ...

The problem is worse in Scotland, which has Hot-Air emitting from HOLLYROOD, meaning MSPs produce 46% of methane emissions.

Report as unsuitable 27. Porry, Hannover / 10:20am 10 Dec 2006 Twenty-some years ago I learnt about a 'revolutionary' concept at the interpretive centre of the now defunct Trojan Nuclear Plant on the 'Mighty Columbia' in Oregon, USA--the 'burp dome' as an alternative to nuclear power, suggested by the Green community. Erect a domed building in which you keep your cows and you can make use of the methane they emit by burping. Unfortunately, nothing was said about gases coming out the other end then. What now, tree huggers, don't you support your 'alternative' concept any more? Are you so much engaged with flatulence that you have already forgotten that putting a cork in a cow's rear end would not solve 'the problem'?

Report as unsuitable 28. famous 15, Edinburgh / 10:35am 10 Dec 2006 Bliar,Brown,Cameron etc etc all hot air. The only good sense I have heard is from Alex Salmond. Acceptable renewable energy processes and carbon capture is the way ahead.

Report as unsuitable 29. W Smith, Middle East / 10:42am 10 Dec 2006 Any protests arranged by the 'STOP THE FARTING COALITION'?

(The protestors can handout 'FIGHT FLATULENCE' leaflets.......and wear 'NOT IN MY NAME' bages.)

Report as unsuitable 30. Shenachy, Queensferry / 10:50am 10 Dec 2006 #12. Mark McCann, I think it was Sir walter Scott who suggested that a Sassenach was a Lowlander but I have always been taught that the inhabitants of Alba are Albanachs and the inhabitants of Sassen (England - land of the Saxons) are called Sassenachs.

Report as unsuitable 31. Chris W, Scotland / 10:56am 10 Dec 2006 So cows are now an environmental nuisance are they? So can someone explain why the countless billions of animals and reptiles that have been wandering around the planet for millions of years did not destroy the environment millenia ago? I don't know why anybody bothers to report anything the government says about the environment any more. It is all guff.

Report as unsuitable 32. radical theologian, California / 10:59am 10 Dec 2006 They'll be arresting us for farting next. Takes one to recognize one ...

Report as unsuitable 33. David Baird, Londonderry, N.I. / 11:09am 10 Dec 2006 Simple - close the gasworks, Holyrood and the Houses of Parliament. There's more hot air from these places than anywhere else.

Report as unsuitable 34. wayne bijlyeerheid / 11:15am 10 Dec 2006 no 12 Sassenach= Saxon (ie someone from Sassen) not southerner Albanach=Scot (someone fron Alba north or south)

Report as unsuitable 35. Evan Owen, Snowdonia / 11:28am 10 Dec 2006 I like beef and cows eat grass which absorbs CO2, the big wheel turns.

I have a much better solution.... stop feeding the scientists, researchers and politicians because they emit more hot air than everone else put together.

Report as unsuitable 36. Xhile, West Mids / 11:33am 10 Dec 2006 Where would the Labour Government be without Global Warming? We are being hammered with taxes based on unproven theories about Britain's contribution to the warming of our planet. In three years time, a solar probe which has been launched to measure the energy (heat) output from the sun may well prove that it's the cyclical variation in solar energy which is the main cause of the warming of the planet and there's damn all we can do about it. By then of course our political rulers will have imposed draconian 'conservation' measures on the population which strangely, will be very very tax intensive. It's most strange that every scientific discovery that confounds the, humanity is to blame, theories on global warming such as the discovery that there was actually no ice at the North Pole for a period of time, is quietly swept under the carpet.

Report as unsuitable 37. robbie the lydder, Lydd / 11:49am 10 Dec 2006 A lot of flat earthers today. The reason that cow farts are a problem is to do with the number of cows and what they are fed. -Grass fed cows are a bit of a rareity, most cows rations are carefully managed to produce the quality of milk or beef the producer requires. Do not think chav, think athlete. -An unfortunate side affect of this is methane from the animals themselves and from their waste. hence a contribution to global GHG levels. -Numbers, most people in the Uk eat beef, just calculate how many animals that will require. -This is not new, new zealand and other countries have been studying it for some time. In the UK agriculture is less than 1% of the economy so it was though unimportant. -Institutional inertia, Defra has only just realized that phosphate levels in rivers are the problem and not Nitrogen, unlike the rest of Europe who have been on this issue for some time. In this case, we are playing catch up.

The reason methane was not a problem, when herds of bison roamed the planet, was becase human activities emitted much less at that time and more recycling took place through natural areas like the Amazon.

Report as unsuitable 38. Am-Bodach / 11:55am 10 Dec 2006 "AT LAST, evidence that global warming is a load of hot air. Cow flatulence has attracted the attention of ministers after emerging as an environmental menace to rival factory chimneys, Chelsea tractors and cheap air travel."

Methane released by Britain's cattle exerts an effect on climate change that is three times greater than that caused by aviation. Moreover, methane also damages the ozone layer, and will contribute to increased incidence of melanoma at northern latitudes.

Reductions in carbon dioxide emissions will take centuries to translate into reduced global temperatures because this gas has an extremely long atmospheric life of over 150 years. In contrast methane persists in the atmosphere for a much shorter period. Hence attempts to reduce methane emissions are an attractive means mitigating climate change. A small (5%) reduction in our cattle population would mitigate climate change more effectively than every wind turbine currently operational in the UK, and would not require multi-billion pound subsidies.

Report as unsuitable 39. GrahamH / 12:01pm 10 Dec 2006 Let's not look for Labour taking this as seriously as they should as no obvious way to stealth tax the motorist from it.

Report as unsuitable 40. Stuart MacWatt, Wight / 12:03pm 10 Dec 2006 While the annual weight of phart, (organic bovine methene emmissions) released into the atmosphere by Common Agricultural Policy cows, DEFRA and Brussels eurocrats may be a justifiable cause for alarm, its contribution to the sum total of climate warming agents should be carefully weighed against the ongoing reduction campaign on the African continent. The elephant, rhino and hippo are notoriously flatulent but hunters working on behalf of the Chinese pharmeceutical industry and the endangered ivory trade are doing a fine job in eliminating such emmissions. Phart can of course be harnessed to good use. In a recent study by British Gas who are looking to possible alternative supplies to North Sea gas, it was shown that bottled phart from DEFRA alone was adequate to heat that organisation's expensive London headquarters throughout the year. I understand that Lortd Bath is looking into harnessing his elephant herd to provide elephart energy to heat and light Longleat.

Report as unsuitable 41. Xhile, West Mids / 12:10pm 10 Dec 2006 It must have been a hell of a shock to all the tree huggers when German scientists revealed that trees and grass are producing up to 30% of the worlds annual methane output. The global warming 'experts' didn't even know that trees produce methane! Yet how many people are aware of this? Two possibilities spring to mind. We could chop down all our trees and stop subsidising new forests. Also of course we could invest in lots and lots more cows to eat all that pesky grass which is producing naughty gases. Never believe everything that greeny scientists say, it's their careers which are at stake if all the Greenhouse Gasses theories blow up in their faces!

Report as unsuitable 42. Evan Owen, Snowdonia / 12:12pm 10 Dec 2006 The Earth isn't flat?

What did the dinosaurs emit from their orifices? Did they wipe themselves out by heating up the atmosphere with CO2 and Methane?

Just wait until all these self-opinionated 'experts' are heading towards the poles because they think that's the only place that will be habitable and then make sure they can't return when the temperature reaches minus 200 degrees at the poles, that's what I would call rough justice.

Report as unsuitable 43. de-fi, North UK / 12:14pm 10 Dec 2006 Global warming is a natural event, not the fault of mankind, though, as every living thing, we do contribute to it. There are literally billions of humans on the planet, so many of us in fact that our existance as a species is presenting a threat to other species!

What we are actually witnessing is the continuation of the end of the last Ice Age, the melt of which began over 10,000 years ago. Naturally, as the ice melts seas will rise, altering our coastline dramatically. The best place to be to avoid much of this is in the highlands of Scotland!

I agree that we humans should try not to contribute to global warming with our polluting behaviour, but in the long term there is nothing we can do about it. What I find despicable is the way politicians want to use this as an excuse for raising taxes!

Once the earth has gone through this warming climate change the reverse will occur and within 20,000 years we will be firmly in the grip of another ice age and Britain will disappear under ice, glaciers and tundra for thousands of years. So make the most of this while you can! Personally, I welcome the warming climate for Britain!

Report as unsuitable 44. MOI, WET and WINDY Scotland / 12:15pm 10 Dec 2006 Can we no keep the coo's in an airtight shed and catch all this methane then use it to heat water turn a turbine and create electricity Lectric Farms just a wee bit more green than Wind Farms even though the are wind farms in a way he he

Report as unsuitable 45. Nisbet / 12:20pm 10 Dec 2006 Are farmers allowed to smoke in cowsheds? Seems to me there's a disaster just waiting to happen.

Report as unsuitable 46. robbie the lydder, lydd / 12:21pm 10 Dec 2006 Trees and grass are part of a natural recycling mechanism - so are just moving around carbon that is in the system anyway - ie not adding to the amount in the cycle.

It is the added value that human activities bring to this, by releasing Carbon from natural sinks, like peat and oil deposits, that add to GHG's. Does that help xhile ?

Report as unsuitable 47. Brian1, Dingwall / 12:26pm 10 Dec 2006 Every Scot should support Global Warming!

Just think, a rise in the sea level to cut us off from England, the creation of lots of tropical islands, palm trees and warm winters.

Think of the greenhouse gases saved by all the Scots not making an annual exodus to the Med.

In fact I think I'll nip outside right now and burn something....

:)

Report as unsuitable 48. Mally / 12:29pm 10 Dec 2006 Thanks to Niall (23) for some reality. If we could stop being selfish we could reduce this CO2 source by eating less meat and dairy products. If we don’t want to cut them out altogether we can easily have fewer meat meals and smaller portions. Or maybe we prefer our heart attacks.

Report as unsuitable 49. Euan, Edinburgh / 12:32pm 10 Dec 2006 Has anyone thought just how they measure the percentage of Methane coming out of a cow?, does some poor soul hold a 'fartometer' over the cow's arse and wait for it to pass wind?

This is getting just a bit silly now, I mean they may as well start taxing us for every single fart we're going to pop out..In which case I better start saving right now!

As well as us mere Humans, Heinz must be very worried at this report, it looks like we it's Baked Beans are going to be the victim of 'Gas Tax' next.

I tell thee..

Report as unsuitable 50. Timothy Charles Wingate, Ottawa, Canada / 12:35pm 10 Dec 2006 As for the "cow flatulence", doesn't most of it come from parliaments north and south of the border and not from those innocent, cud-chewing bovines?

Also, there seems to be a lot of hot air and general smelliness from some of the more illiterate and ill-bred of the commentators in this forum.

Report as unsuitable 51. Euan, Edinburgh / 12:35pm 10 Dec 2006 Guga (no.11) LOL!!

Report as unsuitable 52. Sambo, The deep south / 12:43pm 10 Dec 2006 Has any measurements been taken from Holyrood?

Report as unsuitable 53. Guga, Rockall / 12:45pm 10 Dec 2006 #48 We could always eat the greenies and tree huggers instead of meat. That way we would need less cows, and we would get rid of a lot of hot air too. Though I think I'd rather risk the heart attack, as you never know where these greenies have been.

Report as unsuitable 54. Sambo, The deep south / 12:47pm 10 Dec 2006 Maybe someone could invent an inflateable device that would fit on a cows arse. just think we could lessen our dependancy on petrol.

Report as unsuitable 55. Repton, edinburgh / 12:52pm 10 Dec 2006 I`m sick of all this talk.It all is just a smokescreen to raise taxes.

Report as unsuitable 56. Slioch / 12:53pm 10 Dec 2006 I wonder why Scotland on Sunday uses their Westminster Editor, Brian Brady, to write an article concerning a rural environmental issue. Particularly when Brady has previously demonstrated his lack of understanding of climate change in an article (5th November) in which he referred to “ozone-depleting CO2”. And why does SoS employ the deliberately misleading headline, “global warming is guff”, whose meaning is the opposite of the following story. (Yes I know there are different meanings to the word guff, but really ….) No wonder the article has precipitated more than the normal share of puerile nonsense from the climatologically challenged.

As far as cows are concerned, it is my understanding (but without data to hand to back it up) that the more cattle are reared to organic standards, ie living outside, feeding on pastures that are organically fertilised (rather than inside feeding on soya based feed), then the less methane they produce.

I see that John M from Melbourne (#6) is back still maintaining that “The reality of the situation, as evidenced by the data, is that man-made (or cow-made) emissions of GHGs have no discernible impact on temperature.”

What data is that John? What about the data that shows that CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation, the data that shows atmospheric CO2 and temperature more or less in step for the last 800,000 years, the data that shows present levels of atmospheric CO2 to be 30% higher than at any previous time in those 800,000 years or the satellite data that shows that as CO2 levels have increased in recent decades, then less of the radiation of the wave lengths absorbed by CO2 has escaped from the Earth?

What actual data do you have that contradicts any of those findings?

I asked you a question some time back, John, that has relevance to the above, namely “You agree that GHGs are largely responsible for warming this planet from about -20C to its current liveable temperatures. Do you agree that CO2 is one of those gasses?” (and in the current context methane as well?) Well, do you?

Report as unsuitable 57. Tom MacFarlane / 12:55pm 10 Dec 2006 #Guga11 Sorry, this does not work. I watched an "experiment" whilst on National Service 50+ years ago in which a lighter was applied to a mate's, er, 'rear orifice' while he, er, emitted some methane. It blew the lighter out!

P.S. Methane hangs around in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than CO2, so NuLabour is "farking" up the wrong tree here.

Report as unsuitable 58. nottoobrite, Germany / 12:57pm 10 Dec 2006 The Italian farmer runs his heating, tractor, car, sells 1000,s of euros a year to his friends and screws the government by not paying taxes, Fiat ( the Italian farmers friend ) makes the Multipla car with a special model that runs on methane, If in Italy and you run you car on methane a mid size car would cost you about 0.002 cents (Euro) a Km buying from the farmer, if you buy from a methane distributor?/petrol station,(10,000 in Italy) you pay the tax, but still about 1/4 the cost of petrol and its the best fuel for the atmosphere, no residue.

Report as unsuitable 59. Comment Removed This comment has been removed by a moderator. 60. Bobby Blue, Maghull UK X NZ / 1:06pm 10 Dec 2006 Why nobody seems to mention all the Volcano's dotted round the Earth giving out their gases 24 hours aday, puzzles me? But then I'm not a Politician spewing out a lot of Hot Air 24 hours aday

Report as unsuitable 61. Let's have the truth / 1:17pm 10 Dec 2006 # 60


.............. Yes you are right. They should be plugged right away.

Report as unsuitable 62. Euan, Edinburgh / 1:22pm 10 Dec 2006 Bobby(60)

I had the same thoughts as well, volcanoes pump out TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TONS of so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every day.

In the very distant past there were many more volcanoes erupting all over the Earth and now, thousands of years later, things still appear be ok atmosphere-wise.

I'm all for reducing pollution of all types, but I really feel the 'Global Warming' situation is nowhere as bad as we are led to believe.

Pie and beans for my lunch today folks, and, as a mark of respect for this silly, gaseous story, I'm going to keep my windows closed this afternoon.

Report as unsuitable 63. jennifer / 1:24pm 10 Dec 2006 what a lot of Farty Farties! Cows and Grass are, {compared to this lot] farty, small time ruminators.

Report as unsuitable 64. weeshooie, Livingston / 1:41pm 10 Dec 2006 They just make it all up anyway, and there is not a damned thing we can do about it. Gordon is simply trying to boost his coffers with our money to fill the big hole he has crated. two point: the tax on fuel went up 1.25 pence and our local BP station has increased their price 2.75 pence. if the financial hole gets big enough, Gordon will simply raid the lottery fund to plug it. (using our money we paid tax on when earned then a further 12.% when we bought the ticket) eventually the apathetic majorities who sit back and get kicked in the pocket every time Gordon Brown opens is yap, will get sick of it, just as we are starting to get sick of revenue raising councils who fine you for the wrong paper in the wrong bin. forget the fact that the bin men, (oops sorry, environmental engineers) (my ass) drop half you bin contents all over the road and walk away and leave it. when are you all going to stand up and say enough is enough????

Report as unsuitable 65. Echelon_10, In Billy's little head... / 1:45pm 10 Dec 2006 It’s alarming to me that ministers are only now picking this issue up when it’s been in the public domain for ‘donkeys’ years (they are far less polluting btw). Good to know they are on the ball…not!

Bobby 60. I think you’ll find the reason politicians and environmentalist’s don’t raise the issue of volcanic pollution is they are just slightly harder to impose taxes and emission controls on? Coming from NZ you surely realise that or did your flight into London give you some ideas after seeing the Millennium Dome.

BREAKING NEWS: They brought us the bungee and inflatable balls to hurtle yourself down mountains in and now those wacky Kiwi innovators have come up with a solution to volcanic emissions. During a recent trip from New Zealand to London Mr. Bobby Blue spent the entire flight worrying about the harmful greenhouse gases being emitted by volcanoes around the world including his native New Zealand. “I got to thinking if only there was some way we could control the emissions, I couldn’t stop thinking about the problem for the whole flight” said Mr. Blue in his joint press conference with London Mayor Ken Livingston. “It was on the approach to Heathrow over London that I seen the Millennium Dome and suddenly it dawned on me… I found a use for the Dome and one that can help the environment and harness natural energy…it’s a win win!” Mr Livingston added “This is a great opportunity for London and the UK to lead the way in volcanic emission control. I am proud and excited at the thought of seeing our Dome atop Ruapehu and contributing to the UK’s effort to save the world. Inspired by this project we now plan to introduce a new green tax targeted at road users to contribute to the efforts to fight volcanic emissions at source. The new Volcanic Emission Offset tax or VEOT will target the most polluting and heavy use road users, specifically those with more than 3 wheels or powered by combustion engines or vehicles used solely for personal, business or commercial use. Tracked vehicles will be exempt but anything with round wheels will be liable to the new VEOT. Up Castro!” Said the Mayor.

Report as unsuitable 66. Niall Leighton, Perth / 1:57pm 10 Dec 2006 Ignoring the gratuitous insult from "nottoobright" (59), it's clear s/he is not aware that the vast majority of the world's soya production goes to feed livestock.

Equally, several other people posting here are not aware of the point that in fact the vast majority of climate scientists accept the existence of anthropogenic global climate change, arguing only about its severity and the imminence of climate-change related events. I'd provide some links, but I'm not allowed to here.

The problem lies with certain sections of the media who desire to show conflict where there isn't any (in order to sell newspapers) and with some politicians who have been bought off by vested interests.

I'm routinely shocked to observe the level of discussion that takes place on the comments section of this site, and this discussion is no different.

Report as unsuitable 67. Gervas, Auragne, France / 2:16pm 10 Dec 2006 I was once informed by a young lady who had a key job at an institute of energy studies, that animal flatulence is indeed a serious contributor to greenhouse gases. She said that they are taking the problem so seriously in New Zealand that they are marking a serious attempt to breed sheep that fart less. I assume that the motivation was environmental rather than to do with the relationship between farmer and sheep.

How long before the Scottish Executive commissions a study on the effect of the consumption of different varieties of beer on methane production?

Report as unsuitable 68. Neil, 9% Growth Party / 2:19pm 10 Dec 2006 Termite farts are an even worse threat to the planet's survival than cows - termites are smaller than cows but there are a LOT more. The government must set up a farting termite task force.

What I find interesting about this fairly old "new" discovery is that the newspaper is reporting it with a sceptical headline. Heretofore the Scotsman group have genuflected towards the warming "consensus" at all times.

Report as unsuitable 69. George Mc, Ayrshire / 2:22pm 10 Dec 2006 Lads, can you not see whats coming next. Its really anti Asian. They will want the Ruby Murry shops closed on a Saturday night in order that the world can survive for the rest of the next week. Another Chicken Bhuna Please

Report as unsuitable 70. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 2:26pm 10 Dec 2006 No 66 "the vast majority of climate scientists" - not really true I'm afraid. Those who disagree are systematically ignored.

As for providing links - why not ? Lots of others do.

Equally. there are many, many academic geologists and geographers with a really good working knowledge of the bigger picture than most so-called climate scientists. Guess what ? They have trouble getting information published too.

Most climate scientsts are nearly all fixated on the last 200 years or so. Given it's a way of getting funding it's not too surprising.

Meanwhile : 1. we're wasting money on windmills which are producing far less electricity than originally claimed; which use gearbox oils which contain pcps; need more energy to make than they'll actually produce; interfere with planes due to the microwave transmissions needed to switch them on and off; create noise pollution and appear to be killing off birds

2. Billions of termites are creating methane. We can't feed them fish oil.............................

Report as unsuitable 71. kiereann, Manchester / 2:29pm 10 Dec 2006 Whilst living on rented property at a farm outside Aberdeen some years ago I recall hearing the farmer complain that it was the actions of the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food (or in his words, "the fekkin government" who instructed him what to plant, what to spread on his fields and what to feed his livestock.

Meethinks the buck stops there.

Report as unsuitable 72. Chairman Gordon, The People's Republic of Stirling / 2:47pm 10 Dec 2006 #66- "Vast majority" must be the most over-used term in the English language these days, since every new bunch of control freaks trying to dictate what the rest of us can and cannot do with our own lives claims to be part of a "vast majority". It's no more true of climate change believers than it is for anything else.

Report as unsuitable 73. elijah blue, USA / 2:52pm 10 Dec 2006 What a bunch of crap! Sound more like a source of fuel to me.

Report as unsuitable 74. Methusthala, somewhere in Canada / 2:53pm 10 Dec 2006 Followed by all politicans, researchers, prognasticators and beans.....

Report as unsuitable 75. johnnie eejit / 3:06pm 10 Dec 2006 Actually #12 Susunn is the Gaelic name for England and aperson from England is then a sasunnach .

Report as unsuitable 76. Calum Crubag, taigh na croiche / 3:08pm 10 Dec 2006 AS cows are bread to be eaten, does that mean that vegetarianism is the green option?

More veggies = less cows = less gas. Seems logical.

Report as unsuitable 77. Aasa, Toronto / 3:12pm 10 Dec 2006 I think scientists ought to worry more about the thawing permafrost in western Siberia, where billions of tonnes of previously frozen methane gas has the potential to be released if global warming continues. This area covers one million square kilometers and is about the size of France and Germany put together. http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,154...

Report as unsuitable 78. Calum Crubag, taigh na croiche / 3:13pm 10 Dec 2006 Sasann means England, therefore Sasannach means English(man). It has been used in humour mostly to mean Lowlander, but Gall is usually better there. Though Lowlanders too have a Gaelic heritage the seperation of 'Gaidheal' and 'Gall' to mean 'Highlander' and 'Lowlander' is relatively recent. Gaelic was spoken in 'Lowland' areas within living memory such as Aberdeenshire, Stirlingshire and Loch Lomondside on the edge of Glasgow. A little further back, Gaelic was just dying out in Ayrshire/Carrick around the time of the birth of Burns.

Co-dhiu... go veggie and scrap SUVs to save oor planet. ;>

Report as unsuitable 79. Neil, 9% Growth Party / 3:20pm 10 Dec 2006 Calum 76 says "More veggies = less cows = less gas"

My experience has been that more veggies = more gas.

I suppose the banning of brussel sprouts & turnips could popularise the fight against catastrophic warming.

Report as unsuitable 80. 2dogs in D.C., frostbite falls / 3:21pm 10 Dec 2006 EVAN OWEN#42-dam,ya beat me to it w/the dinosaurs.However, does no one see the potential money to be made by developing cow catalytic converters? A little research, a little marketing, boom-your rich.

Report as unsuitable 81. Niall Leighton, Perth / 3:28pm 10 Dec 2006 I can provide some links?

OK, here goes. Let's start with the Oreskes paper cited above. Here is a copy of the paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Now, Oreskes admitted a flaw in that the search parameters used to conduct her research were not those stated in the paper. This was corrected by Science magazine.

Dr Peiser at John Moore University in Liverpool replicated the study using the stated search terms and asserted that of 1117 abstracts only 1% explicitly accepted anthropgenic climate change and that 3% explicitly rejected it.

This is actually a little misleading. Read the "letter Science refused to publish" here: http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

Of those papers where abstracts included the search terms "global climate change", the majority in fact did not deal with the question of anthropogenic climate change, but dealt with other matters including methods, paleoclimate analysis, natural factors of global climate change, unrelated to the question of recent global climate change, coming to a total, if I've got my sums right, of 668 abstracts, or just under 60% of the total.

A further 322 abstracts (29%) implicitly accept the consensus viewpoint, plus another 89 abstracts (just under 10%) deal with mitigation.

Let us then remove the abstracts not dealing with the question: is anthropogenic climate change real? This leaves us with 449 abstracts. Of these, 337 (sure enough, 75%) explictly or implicitly accept anthropogenic climate change. Less than 8% reject it, and the remainder deal with mitigation (implying that they accept that there is a problem to be dealt with!)

Let us now turn to the remaining 8%. Scroll down the page dealing with Peiser's unpublished letter, and you will find some of the abstracts that reject Oreskes' position. It turns out not that they explicitly reject anthropogenic climate change, but that some, at least simply take the view that there are no suitable measuring tools to ascertain whether or not wnthropogenic climate change is taking place.

Following the debate. Dr Oreskes published a note responding to requests to comment, and pointed out that the point of her essay was that scientific societies have already expressed the views of their membership, not to express the consensus itself. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/cli...

So, who would you rather believe? The IPCC, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences (just to name the American ones) or George Bush and the oil industry? Happy now?

Report as unsuitable 82. Niall Leighton, Perth / 3:42pm 10 Dec 2006 Hmm

I was about to tackle a few links on some of the other subjects raised here, but it looks to me that most comments have taken the form of ridicule rather than a serious attempt to discuss the matter of anthropogenic climate change.

Suffice to say, termites were around long before humans came along to destroy rainforests to plant soya to feed cattle or create ranges to graze them. But then, given how long termites have been around, I'm sure they will deal much better with global catastrophe than we will.

Report as unsuitable 83. Cynical or what!!, In the rain / 3:47pm 10 Dec 2006 Is this fad going to move on now??

What ever happened to the disaster looming from acid rain? Perhaps it just got hotter or was that colder??

Report as unsuitable 84. Rennie, Upstate NY / 3:57pm 10 Dec 2006 Don't have a cow man! I remember way back when Pres. Reagan stated that cows were a major source of "greenhouse gases" and every one just made fun of him. Has anyone looked at how they will solve this problem, other than decimating cow herds? And what about people who eat all those beans? The last I knew volcanos still had more influence over climate than all man made effects put together, and the irregularities of a bigger factor, the SUN. Melting ice on Mars, more active storm activity on Venus and Jupiter, larger crystal growth out in space is the effect of more solar radiation. There's even a theory now that an intense solar flare once blew the outer layers off the planet Mercury and that created the astroid belt. No one can "save" us from those effects, we just need to adapt to changes in our climate or perish, I believe they call it "Darwinism"?

Report as unsuitable 85. Niall Leighton, Perth / 4:12pm 10 Dec 2006 Cynical (83), yeah they put sulphur scrubbers on coal-fired power stations (or closed them down).

Rennie (84) - yep, we have to move down the food chain. I already said that.

Report as unsuitable 86. Jackie, Fife / 4:21pm 10 Dec 2006 Am not usually one for conspiracy theories but................ I think this article is just the first step in a new approach of the government. I would not be surprised if a reknowned body of healthy eating experts suddenly started telling us that we will be free from cancer, heart problems, sore backs, flu and a miriad of other diseases if we all start eating, more, beans, eggs and veggies,(BEV) all of which must be well spiced and washed down with buckets of gassy liquids. There will of course be an ongoing campaign across all media.

We will then be told this has been a great success, and that in order to monitor this new health initiative, we will all be fitted with personal gasometers. The results of which will be electronically gathered by the government so as to better regulate the correct amount of BEV each individual should eat to maintain this new found health.

The government will be sure to tell us how happy we are at this new found health. Also, as it is for our own good, we will need to pay for the cost of fitting and collecting this data. After all they are doing this out of a deep concern for our wellbeing.

Oh and we will not be taxed to fund this scheme. It will be a voluntary contribution stopped from our wages, pensions etc at source.

Report as unsuitable 87. Easy(G), Gt Crosby / 4:33pm 10 Dec 2006 Does it realy matter as very soon we will be living on the moon with a goldeish bowl on our heads.

Report as unsuitable 88. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 4:43pm 10 Dec 2006 No 81.

As I said, if you go against the consensus you have real trouble having your material published. Trust me on this, I have found out the hard way. I've been banging away for nearly 40 years on the issue of the 4 Great Ice Ages, in particular the Cryogenic Period plus the fact that we are still in the Fourth Great Ice Age. Agassiz fell out of favour because his findings were not able to be substantiated by his peers and the evidence of the time. Ultimately, he will be rehabilitated to some extent.

I have also spent a lot of time on the 10,000 years BP with its phases which include the sudden downward crash of The Little Ice Age. Much of the last 200 years is almost definitely part of the natural rebound from that.

There is a wealth of evidence, including ice cores which show that anthropogenic climate change may be happening BUT it is nowhere nearly enough to explain all of the variations which are happening. The Medieval Warm period is finally beginning to be accepted as reality but the climate scientists are a long way from accepting that the whole world was probably affected: they are trying to maintain it was merely a local blip. There is ice core data from Antarctica which is absolutely compelling but too many of these so-called climate scientsts have painted themselves into a corner on this.........

The world's climate has been changing enormously since Day One. The fossil and stratigraphic record shows this clearly and unequivocally.

Report as unsuitable 89. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 4:46pm 10 Dec 2006 For what it's worth, I am about to update my blog over the next few days and focus on the Cryogenic Period whichi s perhaps the one of the most truly amazing (and murderous - as far as the Ice Ages are concerned) periods in the Earth's history.

Report as unsuitable 90. Neil, 9% Growth Party / 4:49pm 10 Dec 2006 Naill 81, 82 said "Suffice to say, termites were around long before humans came along" Precisely. Termites are a greater "threat" than cowsor industry & yet have, over millions of years, failed to be a threat at all. If I treat the catastrophic warming with ridicule it is partly because I have tried to treat it seriously before & partly because it is ridiculous.

What Oreskes said was that she had done a search of papers & found unanimous support for the CGW position. Even though she tries to change her ground that has been proven completely untrue. The fact that Dr Peisser was unable to get his letter published goes against all the principles of science - it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with him as you do but not to suppress facts.

So to answer your last question - Yes I would tend to believe an argument even with Bush & the oil companies on board (though you must know they are both more equivocal) than one we know to require dishonesty & censorship.

Report as unsuitable 91. Beverly, Arcadia / 5:09pm 10 Dec 2006 In the 1970s, they were going on and on about the coming Ice Age. Hair-raising magazine cover stories were produced, and so on.

What happened? Seriously, now they're saying the climate has been warming since the Industrial Age began.

Report as unsuitable 92. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 5:10pm 10 Dec 2006 No 90 ;

Exactly. If in doubt, remember Copernicus !!!

Report as unsuitable 93. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 5:14pm 10 Dec 2006 91 : Forget the nonsense of the 'coming' Ice Age. We are, in all probability, still well in the grip of the Fourth. This is an interglacial with at least 25 - 30 thousand years before the ice returns.

The warming since the start of the Industrial Age is largely the natural rebound from the Little Ice Age (approx 1300 - 1800 AD) which was a sudden a vicious little dip in global temperatures.

Report as unsuitable 94. Robbie / 5:15pm 10 Dec 2006 “Cow flatulence has attracted the attention of ministers after emerging as an environmental menace to rival factory chimneys…” This is pretty old news to New Zealanders, whose government last year tried to bring in a ‘Fart Tax’ ie., charge every farmer for the amount of ‘polluting’ cows they had. It was cancelled after large demonstrations by farmers and the opposition where tractors were driven up the steps of the ‘Beehive’ (NZ Parliament building).

Report as unsuitable 95. Niall Leighton, Perth / 5:26pm 10 Dec 2006 MS - And a blog is somehow supposed to constitute serious evidence????

Yes, if there is censorship in the scientific community (not exactly news, either!), that has to be investigated and dealt with. Yes, Oreskes made a mistake, but as I've pointed out, that doesn't invalidate her point.

Report as unsuitable 96. RHfactor, What a load... / 5:28pm 10 Dec 2006 For all ye rectal - cranial types.

Trees cause smog.

Cancer isn't harmfull and cigette smoking is good.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Sorry, un-insert your heads!

You can't put 383 ppm's of cabon in the air without the effect of warming. I'ts nature's law kind of like gravity.

So go on believing in the flat earth. Your 15th century histornics backward thinking shows up with your dribble.

Too bad we are on the same planet. Talk to your skiing friends you complete morons.

Looking forward to the increase in severe thunderstrom and tornadic activity in mid winter.

Pure methane flatuence through your mouth.

Report as unsuitable 97. Moab, Utah / 5:31pm 10 Dec 2006 97% of ALL polution/methane gas comes from the oceans; the decaying of plants/animals, and also volcanoes over the millions of years. The other measly 3% comes from automobile emissions and factories.

Damn, I wonder what PETA's argument against "cow pollution" is...

Report as unsuitable 98. Branda, Arizona / 5:32pm 10 Dec 2006 "...ministers have not ruled out action to *force* farmers to change their cows' diet."

I s'pose this could mean that y'all will be required to beef up your vegetarian menus or expect to bring home less bacon.

A *Toot Trapper* (flatus filter), FDA registered, might be the answer to this toxic dilemma. If for humans, why not for buttercup too? I suggest you email or phone your ministers with this innovative solution. www.flat-d.com

This is no hot air a blowin' from our esteemed scientific community. This is very serious academic stuff. Apparently the "study of flatulence dates back to 1816." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/132657.stm

Branda

Report as unsuitable 99. Neil, 9% Growth Party / 5:53pm 10 Dec 2006 Rhfactor 96 mankind has not put 383 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere - most of it was there when we got here. The recent increase is a bit over 100 - thats parts per MILLION. which, despite your charming & erudite comments, is why so many of us are dubious about that being enough to cause global catastrophe.

Report as unsuitable 100. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 5:53pm 10 Dec 2006 Niall,

It may just occur to you - in the fullness of time (say several decades or so, given your comments) - that your own point about censorship in the academic community actually reinforces mine !

At this point in time, blogs are often the only way of bringing evidence out into the daylight and stimulating debate. You may not agree with me or mine, but I will defend - I hope to the bitter end - anyone's right to have their evidence and research debated in public whether it agrees with me or not.

As for RHfactor, I see no evidence of any form of intelligent comment from you. Your comments border on the puerile and contribute absolutely nothing. Why not do some reading and then come back and try again ?

Report as unsuitable 101. Neil, 9% Growth Party / 5:54pm 10 Dec 2006 OK so tagging is silly - I'm sorry.

Report as unsuitable 102. Neil, 9% Growth Party / 5:58pm 10 Dec 2006 & is even sillier when you miss.

Report as unsuitable 103. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 6:16pm 10 Dec 2006 For your information RHfactor,

If the world did not have CO2 in its atmosphere, the world would not be warm enough to support carbon-based life-forms such as us.

The collapse of CO2 led into the Snowball Earth Glaciation aka 'Snowball Earth'. No-one has yet come up with any satisfactory explanation for that.

Also, there are massive depositis of methane crystallate on the ocean floors. If ever they release then we may really have to worry.

Report as unsuitable 104. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 6:20pm 10 Dec 2006 As for storms, the REAL scientists are looking at things like the dust from the Sahara sweeping across the Atlantic. In times when the dust flow is high - no, or few, hurricanes. When the dust flow stops, then we have the 'families' of storms which affect the USA and - via the families they spawn - the storms that sweep our way. Now, THAT'S real research.

Report as unsuitable 105. Harry Carnie, British Columbia, Canada / 6:31pm 10 Dec 2006 Gee ..what a lot of silly, yap..yap from most comments(except for some like#96)
1) hundreds of thousand of buffalo once roamed the North American continent(to say nothing of the vast numbers of other animals in Africa)..they no doubt produced as much methane as the number of "coos" we have today.
2) Global warming began AFTER the last ice age otherwise we would still be..up to our asses in snow and ice. Mankind IS GREATLY ACCELERATING this natural process, This is a concern, as animals are NOT given the time to adapt to their warming environment(and probably us as well)

3) The most pressing concern is TOXIC manmade material. chemicals, plastic, ect in the environment. While Global warming IS a concern..toxic polution is the MOST IMMEDIATE(Canada is addressing this(T.P.) I am proud to say)

Report as unsuitable 106. Bruce, New Zealand / 6:45pm 10 Dec 2006 Our polititions had the same view a year or two ago , and introduced a Fart Tax on farmers for methane that their cows produced. This act caused such mirth here and arownd the world , that the Govenment backed down and abandoned the proposal. I am amazed that your leaders have stupidity that is the equal of ours, and they are world leaders in stupidity. Bruce

Report as unsuitable 107. Robbie, NZ / 7:01pm 10 Dec 2006 Hi Bruce 106. Did you glance at my post '94. Robbie' Isn't it great our MPs are so ahead of their MPs? Shows that they get as little news about NZ as we do about Scotland. Although the BBC World Service does give us important information about other places for example the continuing independence debate in Nagorno-Karabachos (this morning 11-12-2006).

Report as unsuitable 108. John from Aberdeen, Hastings, East Sussex / 7:25pm 10 Dec 2006 NOooooo, its Indian restaurants that are the problem. I had a Jalfreizi last night and the damned duvet floated down the stairs in the night. Even my cat fainted when I let him in!!!!

Report as unsuitable 109. Branda, Arizona / 7:30pm 10 Dec 2006 106. "Our polititions...introduced a Fart Tax on farmers for methane that their cows produced."

Well don't that just give a whole new meaning to *flat* tax. Tough enough keepin' a straight face around elected officials already.

Branda

Report as unsuitable 110. Bill Costley (jr), Santa Clara CA usa / 7:31pm 10 Dec 2006 Solution: stuff a nice, tight rubber methane-collector up a cow's anus to create a rich, ripe 2ndary gas-market. Meanwhile: diligently investigate methane-gas hydrates http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

Report as unsuitable 111. Mike J, US / 7:40pm 10 Dec 2006 #7 (scottwebb.co.uk ) BRILLIANT!!

My question is, why don't more people see this for what it is? Are the British and Scottish so enamored of government control that they've come to the point of happily giving up their freedoms? We've gone from Braveheart's "Freeedommmmm" to "Let the government do it." And I'm not just hammering on you guys. We let the government do it to us over here in the States, too. Who knows where it will all end...Marxism reborn?

Report as unsuitable 112. Don Robertson, Limestone, Maine / 7:53pm 10 Dec 2006 As I've aged, I lost ground in my own battle with flatuence. My wife has offered to put me down several times on this accord.

Now I'm being made to feel guilty for what I am doing as a measure of my effect on the environment by my greenhouse emissions?

This must be a sign of Paul Ehrlich's population bomb going off in my face.

Don Robertson, The American Philosopher Limestone, Maine An Illustrated Philosophy Primer for Young Readers http://www.geocities.com/donaldwrobertson/index.html

Report as unsuitable 113. soundsred, Vancouver / 8:19pm 10 Dec 2006 Some people make me laugh. Any fool can see how many millions are spent by the various Dairy Boards and Beef Councils to encourage consumption of their products.

I have never read a single article about the health benefits of eating cows. Many about eating veggies/fruit of course. Can you not see that an apple growing from a tree is meant to be eaten? Let animals alone. Sure, if a pack of wolves take down a cow/deer/whatever then it was meant to be. We have a choice. Growing 10's of thousands of animals in scummy conditions just so that we can have the convenience of a burger whenever we choose (which will lead to heart disease anyway) is insane! Unless you own a processing plant etc. in which case you just keep selling the rest of us a bill of goods.

And we buy it.

Report as unsuitable 114. dubhbart, North Carolina / 8:26pm 10 Dec 2006 I think a team of scientists should be dispatched to test my mother-in-law for high methane readings. She is an in-door creature and thinks nothing of expelling methane while talking with you. It's ghastly.

One of her last explosions caused the paint to crack in her apartment; caused her pet dog to go insane. I hae mi dotts that a cow could keep up wi' her.

Report as unsuitable 115. Slioch / 8:39pm 10 Dec 2006 Well done, Niall from Perth (and one or two others) for trying to bring some rationality and evidence base into this dismal thread. I begin to think that these blogs are of more interest to social scientists who are investigating the question “How do human beings respond when confronted with evidence that they do not like and which, if intelligently acted upon, might cause some disturbance in their World view, their sense of self-worth and their material standard of living.”

The answer, from the evidence presented here, is “with denial, ridicule, stupidity, puerile comments and ignorance.”

Sorry guys, but sometimes I just feel like telling it as it is. And anyone who values evidence, data, rationality and careful thought would say the same.

It is impossible to pick up all the points that have been made. Let me just address one that does ask a rational question: Bobby Blue #60 asks “Why nobody seems to mention all the Volcano's dotted round the Earth giving out their gases 24 hours a day, puzzles me?”

OK, so let’s just consider volcanoes. The main greenhouse gases emitted by volcanoes are CO2 and sulphur dioxide (SO2). CO2 has been continuously monitored since 1958, since Charles Keeling first started on the top of Mauna Loa 14,000 feet up in in the Pacific. He didn’t go there because he (like Greta Garbo) “wanted to be alone”. He went there to get away from local emissions of CO2 eg from cars or chimneys in cities. The result, now called the Keeling Curve is a fairly smooth curve of steadily increasing CO2: smooth except that it wriggles every year, decreasing a bit every northern hemisphere summer as land plants take in CO2 (most land plants are in the NH), and decreasing in winter. (That wriggle tells you that it is sensitive to real changes). To someone who values evidence, and the huge effort required to gather it, the Keeling curve is beautiful. What it tells us about volcanoes is that they are not important in the short term – if they were churning out huge quantities of CO2 then the curve would not be smooth – it would have sudden lurches in it corresponding to a volcanic eruption. That is not what happens. Volcanoes give out some CO2, that over geological time scales is important, but over the last few decades: forget it.

As for SO2. SO2 has a very powerful effect on climate, and volcanoes are important here: but two things- first, SO2 causes COOLING and second, unlike CO2 it doesn’t stick around in the atmosphere, after a few cooler years it is rained out. So, Bobby, the reason why volcanoes are not mentioned (much) with respect to the recent global warming is because they ain't responsible. Human emissions of CO2 are, and however much you guys wriggle and squirm and deny and joke and ridicule: the Earth doesn’t give a damn, and if w

Report as unsuitable 116. Slioch / 8:41pm 10 Dec 2006 the Earth doesn’t give a damn, and if we don’t wake up soon and smell the coffee then all our pretty plans for children and progress and some sort of sustainable future will come to -well if not to nothing, then certainly to increasing difficulty and confusion.

Report as unsuitable 117. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 8:42pm 10 Dec 2006 No 105

You really don't get it. The 'last' Ice Age' as you put it hasn't finished. It will take at least 30,000 years before we can even begin to think it might have finished. It began 40 million years ago and only intensified during the last 3 million.

If anything, no realistic assessment of its end can be made for the better part of 100,000 years.

If you think No.96 is talking sense then heaven help you and others of that ilk. He - and you - are the real "flat-earthers".

As for your comments, well what can I say ?

No 133. We are as near as omnivores as it is possible to be. Our appendixes have atrophied because we can no longer digest cellulose and are therefore no longer able to be pure vegetarians. It is really difficult for our bodies to absorb protein from vegetarian sources than from animal.

As for Canada's supposed progress you are obviously reading too many comics.

Report as unsuitable 118. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 8:44pm 10 Dec 2006 Sorry, that should be 113.

If you want to read about the benefits of eating meat I suggest you start by looking at the relative ease with which we absorb protein from animal sources as opposed to vegetarian onmes.

Report as unsuitable 119. Rainbow, Australia / 8:54pm 10 Dec 2006 Why not use cow fart to drive wind turbines? That would save CO2 emissions from power stations.

Report as unsuitable 120. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 8:56pm 10 Dec 2006 Slioch 115.

As it happens, there those of us who have studied CO2 from all sources. Volcanoes haveplayed their part, both positively and negatively. Their dust has caused many cooling blips at varius times and it is measurable.

As for water in the early stages of the Earth's history, they have contributed significantly in the production of CO2. If you look athe volume of CO2 needed to warm the Earth to the levels needed for our (carbon-based) organisms to survive and the variations since, you may get a surprise by how little extra CO2 there is now.

As for evidence, there is such a wealth of real evidence about the long-term climatological variation of the Earth that it would be quite a few decades before you surfaced again if you were to read it all.

The shame is much of this evidence has been around for a long time. It seems to me that you confuse 'evidence' with the simplistic rubbish printed in papers or produced by wannabe presidents like Al Gore. There are those of us who have been working in and around these issues for the better part of half a century and are looking for REAL answers.

Report as unsuitable 121. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 9:14pm 10 Dec 2006 REPOST.

Slioch No.115

As it happens, there are those of us who have studied CO2 emitted from all sources for a long time. Volcanoes have played their part, both positively and negatively. Their dust has caused many cooling blips at various times and it is measurable.

As for water in the early stages of the Earth's history, volcanoes have contributed significantly in the production of CO2. If you look at the volume of CO2 needed to warm the Earth to the levels needed for our (carbon-based) organisms to survive and the variations since, you may get a surprise by how little extra CO2 there is now compared to the levels when sentient life emerged.

As for evidence, there is such a wealth of real evidence about the long-term climatological variation of the Earth that it would be quite a few decades before you surfaced again were you to read it all.

The shame is much of this evidence has been around for a long time. It seems to me that you confuse 'evidence' with the simplistic rubbish printed in papers or produced by wannabe presidents like Al Gore. There are those of us who have been working in and around these issues for the better part of half a century and are looking for REAL answers.

Report as unsuitable 122. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 9:34pm 10 Dec 2006 As a footnote:

Since we are mentioning volcanoes, they seem to be the logical source of heat that ended the Cryogenic Period (although there may be other possibilities).

Covered by ice from both Poles to the Equator, the virtually continuous ice covering should have reflected so much sunlight that the ice would never have melted - in theory at least.

Report as