Time to Take Action
Our Klamath Basin Water Crisis
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.

It's official: global warming is guff


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


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.


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 unsuitable 123. Harry Carnie, British Columbia,Canada / 9:38pm 10 Dec 2006 #117 M.S....ooops... an emission of methane here.!

Report as unsuitable 124. soundsred, Vancouver / 9:38pm 10 Dec 2006 MS Re:#118

You should consider who funds any study that shows animal protein to be superior for humans.

You should also consider the vast amounts of people around the world with no access to animal protein who seem to have survived and thrived. Who, coincidently, develop heart disease/cancers etc when exposed to a western diet.

Report as unsuitable 125. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 9:49pm 10 Dec 2006 I have. It is approximately 12x easier to absorb and use animal protein than from vegetable sources and there are studies to back that up.

An interesting - admittedly one-off and therefore potentially suspect example - is as follows.

I used to coach at a swimming club. Twin girls who were truly identical in every sense of the word were in my squad. At about age 11, one decided she hated the idea of eating animals in any shape or form . She went veggie - and her mother was really careful to ensure a totally balanced diet. At this point the two sisters were fairly equal in times for all strokes.

By age 14 the meat-eating one was 0.75' taller and was beating her sister in all events bar one. By 16 she was nearly 1.5" taller and was so much faster than her sister that there was no comparison.

I have tried to be a vegetarian like my mother ( who's been veggie life-long due to an allegy to animal protein) and stuck it out for quite a while. However, my muscle develop0ment and my times in athletics were much better as an omnivore than as a vegetarian.

Report as unsuitable 126. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 9:56pm 10 Dec 2006 Incidentally, the meat-eater went on to be Dux of her school.

Also, in my travels, I have been in a lot of places around the world where people have had restricted diets. Most of the predominantly veggie areas have also been areas of malnutrition.

My duaghter spent quite a while in an area of Peru where meat was a (very) occasional luxury and rice supplemented by small helpings of greens from time to time was the staple diet. Nearly all of the villagers showed varying degrees of malnutrition.

Most of the studies relating to cancer, heart disease and meat seem to suggest that a balanced diet without excesses of any element is the best overall.

Report as unsuitable 127. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 10:00pm 10 Dec 2006 No 123,

Thnanks for that.

However, I thought it occurred at no.105.

Report as unsuitable 128. Kenneth / 10:04pm 10 Dec 2006 Well the money coming from the North Sea oil was greatly overestimated so we gots to git some money from somewhere else so gas is gas and you can trade not emitting co2 credits to someone who emits too much so if that nonsense will fly then maybe a tax on cow farts based upon the revenue that could be made if a hose could be attached.... give me a minute....I know I can put this all together. A source of revenue is a source of revenue, "lightbulb" this is where the problem lies. Alright I have it. If you dont' feed your cows beans you get a reduced tax based on the comparable price of gas-methane to natural that could be siphoned off of a cows arse. If you continue feeding your cows beans then you pay the whole tax. You, however, can trade credits for cows that don't fart at all and partial credits for cows that don't fart that much but you have to pay for the fartometer and the fartometer reader. The need for fartometer readers will offset some of the surplus postal workers that will be soon losing their jobs. Next is dung. How can we tax shit?

Report as unsuitable 129. Brian1, Dingwall / 10:07pm 10 Dec 2006 124: you forgot to mention they usually die in their 40s

Report as unsuitable 130. Highlander / 10:28pm 10 Dec 2006 Global warming was the claim of the day, Yet there were no proofs of what they to say, So some manufactured and proclaimed, While yet others denied, and declaimed, The truth is yet to be unveild, And when it is, much will be detailed, When all is said and done, and the truth of the matter is spoken and done, The liars will lie, and their spinners will conspire to deceive, They will have others believe that a lie is better than the truth to receive, What better way to enslave, than to lie like a knave?

Report as unsuitable 131. Comment Removed This comment has been removed by a moderator. 132. Slioch / 10:45pm 10 Dec 2006 MS #121

Frankly MS you don't leave me with any confidence that you can absorb even the simple amount of evidence that I presented in my post 115 without your ego getting in the way. My post was concerned with warming in the last few decades, which I correctly stated could not be ascribed to volcanic action, contrary to what Bobby had implied. I also stated that CO2 from volcanoes was important over geological timescales, but that was not the issue that Bobby had addressed and that I was answering. None of what you have said in #121 is a repost to mine. As for Al Gore, I have neither read his book nor seen his film, nor have any idea what he has said. I will do so some time.

Report as unsuitable 133. soundsred, Vancouver / 10:50pm 10 Dec 2006 MS Re:#125

I am not suggesting that vegetable protein is easier to digest. As you no doubt know, there are numerous studies suggesting that humans need less protein than previously thought and that excess protein might be the cause of the osteoporosis epidemic striking the western world.

Re: your experience with the twins. The twin ingesting animal protein would have developed even faster and larger if she had taken steroids. Is that what we are promoting? Bigger, faster, better? Shouldn't better health be the goal?

Re: your travels. Malnourished people are so, because of lack of nourishment. Animal or vegetable.

One thing I got from watching Tom Cruise in "Jerry Maguire" is that the phrase "Show me the money!" is extremely important when demonstrating commitment or intent.

I once saw an expose of 'scientific' studies, which, after digging through layers of bureaucracy, turned out to be funded by the same commercial interests who would benefit most from positive results. They tried to keep hidden from public view of course, to present an air of neutrality.

I question anyone who promotes anything when they would benefit materially.

Report as unsuitable 134. Chairman Gordon, The People's Republic of Stirling / 10:51pm 10 Dec 2006 "Global Warming" is like the theory that we were all allegedly going to die of Bird 'Flu after that (misidentified) seabird was found at Cellardyke a few months ago. A few months from now, the "experts" will have moved on to their next obsession and everyone will be too embarassed to admit they ever believed a word of it!

Report as unsuitable 135. Chairman Gordon, The People's Republic of Stirling / 10:55pm 10 Dec 2006 #133- So only the people who produce scientific analysis in favour of a carnivorous diet have a vested interest? In the early '80s, the British Vegetarian Society produced "evidence" to "prove" that 30,000 people a WEEK were allegedly turning vegetarian. That was 25 years ago; according to that spurious "evidence", the number of vegetarians in Britain should outnumber the actual population total.

Report as unsuitable 136. soundsred, Vancouver / 11:31pm 10 Dec 2006 Re: #135

I'm pessimistic that anyone standing to gain from a study would release anything but positive results. Negative results are commonly 'buried'.

Re: British Vegetarians. Beware! They are everywhere!

Report as unsuitable 137. Slioch / 12:08am 11 Dec 2006 #135 Gordon

"30,000 people a WEEK were allegedly turning vegetarian. That was 25 years ago; according to that spurious "evidence", the number of vegetarians in Britain should outnumber the actual population total."

Jeez Gordon, you can't even do your sums! The population of Britain is c. 60,000,000.
30,000 a week for 25 years is 39,000,000. Still another 21,000,000 to go, and that's even counting Christmas week when most veggies surcumb to the odd nibble of turkey.

Report as unsuitable 138. portnoi, Sunny Alberta / 12:12am 11 Dec 2006 What a hoot! But you know guys if you ignite gas coming from the cows rears the cow might blow up. Hamburgers anyone? :-) I still thing the whole thing is overblown, that this is merely the earth recycling, as it has done and will continue to do through millenia. Time to stop the doom and gloom. By all means clean up your own back yard. Nature will look after cleaning up cow manure-after all farmers used manure as fertilizers on the fields.

Report as unsuitable 139. Longbranchlady, Southern Illinois / 1:13am 11 Dec 2006 Hmm, volcanoes and cows seem to knock out the grandiose notion that everytime we send a rocket into space we literally shoot holes in the ozone, but some people believe that as well.

Personally, farting cows can't possibly be as nasty as the belching fumes from oil wells and their flames. I live in an oil producing area of the US and believe me the place reeks of sulphur, diesel, and methane. Cow shit smells pretty good compared to it.

Report as unsuitable 140. Padthenomad, Sydney Australia / 1:15am 11 Dec 2006 Ah 108. John from Aberdeen, Hastings, East Sussex

you are the Rose between the thorns here today, made me laugh and feel good again after reading al the boring banter between the believers and non believers and lets face it they are all sheep of a kind anyway and the verbal D&S&^*^^(*& coming from some of thier orifaces just stirs the stink.

THanks for the laugh

Report as unsuitable 141. William L, Magalia,CA, US / 1:32am 11 Dec 2006 Harbinger (#25) opens an interesting door with the comment about Oreskes "admitting" an error in her essay. It fits with the much older human observation: "Et semel emissum verbum volat irrevocabile." (Or words to that effect, but my Gaelic is even worse than my Latin!)

Errors in such pronouncements are pounced on by the intellectual descendents of Dr. J. Goebbels: "A big lie repeated often enough becomes the truth."

But decisions are based on perception, not truth, and the "greenies", alongside Politicians, are of the nature of the statement, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts."

Report as unsuitable 142. steve green, preston / 1:52am 11 Dec 2006 re131. dear branda, what is arizona like?

Report as unsuitable 143. tom heinrich, Waterford USA / 2:13am 11 Dec 2006 That's a bunch of bull

Report as unsuitable 144. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 2:31am 11 Dec 2006 No 132

I rather suspect that you are the one who has the problem of understanding. I have studied climate change both over the earth's entire history as well as over the last 10,000 years. It is part of my job.

I am very aware that you are one of those who seem to be fixated variously on the last 200 years or so (in your case, the last couple of decades). My point is and always has been that the world's climate has been changing, in a very volatile way at times, since Day One. Also that the last few decades - which you are interested in - CAN ONLY seen within the context of the last 10,000 years

I have already pointed out on numerous occasions that the warming of the last few decades iis part of a far greater pattern - 10,000 years ago the ice melted and we entered the present interglacial period.

6.000 years agp, the world was approx 7 - 9 degrees Celsius warmer than at present - got that ? From there the Earth experienced gradual cooling but it was still warm enough to grow grapes in middle England at 1000 AD.

From 1300 - 1800 the temperatures crashed into the Little Ice Age and the temperatures fell well below today's levels. Since 1800 the trend has been one of recovery, ameliorated by the odd cooling blip from volcanoes such Mt Agung, Krakatoa etc.

The logical conclusion is that much of the recovery since then is part of a natural rebound. Anthropogenic causes may have an effect but compared to what went before the evidence is that human activity may well be much less than is currently being claimed.

Report as unsuitable 145. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 2:33am 11 Dec 2006 Obviously not my day :

I have studied climate change both over the earth's entire history as well as over the last 10,000 years for nearly 40 years.

Report as unsuitable 146. Yane, Melbourne / 2:41am 11 Dec 2006 Aren't any of you guys worried about them messing with the cattle feed? Remember when they decided to feed the cows to one another? There's warming here I tell ya – it was so hot yesterday we were worried about the dog frothing at the mouth and there are fires all over the state.

Report as unsuitable 147. D.Simpson, Nebraska, USA / 2:42am 11 Dec 2006 We in the states have been led to believe, by the press and other veggies, that most of the UK are liberal and believe that global warming is a serious threat. Thank God for the Scots! I can clearly see that isn't the case!

About the methane...Nebraska has more cows than people. Talk about methane emissions!

Report as unsuitable 148. AndyM, Columbia, SC, USA / 3:01am 11 Dec 2006 I never cease to be amazed at the level of condescension that comes from the mouths (or fingertips, as the case may be) of the global warming faithful. For anyone who has doubts about your faith, you have nothing but insults, "flat-earther" being among the more gentle.

I can just see you all, bug-eyed and red faced, bony finger of indignation outstretched, screaming "Heretic! Blasphemer! Has not the Word been proclaimed that Global Warming is Truth and that man's sin is at its root?!"

Report as unsuitable 149. Robbie / 3:50am 11 Dec 2006 The many threats to humanity (global warming - bird-‘flu - Ebola - aids - obesity etc., etc.) may all be correct but all are anthropocentric threats, worrying about mankind and what’s going to happen to homo sapiens. Well as far a Old Mother Earth is perhaps the planet would be better off without some of us, considering that there’s more than enough of us, over six billion (and remember it was just over 100 years ago that we reached our first billion) what’s next - 12 billion 36 billion until humanity uses up every atom on the planet? They’ll be no spare molecules of life for mountain gorillas, humming birds, chipmunks or any other life form - they’ll just be concrete jungles (sited on clear-felled forest land) and billions and billions of whinging humans. Some of us definitely take ourselves too seriously or too important; more important than all other life forms, and yet if we stand back and see idiots’ killing over religion (or just hating as in Scotland and Ireland) maybe it’s the mountain gorillas, humming birds, chipmunks who deserved to inherit the planet. Of course they won’t as they have not evolved (or been created) sufficiently enough to make weapons or practice destructive ideologies. Sorry if this sounds gloomy but it’s a reaction to the serious yet selfish predictions of what’s going to happen to civilisation and the planet, coupled with the absolute trivial nonsense that gets more puerile daily and passes as entertainment or even news. The average ‘Joe Bloggs’ is told that their actions are harming the planet but most of us didn’t ask for the tons of plastic and waste we get as packaging and feel powerless to stop multi-nationals and governments desecrating the environment. Most want to ‘help’ the planet but it’s only the ‘big boys’ who can actually do anything about it.

Report as unsuitable 150. R Mac, Aberdeen, WA USA / 3:52am 11 Dec 2006 Simple solution...... Give each cow (1) "Beano" tablet with every meal..... The only proven digestive aide that prevents gas!!!! Problem solved!

Report as unsuitable 151. socialmedic, usa / 5:14am 11 Dec 2006 #13 Bozo, I believe that if you bother yourself to see the DVD an inconvenient truth, you will learn that the fluctuations in our most recent history do not follow the patterns of the past, therfore your statement about them is invalid.

Report as unsuitable 152. Branda, Arizona / 6:02am 11 Dec 2006 142. "What is arizona like?"

Large. Open space. Room to grow :)

We border California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and kiss Colorado. Seems we’re best known for our *desert* landscape—xerophyte vegetation—especially giant Saguaros (sah-wah-row), Grand Canyon, and ancient Anasazi cliff dwelling ruins, where the climate features two seasons of hot summers and mild winters.

Snowbirds come in this time of year to winter over and enjoy the festive holiday season, then migrate northward back home to Canada.

Lesser known is half the state (northern) presents mountains and pine-covered highland plateaus—very nice.

However, too many Californians fleeing their overregulated, overtaxed welfare state and moving here, but unfortunately have no plans to migrate back home to the PC mess they created there.


Report as unsuitable 153. John1, NZ / 6:13am 11 Dec 2006 Usual abusive mixture with a few serious contributions. The serious contributions seem to go for 'natural variations' as the cause of Global Warming. Just how hot will it get and what will the overall effect be? To look at some of the detail, a question occurs: How much CO2 do the whisky distilling and beer brewing industries release into the atmosphere? I ony ask, but perhaps those who disagree with the 'natural variations' theory should give up the demon drink as their contribution to saving the planet? Bruce (106): As I am in NZ at present perhaps I will ask the nearest sheep farmer about the methane reduction programme they appear to have here. I generally get the impression that NZ politicians are more sensible than UK ones (not difficult).
(Wheeshooie (64) A jab at the politicians/lottery raid: The lottery started out during a Tory government. Labour screamed that the Tories would raid it for tax purposes, wickedly ignoring the declared principle that profits would go to good causes. The Tories didn't. Guess who did?

Report as unsuitable 154. Branda, Arizona / 6:17am 11 Dec 2006 Oh, and nearly 360 days of sunshine!

Lots o' cows too :) Mexico also borders us to the south. So we're a cultural blend of Native American, Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo-American.


Report as unsuitable 155. James I, Australia / 6:41am 11 Dec 2006 To MS: many thanks for the calm and lucid manner in which you have "taken up arms against" the intemperate and often personally insulting posts of e.g. Niall and Slioch. I agree with every point you have made, and it is a sad sign of the times that GW advocates, because of their perceived political correctness, are able to assume the moral high ground by denying their opponents the right of reply: censorship by default, in fact.

Here's some evidence that the consensus on GW is nowhere near as one-sided as Niall and Slioch would have us believe: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

It is disingenuous in the extreme for Niall to cast aspersions on data posted in blogs; the disturbing thing is that qualified authors must resort to blogs because they are unable to have their research published in quality journals because their results are seen as politically incorrect. Complementary to this is the apparent slackening off of the peer review process on articles perceived as politically correct. These are very worrying phenomena.

Unlike the GW proponents I have been much cheered up by the refusal of the vast majority of posters to this site to take seriously the GW doom and gloom. Be aware you inhabitants of ivory towers who scheme and lie to the population to get your research grants renewed: the peasants are massing in the courtyard below. In diverting the focus from humanity's real problems of starvation, lack of access to potable water, and disease, you have exacerbated the suffering of untold millions of humans on this planet, and I only hope I live long enough to see you called to account.

Report as unsuitable 156. Robbie, NZ / 7:16am 11 Dec 2006 153. John1, NZ / 6:13am 11 Dec 2006 "I generally get the impression that NZ politicians are more sensible than UK ones." I was going to write that you couldn’t have been in NZ long or had not visited the 'Beehive' (NZ Parliament) and heard ‘our lot’, but then I considered that the UK's in Iraq NZ is not - New Zealand is a sovereign nation - Scotland is told by so many UK Mps that it couldn’t make it alone and so I conceded that you might be right.

Report as unsuitable 157. Spearfisher, Bristol / 9:23am 11 Dec 2006 That's a load of BULLOCKS ..... ;-)

Report as unsuitable 158. Sue Donym, Scotland aka Fartland / 9:25am 11 Dec 2006 I can't believe this arrant nonesense. Is this April 1st?-Quote:

"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".

Try Weetbix.

I just can't stop laughing and farting in unison-must be pent-up flatulence!

Report as unsuitable 159. Cristo, USA / 4:06am 11 Dec 2006 Global Warming happen long, long , long time ago. There are no definite answers to the " Last Ice age ", I don't understand, even scientists "are guessing" what causes it, and "poor cows" are to blame.

Report as unsuitable 160. PaulANorman_NZ, http://PaulANorman.com / 11:33am 11 Dec 2006 You know if you look at all the things reported as supporting the global warming problem, and much else that is going on around the globe now (increase in recorded earthquakes and so on) we might do better to remember the words recorded for us of the Lord Jesus and what He said about this all pointing to His soon return! Forget global warming and make sure you are ready for this!

Luke 21:8 - He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them.
9 When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away."
10 Then he said to them: "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

Report as unsuitable 161. Slioch / 1:37pm 11 Dec 2006 #155 James I (and #144 MS)

James, your stated distaste for personal insults sits uneasily with your reference to mainstream scientists as “inhabitants of ivory towers who scheme and lie to the population to get your research grants renewed.”

Compared to that, I think any slight exasperation I may have exhibited towards MS for misrepresenting my own contribution was pretty mild.

I don’t find MS’s contributions at all convincing. He makes statements that are at odds with accepted understanding as if they were matters of fact and in a manner that suggests his believes his audience is entirely made up of the ill-informed (having frequently assured us of his own long and toil towards the truth), for example:

a. “I have already pointed out on numerous occasions … “ b. “6.000 years agp, the world was approx 7 - 9 degrees Celsius warmer than at present - got that ?” c. “From 1300 - 1800 the temperatures crashed into the Little Ice Age … The logical conclusion is that much of the recovery since then is part of a natural rebound.”

Having said that, I do get the impression that MS is actually interested in and working on aspects of climate change, which more than can be said for almost anyone else on this site.

So, MS, let me assure you that I am well aware of events prior to 200 years ago. I’m a geologist by training dammit! If you are still there, could you address the following:

? Do you accept that volcanic action has had little effect (+ or -) on the warming that has occurred over the last few decades, which was the point of my earlier post. (Accepting of course that the atmosphere in the long term is influenced by volcanic activity) ? Do you (broadly) accept the findings of the recent EPICA DOME C findings from Antarctica, particularly that CO2 levels for last c.10,000 years have remained at 280+/-5%ppm? ? What evidence do you have for b. above (6,000 years ago …) ? Natural rebound? You make the climate sound like a rubber ball! What do you mean?

Report as unsuitable 162. Pamela C, United States - Texas / 1:37pm 11 Dec 2006 <laughing> It's so ridiculous no comment is necessary, except for the fact, I'm glad you in Europe have just as many fruitcakes as we do in America!!!

Report as unsuitable 163. Impartial Observer, London / 2:01pm 11 Dec 2006 #7 is spot-on! Worth reading. Smoking, obesity... 5 fruit&veg-a-day even being monitored now in England via your points shopping card!!! Did you know that forced seat-belt wearing INCREASES the number of traffic-related injuries and deaths (including cars into cyclists and pedestrians) by making the driver subsconciously FEEL safer?! No joke, there's so much propaganda you may find it hard to believe, but if so, research it!

Report as unsuitable 164. Chairman Gordon, People's Republic of Stirling / 2:29pm 11 Dec 2006 Slioch #137- Oh, I can do my sums alright, I was pointing out the stupidity of the original "claim"!

Report as unsuitable 165. Darrell / 3:41pm 11 Dec 2006 THIS IS YOUR BOSS SPEAKING: "GET BACK TO WORK"!

Report as unsuitable 166. Gregory, Midwest US / 4:39pm 11 Dec 2006 Perhaps the focus may turn to humans and our diets. The World Health Organization, among others, may have plans in the works to restrict our own diet to reduce OUR gassy contributions (no more fun? not as though farting is fun). You don't believe me? Check here: The Codex Alimentarius Commission http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

Their goal is for world control of agriculture - which is merely a sub category of the emerging behemoth New World Order, which will subsequently engulf every facet of society. Agriculture is only one.

I envision the tree-hugging types may very well have it in for anyone who drools over a hefty slab o' moo...and this would be their shining moment to begin reducing the bovine population. It's just another control instituted to eliminate (no pun) our rights.

Al Gore's DVD "An Inconvenient Truth" is yet another example of this. The man worships Gaia (pagan concept which deifies the earth as some sort of living organism, fully equipped with a consciousness and magical/spiritual life) - it's no wonder he would tip the figures in his favor. His DVD was crammed so full of propaganda and statistical manipulation - I shudder to think of the end result if these greenies have their way.

Let the cows fart. Would you like it if the governments of the world began requiring us to wear personal methane meters sewn into our underwear? Who would have had the foresight to envision regular security checks forcing old women to fart into containers for lab analysis (and you thought airline security was abusive)? Or worse yet - public fart detectors to further worsen the embarrassment of accidental gas expulsion.

It starts with cows, but where will it end?

Report as unsuitable 167. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 4:51pm 11 Dec 2006 I too have a geological background and I care very much about this issue as you surmise. As for 'ego' I doubt that : my only interest is what it has always been - academic rigour combined with open debate and quality research. Ultimately, the aim is to provide the most complete and integrated picture of the past we can assemble. The so-called 'accepted situation' ignores too many factors and tries to suppress proper debate.

The issue of volcanoes is interesting. As I pointed out the main influence of volcanics during this phase of the interglacial is largely to create short-lived cooling blips. The warming effects are, as you pointed out, largely cumulative over millennia. If Yellowstone, the world's largest suprvolcano were to erupt in the near future - a possibility, given its eruption cycle of approx 650,000 years and a matching period since its last eruption - the dust in the air would cause massive and catastrophic cooling. However even that would not last a decade in all probablity.

As for Antarctic data I have been interested in that since university so long ago. Most interesting recently are these findings :


CO2 levels are only one factor in determining climate change - my point all along. There are many others. The fact that levels in Antarctic ice more or less remain constant over the last 10 millennia (such a short time in geological terms)suggests that other factors are important.

As for accepted understanding, all of the points I make can be found widely, some even in mainstream publications. Ice cores, varves, tree rings, pollen deposits eg in bogs, ocean floor deposits, food analysis from places like Scapa Flow .. there is truly a wealth of evidence about the last 10,000 years. The main trends are clear and widely accepted. The period of 6000 years ago, in particular is documented widely and is referred to as the 'Atlantic Period' which was the 6 -7 degrees referred to earlier. As for the growing of grapes in middle England at about 1000 AD, that is part of the historical records.

The temperature graph of the period 1300 - 1800 AD shows a rapid and jagged decrease through three minima, thereafter - almost as rapidly as it began to decrease it increases - in a sawtooth fashion. As yet there are no satisfactory explanations for this. At the time, world populations were low and the industrial revolution was only just beginning sp anthropogenic causes are not really an option. Hence the phrase 'natural rebound' - not of my coining, I assure you.

Report as unsuitable 168. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 5:02pm 11 Dec 2006 Slioch

"Having said that, I do get the impression that MS is actually interested in and working on aspects of climate change, which more than can be said for almost anyone else on this site."

Thanks for that recognition. It is dispiriting at times to present evidence from a wide range of sources, challenging a simplistic and flawed 'accepted wisdom' which is thrust down peoples' throats as accepted fact and used to drive a particular political agenda.

I am ever mindful that so-called 'accepted wisdom' has proven to be wrong on a number of occasions. My motto : remember Copernicus.

Report as unsuitable 169. R Mac, Aberdeen WA, USA / 6:56pm 11 Dec 2006 I would like to ask a question from all the people who claim that man can control global warming or global cooling..... how do you possibly think that man can can manipulate the earth to perform in the way that they claim with their political correctness? Do you think for a minute, that man in his puny little existence has any control over the environment? If you think that you can control this earth, then I would ask you:

1. What do you do with all methane hydrates contained in the seas around the world which release more methane into the atmosphere, then all the Cow's of the world?


2. How do you control the volcanoes that produce more CO2 . then all the industries of the world?


3. How do you control the sun and the cycles of solar increase and decrease that the sun is capable of?


Go do a Google search on any of these topics, and you will find that the data that environmentalists are spouting is just a ruse to get people to believe that there is no God, so that they can implement global control of all the people, and it's resources for their own evil designs. If they get people to believe that there is no God, and that man can control the environment than there is no need for God, and they can manipulate you to believe what they want . And control you. I testify, that God has this earth, in his hands and is at the helm, and he will control, what the earth does or does not do for us. The only thing that we have control over is ourselves . And what we choose to believe. I testify that all the world's problems could be solved by keeping the Commandments and following the Bible and its precepts. I would suggest that the world repent and return to God and follow the scriptures. For all the things are happening, have been foretold in the scriptures, even global warming. And I testify to the truth of this, in the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Report as unsuitable 170. R Mac, Aberdeen WA, USA / 7:24pm 11 Dec 2006 Added Link To the last post #169 http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Amount of gases that a volcano produce.....

Report as unsuitable 171. MarkInAlpine, Alpine, Texas / 7:33pm 11 Dec 2006 I invite you to read http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

A short excerpt: So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right? Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

Report as unsuitable 172. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 7:42pm 11 Dec 2006 No 167

I cannot believe I typed Scapa Flow when I meant Scara Brae.

memo to me : never drink on an empty head (not even the Perrier I was having at the time)..........

Report as unsuitable 173. trknthbear, USA / 7:55pm 11 Dec 2006 When soybeans became the "in" thing for humans, everyone jumped on the soybean diet... until they discovered that soy is not for everyone. The animal foods quickly saw the value in using soy as a protein source because it's cheaper and was plentiful here in the States... primarily because people weren't all that fond of soy products.

Soy causes extreme flatulence. most dog enthusiasts are cautious about feed that contains soy for obvious reasons. Cattle feed and other livestock feed is heavily infused with soy beans.

Just because soybeans represent a source of cheap protein doesn't mean all animals can absorb the protein from this source - same with humans! And the byproduct of flatulence is certainly not pleasant.

Eliminate the soy and SOME of the pollution just may disappear...

Report as unsuitable 174. Gregory, Midwest US / 8:06pm 11 Dec 2006 R Mac, you're right on.

A single erupting andesite volcano emits more CO2 than all of man's combustion activity since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

How arrogant to think we can warm the planet by our miniscule contributions.

Apart from the wild speculations about man's influence on the environment, we should look to the source - THE SUN.

I recall in science & geology classes in school, we learned that the weather is driven by solar activity, and is totally subject to the violent tantrums of our own star. Only as of recent have science instructors been indoctrinating our children with the fallacious idea that global warming has a human origin.

If we are (and we certainly are) approaching a "solar maximum", then wouldn't this account for the global rise in average temperatures?

If we blindly follow the 'Principles of Uniformity', we are setting ourselves up to be knocked down. The present is NOT the key to the past. The present slight temperature rise we observe today isn't forced to adhere to a recapitulated pattern throughout history. Though someone could point to minute fluxuations on chart as an indication of predictable trends, yet the sun may be at a particular stage in its life rendering its behavior unpredictable.

Astronomers have thoroughly documented the rise in temperatures, not only on the earth, but on other planets as well. Mars is experiencing the same global warming we are, and apparently at the same rate.

Ah, the industrious aliens are hard at work polluting the Martian atmosphere.

Planets, moons, and other objects in our solar system are warming up at an unprecedented rate. Should we begin to blame humanity for this?


Should we see the whole global warming issue as a socio-political manipulation tool designed to panic a populus to stampede directly into their corral?

Report as unsuitable 175. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 8:22pm 11 Dec 2006 The problem is one of over-specialiisation and a lack of communication between disciplines. THe wheel is being reinvented over and over again.

Report as unsuitable 176. Robbie / 9:28pm 11 Dec 2006 169. R Mac I testify that all the world's problems could be solved by keeping the Commandments and following the Bible and its precepts. I would suggest that the world repent and return to God and follow the scriptures. Trouble is stoning people to death and cruelty to animals plus slavery and polygamy as in the 'good book' are all illegal http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/09/biblical-... Everyone must get stoned.

Report as unsuitable 177. MS, http://pseudo-chrysolite.blogspot.com/ / 10:05pm 11 Dec 2006 Robbie,

It sounds as though you are !

Report as unsuitable 178. R Mac / 10:13pm 11 Dec 2006 Robbie, Oh ye of little faith.... behold man's laws are not God's laws, and when you take things out of context, you not only do yourself a disservice, but you destroy the faith of others. Your web site that you point to, only mocks God and the scriptures... it does not explain the reasons behind why God implemented those laws. It is also a prime reason people are dwindling in unbelief, for when they look to a site that distorts the bible or mocks it...then the unavoidable results will be unbelief.

Report as unsuitable 179. Robbie / 10:17pm 11 Dec 2006 177. MS, Robbie, “ It sounds as though you are” And you come to that very witty conclusion because of what exactly. Why do some use forums to shoot off personal remarks rather than arguable points. Why take the trouble if you have no proof of what you write? No I’m not stoned - don’t take drugs and certainly wouldn’t waste money on Perrier Water. Doesn’t getting Scapa Flow and Scara Brae confused indicate more of a befuddled or stoned mind. Anyway please keep to a topic rather than unsubstantiated, pejorative insinuations.

Report as unsuitable 180. Slioch / 11:03pm 11 Dec 2006 #169 R Mac

According to the US Geological survey site referred to at #170 (which I have no reason to doubt):

“Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.”

That is trivial compared with the amount produced by humans burning fossil fuels, which is about 7 billion tons per year, ie about 54 times as much as volcanoes. In addition human induced burning of forests adds about another 2 billion tons.

As far as “1. What do you do with all methane hydrates contained in the seas around the world” well in brief : “Don’t warm them up!!!” yes, if methane hydrates start to be released from the ocean floor in large quantities then we really are in trouble since we would be in a massive positive feedback situation. This may have occurred 55 million years ago when it is suggested that a trillion tons of methane were released after a period of gentler warming. The methane release caused a c.10C further rise in temperature and two thirds of species in the oceans became extinct, with similar mayhem on land.

As for the sun – Hansen gives a forcing of 0.4W/sq m for changes in solar output (I think that’s 20th century) compared with greenhouse gases of 2.6W/sq m (CO2 = 1.4W/sq m). Even if solar changed by a factor of two or three it would not equal the change in CO2.

Report as unsuitable 181. Slioch / 11:17pm 11 Dec 2006 #171 Mark

Mark, no-one (well no climatologist anyway) denies the importance of water vapour as a greenhouse gas, though your 90% is regarded as too high (the calculation is rather involved – look at www.realclimate.org and search for “water vapour 2005”. However, the point about water in the atmosphere is that the amount in the atmosphere is dependent on the temperature, since it rapidly (over days or weeks) equilibrates with water in the oceans. This means that we cannot force more amounts of water into the atmosphere to cause global warming, since it would rapidly rain out. The point about CO2 is that it DOES stick around – for a century or more – so, of the 7 + 2 billion tons we are bunging into the atmosphere every year much stays there and accumulates. This increases the amount of heat that the atmosphere traps – that’s the problem. CO2 can force a change in climate, water cannot.

Report as unsuitable 182. Robbie / 11:36pm 11 Dec 2006 178. R Mac “Oh ye of little faith.... behold man's laws are not God's laws, Hi Mac for those that have your faith great! but others not given your ‘gift’ of blind faith can only look at the old testament in DISbelief. They are not mocking if they examine the risible and cruel laws laid down by God. ...You say the site “.. does not explain the reasons behind why God implemented those laws.” No it wouldn’t as it has no idea why such unjust laws especially on women, animals and old men who collect firewood on the Sabbath or children who laugh at bald prophets (ripped apart by bears). This is no offence (honestly I am such an extremely mild mannered man you would not believe I come from Glasgow) but can you explain them. If all the religions came together and prayed wouldn’t Got make Global Warming go away? (He answers prayers doesn’t he.)

Report as unsuitable 183. Slioch, Scottish Highlands / 11:42pm 11 Dec 2006 #179 Robbie

"Doesn’t getting Scapa Flow and Scara Brae confused indicate more of a befuddled or stoned mind?"

Oh, Come on. In this perhaps rather gentler part of the world, for someone whose been involved in climate science for 40 years (as he says), I would just describe it as "a senior moment". I get them all the time.

Report as unsuitable 184. Robbie / 12:04am 12 Dec 2006 183. Slioch, Scottish Highlands Just replying to 177. MS personal remark as I didn’t really catch the wit but honest Slioch all other remarks will be like water off the duck. Only writing today as I’m a bachelor for a week and can’t be bothered finishing the gardening.

Report as unsuitable 185. Mitchell, CA / 12:26am 12 Dec 2006 Not sure how this got on the subject of God but... Most people mock the laws of the OT because they don't understand the theology behind it. Those laws don't apply anymore. Whatever God says is just, your opinion means nothing. You don't have to worry though, now that God's wrath is appeased he wont command people to do things that like anymore. If everyone in the world prayed for global warming to go away, God would only consider it if it is within His will to do so. If God wants global warming, so be it. If He sees his faithful asking for a bit more time on earth and sees good reason for it, then yes it would go away. BTW I fart on this article. global warming doesn't exist. beep beep. <3

Report as unsuitable 186. R Mac, Aberdeen, USA / 12:44am 12 Dec 2006 #180Slioch, CO2 , gas is not the problem. Even according to the USGS CO2 gas dissipates rapidly . Also it is a natural part of the environment, where in, vegetation needs CO2 for photosynthesis. If CO2 was to stay in the environment and not be absorbed by vegetation and and other processes, we would have suffocated a long time ago. I should have been more clear, when I was specifying volcanic action as a major player for global climate change. It is the other gases, that are the primary causes of global change . Here is a different link that emphasizes what I was trying to state: Volcanic Sulfur Aerosols Affect Global Climate and the Earth's Ozone Layer http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/SO2Aerosols... As far as the CO2 gas that volcanoes , emit on a yearly basis, it is based on a steady state emission from current volcanoes , such as those in Hawaii, that are always active. It doesn't take into account the explosive release of a major eruption that can happen any time.

Emission rates of SO2 from an active volcano range from <20 tonnes/day to >10 million tonnes/day according to the style of volcanic activity and type and volume of magma involved. For example, the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km 3 of dacite magma and injected about 17 million tonnes of SO2 into the stratosphere. The sulfur aerosols resulted in a 0.5-0.6°C cooling of the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere.

As far as methane hydrates you are correct . We don't Wanna warm those up. But methane is produced in greater abundance from natural vegetation than you'll ever find from cows. If you ever been to Lake or Marsh , might I suggest you look at the surface of the water , and you'll notice a constant stream of bubbles from almost every Lake, Marsh, or body of water. Those bubbles are primarily methane gas from the decomposing vegetation at the bottom. If I am not mistaken, there was a recent study that measured the gas given off of a body of water, but I am at a loss at this time to provide a link to that study. But here is a link to the following:

"Methane, like carbon dioxide, traps heat in Earth's atmosphere. Scientists have been studying natural sources of methane for decades but hadn't pegged plants as a producer, notes Frank Keppler, a geochemist at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany. Previously recognized sources of methane include bacterial action in the digestive systems of ruminants such as cows and in the saturated soils of swamps and rice paddies.

Now, Keppler and his colleagues find that plants, from grasses to trees, may also be sources of the greenhouse gas. "This is really surprising," Keppler says, because most scientists assumed that methane production requires an o

Report as unsuitable 187. R Mac, Aberdeen, USA / 12:47am 12 Dec 2006 Slioch,

continuation from post #186

Now, Keppler and his colleagues find that plants, from grasses to trees, may also be sources of the greenhouse gas. "This is really surprising," Keppler says, because most scientists assumed that methane production requires an oxygenfree environment."


My major point of my previous comment is that man is too puny to be able to control the environment. Even if we completely eradicated , man and his influences on the globe, there would still be climate change , for this is a never ending process of this Earth. Change is one thing that is constant, and no matter how much man resists change, it is inevitable. I.e. how do you stop continent drift, magnetic pole shift, solar gain or decrease as I stated earlier , is uncontrollable by man, and all the studies that we have done are a drop in the bucket for what the sun has already done or is capable of the future . We know that it is a star and that stars can be very unpredictable in what they are capable of. If our sun is going into a cycle that is several million years long between cycles, how would man have any record or way of measuring that? The sun is not constant , nor is anything else on this Earth. We have records of dinosaurs living in the Arctic and Antarctic, when the climate was much different than it is today. So for man to say that

Report as unsuitable 188. R Mac, Aberdeen, USA / 12:53am 12 Dec 2006 Slioch, Cont. From #187 So for man to say that we are going to keep this Earth in a constant state of our liking or choosing is stupidity.

Report as unsuitable 189. Robbie, NZ / 1:03am 12 Dec 2006 185. Mitchell, CA / 12:26am 12 Dec 2006 Not sure how this got on the subject of God but... The subject of god was raised in post #169. R Mac, Aberdeen WA, USA, who thought that , “that all the world's problems could be solved by keeping the Commandments and following the Bible and its precepts.. For all the things are happening, have been foretold in the scriptures, even global warming. And I testify to the truth of this, in the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Report as unsuitable 190. R Mac, Aberdeen, USA / 1:26am 12 Dec 2006 #182 Robbie, Dear Robbie, I assure you that it is not blind faith that I exhibit, but a hard-won faith that comes from study, asking questions, not trusting in the arm of flesh,by pondering,by prayer, and by not having a stiff neck. If you look around you with an open eye, and with an open heart, you will find that all things denote that there is a God. The wonders of this world are so incredible that if you were to move Earth in its orbit by just the amount of the Earth's diameter, 25,000 miles closer to the sun or 25,000 miles further away from the sun life on this earth , would not exist as we know it. Take the miracle of water. If you know a thing of physics, you will know that all substances can exist in three states gas, liquid, or solid. All substances with the exception of water , become more dense, when they are a solid. With the Earth being approximately 75% water , could you imagine what would happen to the Earth, if water became more dense , when it became a solid? Ice would sink , instead of floating on top. The Earth would be inundated with water , summer melting would not exist. Water would stay frozen at the bottom. Yet water is so essential to our very existence,and God made one change in water, to become less dense, when it is in a solid-state so that we might live. Rick

Report as unsuitable 191. Slioch / 1:26am 12 Dec 2006 #186 Mac

Mac - We know about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in considerable detail. It’s been measured every four hours since 1958, as I wrote earlier in this thread. We know it’s increasing in the atmosphere because of these measurements:

“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 I said in #180, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time - a century or so until it’s absorbed – but not for ever! Of course it is eventually absorbed by oceanic phytoplankton and terrestrial vegetation, but that takes time. At present CO” is about 380ppm whereas before the industrial revolution it was 280ppm. Yes the USGS is correct it “dissipates rapidly” ie it spreads around in the atmosphere rapidly (that’s why we get the wriggle in the Keeling curve see above) – that does NOT mean that it is absorbed rapidly.

SO2, as I said in #115 “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.”

I don’t have the figure of methane production for cows handy, but wouldn’t be surprised if you are correct that production from marshes is much greater – particularly now that huge areas of permafrost are melting, which is a huge potential source of methane. Methane is more than twenty times more potent than CO2, molecule for molecule, so we should do everything we can to keep its level down – cows are a significant source and we should do what we can to reduce their emissions. (despite the puerile comments that have greeted this old suggestion on this site) BUT methane doesn’t stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 – it is oxid

Report as unsuitable 192. Mitchell, CA / 1:26am 12 Dec 2006 Maybe he just meant that our problems would go away because we wouldn't live of this world anymore (Christians aren't supposed to live of this world, we look to the next.) The world is going to burn, anyone will tell you that. Whether its 5 or 500,000 years, the earth will burn. The world is in peril because everyone is afraid of death, but as Christians, why fear eternity in heaven? Not sure about his idea of doing good works so you can live longer on earth, not really biblically sound but hey he meant well. I'd like to see the passage that talks of global warming too, hehe. Nice to see some Christians out there though.

Report as unsuitable 193. Slioch / 1:36am 12 Dec 2006 R Mac Of course there would still be climate change, and of course there are things that we neither can nor would want to change but the fact is that some things (CO2, methane, N2O) we have changed significantly, and we have measured the changes. A one third increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere in 250 years is not puny (and that has happened) and it is having an effect, and to continue to deny that these changes have happened is absurd.

Report as unsuitable 194. Slioch / 1:39am 12 Dec 2006 Continuation from #191 I hadn't noticed it had been chopped off)

"BUT methane doesn’t stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2 – it is oxidised to CO2 and water within about a decade, so it doesn’t pose the same long term problem as CO2, about which you are wrong to say is not the problem. The forcing for CO2 is 1.4W/sq m, that for methane about 0.6 W/sq m."

Report as unsuitable 195. R Mac / 3:06am 12 Dec 2006 #192 Mitchell,

Revelations Chap. 16 vs 8-9
8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

Global Warming.... Note: All things are not dead from this heat...just enough to make men mad at God.... when all he wants from them is for them to repent and turn to him.

Report as unsuitable 196. James I, Australia / 3:20am 12 Dec 2006 #161 Slioch: It is interesting and I think revealing that you assume that I am insulting "mainstream scientists" when I refer to “inhabitants of ivory towers who scheme and lie to the population to get your research grants renewed.” Honi soit qui mal y pense, methinks. I did not state or even imply that this latter remark applied to any sector of the population other than that stated. Your inference that ALL mainstream scientists are "inhabitants of ivory towers who scheme and lie to the population to get your research grants renewed" displays intellectual arrogance (that's an insult only if untrue)in that you assume that anti GW scientists are by definition not mainstream - another attempt to disenfranchise an alternative viewpoint. In fact many authorotative and respected scientists (as well as the vast majority of posters to this forum) have expressed scepticism towards your interpretation of events - and don't forget, you are only expressing one interpretation of the data. See:


That the media happen to have decided to wholesale your interpretation as "The Truth" does not necessarily increase your chances of being proven correct. Scientific progress has historically involved expeditions down blind alleys, and I contend that the prevailing preoccupation with GW is one such.

Report as unsuitable 197. Slioch / 4:20am 12 Dec 2006 #196 "Your inference that ALL mainstream scientists are "inhabitants of ivory towers ..."

There is no such inference. But all inhabitants of ivory towers who are scientists are by definition "mainstream", that is "part of the establishment", good or bad. There is no inference about mainstream scientists elsewhere.

But the point is: your were being gratuitously insulting whilst complaining of the personal insults of others.

I've looked at your "friends of science" site and the myths/facts and climate news. Each time someone suggests one of these sites I look to see, and find the same weary mix of straw men and weasel words, designed to fool the scientifically illiterate.

For anyone else out there who is actually interested in careful analysis of questions about climate change, anyone who actually wants to learn about the science, then I recommend www.realclimate.org

Report as unsuitable 198. Robbie, NZ / 4:42am 12 Dec 2006 195. R Mac “.just enough to make men mad at God... when all he wants from them is for them to repent and turn to him.” “ when all he (God) wants” Why oh why does he not just come down and tells us?

It is so difficult debating with religious believers, Christian,. Moslem or Jew when they will not face one reality- why the big secret - why an entity that can create the Universe plays such stupid and cruel games and when it is obvious from the Bible that God is cruel and, it would appear, much crueller than some other entity called Satin Example :Steve Wells ( Editor of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible-Quran-Book of Mormon -tried to total the number of people killed by God and Satan in the Bible, as well as provide some estimates of their future plans in that regard. Here's a table that summarizes the results. Total number killed God 2,270,365+ Satan 10 Number of uncounted massacres God 36 Satan 0 Planned future killings God 3,250,000,000 Satan 0 We have only be told that Satin’s evil cause his enemies tell us I’ve never met him nor heard his side of the story.

R Mac I’m not a bad guy -married for 40 years lots of Christian and Moslem friends (most of which we keep off certain topics; we keep our mouths shut - as is the way when you chat with religious friends) great and very successful children but I cannot for the life of me understand how ANYONE can read the bible and call it the ‘Good Book’ like the Koran or Quaran it borders on gibberish and if there is a “creator ‘’ these wicked books have lead men away from seeking the truth, worshiping the Oh I don’t know the 2nd star from the right. Lead a good life - be kind to you neighbours - enjoy sex- don’t beat your kids- teach them about the world around them, the flora and fauna but why be so angry with those who believe religion is unbelievable evil.

Will check sources later but most criminal in gaol I have read are religious and so not all agnostics and atheists are wicked. We don’t go out there to disbelieve we just read and discuss and shake our heads at non-thinking believers. If anyone reads this and then replies “I’ll pray for you’ I report back if the prayers work.

Report as unsuitable 199. R Mac / 5:24am 12 Dec 2006 Robbie, You're asking questions that I would be more than happy to answer for you. I do not know how to contact you, for I do not believe this forum to be the place to answer your questions as this article is on global warming. I never meant to imply that those who do not believe or have an understanding of the Gospel are wicked or evil. I believe , all people have a desire to know the questions you have asked. Is there a way for me to contact you via e-mail? I love philosophical discussions and would be glad to share some insights that I have learned. The one fact that you have wrong is the numbers killed by God versus Satan. I hope we can have this discussion and become fast friends. Rick

Report as unsuitable 200. R Mac / 5:38am 12 Dec 2006 PS...Robbie, look at it this way,at this point , I'm so far away as I am not a close friend or acquaintance that you could offend,nor am I close enough to you , that if offended by our philosophical discussions that you'd have to worry about being embarrassed or losing me as a friend. We could have these philosophical discussions , and neither of us would have anything to lose , but maybe something to gain from them.

Report as unsuitable 201. Robbie, NZ / 8:02am 12 Dec 2006 199. R Mac I hope we can have this discussion and become fast friends. No problem- I love to hear other points of views but really dislike personal worthless insults. I attend a U3A Philosophy group; any posters in U3A (University of the Third Age?) Global Warming and environmental issues are 'hot' topics at present. U3A, I believe, was started in France (hope that doesn't put of American friends). The philosophy groups meets every fortnight and is chaired by a Scot from England (well he sounds Scots , claims to be Scottish and is a real smart dude sorry gentleman from Berwick-upon-Tweed - what nationality are they? All sorts of subjects are discussed eg., love - atheism - politics - freedom - art- wisdom etc., etc. The groups is made up of believers in religion , ex-believers - and non-believers. Nobody gets rude or upset (we're all a bit past the agro stage and actually like each other) If you can now and again put forward a view re faith or Bible fundamentalism I'll take it along to the group. Honestly in a secret ballet exactly half were believers and half not. This sounds 'off-topic' but environmental issues, history. political theory, religious argument and history are my main interests (oh and loving my wife and family Plus gardening) and although I was educated in Glasgow - gained a history degree in New Zealand (so didn't contain actual Scottish history - except for political papers on the Scottish Enlightenment) I find the Scotsman forum pretty interesting but many don't read previous posts or are more into personal bandying of words with each other (hey I hope that doesn't apply to us). The problem agnostics have is that many don't want to disillusion believers. If you're happy good-on-you. I had good religious relations like an aunt who was loved by catholics, protestants and jews - just such a good woman. But I can't help feeling despair at fanatics be they again catholic, protestants or jews. I cannot imagine at a U3A group trying to explain why anyone would join a sectarian 'club' like the Orange Order or is it the Knights of St Columba. Views on Scottish Independence - religion - environment I'll post on these forums unless the comments get too rude or ignorant. As some of the posters sound past their teens - perhaps they should check out U3A in their area. All sorts of groups from philosophy, history , music, literature to movies and your local architecture or make up your own group. Hey I can see the complaints coming. Or most likely they'll just not read this Rick.

Report as unsuitable 202. James I, Australia / 10:00am 12 Dec 2006 #197 Slioch. I did not state, or even mean to imply, that all mainstream scientists are inhabitants of ivory towers. I certainly do not believe this to be true. Therefore by definition you have inferred a meaning which was not implied.

Your statement that "all inhabitants of ivory towers who are scientists are by definition "mainstream", is also misleading; not all mainstream scientists live in ivory towers: c.f. MS.

Please understand that any perceived insult was directed at "inhabitants of ivory towers who scheme and lie to the population to get [their] research grants renewed". It was not, repeat NOT directed at all mainstream scientists, because many mainstrem scientists do not share your interpretation of the available data on GW. You have inferred a meaning which was neither stated or implied, in much the same way as you infer results from GW data which many people believe are not implied.

Report as unsuitable 203. Southern Belle, Florida / 1:40pm 12 Dec 2006 The Vegans I know produce more methane than these cows!

There is NO such thing as global warming. One volcanic eruption produces more pollution than all the humans combined since the industrial revolution. The tree hugging CEOs are laughing all the way to the bank with your donations...

Report as unsuitable 204. R Mac / 2:50pm 12 Dec 2006 #201 Robbie This is long and will be in the next three posts. Rick Dear Robbie, You have knocked, and requested further light and knowledge , and I will be glad to share that with you. But I must warn you..... this will come at a cost to you. People who you thought were your friends will turn against you. Loved ones will give you ultimatums to make a choice between them or your new knowledge. Where you thought your life was easy , things will suddenly become difficult. For you have begun the battle for the souls of men , more specifically , the battle for your soul. While in darkness , Satan has little effort to do to keep you there. But as you begin this journey , and gain light and knowledge, the battle will become more intense. The battle will be as intense as any Indiana Jones movie. And you will be at the center of that battle. You will enjoy intense joy with your newfound knowledge , which you'll want to share with others , but you'll find the greatest of sorrows, when you discover that you are alone in your knowledge. Do not get discouraged by rejection , by those that will revile you for gaining this further light knowledge. For this is a journey of eternal progression and the choice is yours alone to remain here at this level or to progress onward. For Satan has lost his right to eternal progression and remains in a state of misery for all eternity and his goal is to end your progression and to keep you miserable like unto himself. I therefore have certain terms for this light knowledge to be given to you............

Report as unsuitable 205. R Mac / 2:50pm 12 Dec 2006 1. I have learned the hard way that you do not cast your pearls before swine, those pearls being the knowledge that I will share with you. So I request that this be a one-on-one , between me and you. And as you progress , I will share more of those pearls , which I hold sacred and not for the world to mock. I cannot control what you do with those pearls , after I have given them to you, but if you cast them before swine , be prepared for the consequences and do not let it discourage you.
2. My second request , is that the information I give you, you will hold in trust , and not mock , but honest questioning in seeking of the truth is encouraged. When I say that you will hold it in trust, by that, I mean, that you will not seek information from others that are derogatory or have not the same beliefs as me. For what does it profit you, when you want to buy a Chevy truck, and you go to the Ford dealer to get information on that Chevy truck? Do you think that you will receive an unbiased truth from the Ford dealer? All that leads to is confusion and more darkness.

Report as unsuitable 206. R Mac / 2:51pm 12 Dec 2006 3. I'll require of you an honest heart. A heart that is opened to new ideas , precepts and principles that you have to this point, not been exposed to. And I will require from you, to put it to the test by making a sincere effort to understand by pondering, by prayer, and by studying, that knowledge , which I give to you to see if it is true. I will give you the keys that will help you to discern if it is true , and will require you to put it to the test. But then , be honest enough to give it your best.
4. I'll require patients and trust from you, that if you put forth a sincere question, that I will make every effort to give you an answer . It might not be an immediate answer for I might need to research your answer to give you the proper information . If you shoot me with a shotgun , full of questions , and expect an immediate answer that will not happen. So please be patient and give me a chance to get the information that you'll request.
5. Keep a copy of these terms , in front of you an ingrain them to memory...... for I never delight in having to say..... "I told you so"

Report as unsuitable 207. R Mac / 2:52pm 12 Dec 2006 I have set up a new e-mail account that I can trash in the event of abuse from others that read this post , for I can guarantee you that once you start this journey, the battle to disrupt your progression will have begun it will be subtle at first , but will become more intense than closer you come to success. My e-mail account for you to contact me: futherlk@yahoo.com I have memorized some of the things that you have told me , and will use that to verify your identity , when you contact me , so that I might weed out impostors. Rick Let the Journey Begin!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

Report as unsuitable 208. R Mac / 4:41pm 12 Dec 2006 Slioch, Let me propose a different theory or thought. Let me concede for the sake of argument that global warming is in effect , happening at an accelerated rate. And that CO2 emissions are building up in the atmosphere. Is that such a bad thing? Could it not be the environmentalists panacea for the world? Let's look at history . We know that in the past, the earth was much warmer during the Jurassic period and we also know that there were lush forests and vegetation to sustain those animals. Might I propose that those lush forests and giant reptiles , were the results of past global warming, and high CO2 concentrations were the reason that the planet was able to sustain such large animals. Would not higher CO2 concentrations provide the world with a more tropical climate? Who's to say that higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures globally , would not be beneficial to the world? Imagine for a moment , a world with lush vegetation that grew at an accelerated rate because of more CO2 and a more temperate climate. Imagine , grapes , the size of watermelons. Imagine rain forests , growing faster than man could keep up with. Imagine new species of animals that have adapted and are growing at accelerated rates. Cows the size of elephants, ....... again man thinks he has all the answers... but I would say that nature is going to have its way , regardless of man.

Report as unsuitable 209. Robbie / 7:53pm 12 Dec 2006 R Mac Thanks for going to all that trouble. It's morning here in NZ and I really have ro go out. I'll read and digest your comments later and put something on this forum if you bookmark it.

All the best Robbie

Report as unsuitable 210. Slioch, Scottish Highlands / 8:57pm 12 Dec 2006 #203 Southern Belle

What a profoundly ignorant comment, Southern Belle.

As noted earlier (#180):

According to the US Geological survey, volcanoes – that is all volcanoes around the world - release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year on average.

That is trivial compared with the amount produced by humans burning fossil fuels, which is about 7 billion tons per year, ie about 54 times as much as volcanoes. In addition human induced burning of forests adds about another 2 billion tons.

Report as unsuitable 211. Slioch, Scottish Highlands / 8:58pm 12 Dec 2006 #208 R Mac

Why not do some studying about these issues Mac? One of the world’s finest biologists, who has been a professor at Harvard for nearly 50 years, namely E O Wilson, has recently written a book called “The Creation” that deals with what he considers to be the present mass extinction event that will likely see half of all species on Earth become extinct within this century, as a result of global warming, habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species and over-hunting. I haven’t yet obtained copy myself, but I understand it is particularly addressed to those who have beliefs similar to yours. As to your suggested scenario let me just say this. We have for the last ten thousand years, since the end of the last glacial period, enjoyed a fairly stable climate. That stability is what has allowed human civilisations to flourish and is what we risk losing. Change on the scale you suggest would cause suffering, both human and non-human, on a scale unimaginable, as well as huge extinctions. Evidence from previous mass extinctions suggests it takes about ten million years for life to recover from such events. For the foreseeable future we would have to survive in a profoundly damaged and impoverished world. That is what your scenario would mean. Here is just one tiny example, from today’s news, of what is already happening; http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11819

Report as unsuitable 212. Brian1, Dingwall / 10:32pm 12 Dec 2006 More flat earth science?

Report as unsuitable 213. John1, NZ / 6:17am 13 Dec 2006 156 Robbie: 5 out of 10. I'm against Scotland separating from the UK, not because "Scotland is told by so many UK Mps that it couldn’t make it alone" but because the UK is a sovereign nation and I like it that way. So do most people in the UK, although the behaviour of the separatists is, perhaps understanably, interpreted by the non-thinkers as "Scots want Independence. Let them have it and good riddance."

Report as unsuitable 214. R Mac / 3:01am 14 Dec 2006 Siloch, I have no problem with studying and devising real solutions to problems that we can control or correct. The problem with the book that you cite "The Creation" is the Harvard professor is playing prophet. From what I can see from your quotation , is that he is come to the foregoing conclusion that his predictions are accurate. I have not read his book, but I am more inclined to believe the prophets of God than the prophecies of a Harvard professor. As I stated earlier , this world is going to do with man , what God decides. Here is two new links showing how unpredictable the sun can be I think you will find them interesting....

Dec. 8th. 2006 --- Solar tsunami....

"It is unusual to see such an event from a ground-based observatory, Balasubramaniam said. And it was also unusual that it occurred near solar minimum, when the Sun is at its least active during an 11-year cycle". http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061208_solar_tsunam...

Dec. 13th. 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/12/13/solar.storm/inde...

Report as unsuitable 215. R Mac / 3:26am 14 Dec 2006 As far as prophets and prophecies, take your pick from the scriptures below , and I would be more concerned as to my personal standing before God, than I would be about global warming..... From the two links above , in my last post , has it begun?

Joel 2: 31
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

Acts 2: 20
20 The sun shall be turned into adarkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

Rev. 6: 12
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great bearthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

D&C 88: 87
87 For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall become exceedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig-tree.


Report as unsuitable 217. R Mac / 4:07am 14 Dec 2006 Siloch, From R Mac ...referring back to #214 Or perhaps , if my last links on the sun acting up did not give you cause to consider where this world is going perhaps this article out of the middle east will open your eyes..... http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticle...

Report as unsuitable 218. R Mac / 5:06am 14 Dec 2006 Robbie, Here's a scripture that I have picked for you as it is the reason why offered to answer your questions for this life is the time given to you to prepare and if you procrastinate , it may be too late.

"33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.
34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.
35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.

Report as unsuitable Commenting on this article has closed.


Home Contact


              Page Updated: Thursday May 07, 2009 09:14 AM  Pacific

             Copyright © klamathbasincrisis.org, 2006, All Rights Reserved