Climate scientists take their arguments to their skeptics

Climate scientists gather at a meeting of the Challenge Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) in Nairobi, Kenya in May 2010 (photo credit CCAFS).

The Los Angeles Times reported on 8 November 2010 that climate scientists in the US are joining forces and taking their arguments to groups of global warming skeptics.

‘Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives [in the US] who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

‘The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday’s election.

‘On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country’s largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution. . . .

‘”This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists,” said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.

‘”We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.”

‘During the recent campaigns, skepticism about climate change became a rallying cry for many Republican candidates. Of the more than 100 new GOP members of Congress, 50% are climate change skeptics, according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. . . .’

Read the whole article at the Los Angeles Times: Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics, 8 November 2010.

 

Meat, dairy diet not tied to global warming

Forget all that indecorous talk of animal flatulence, cow burps, vegetarianism and global warming. Welcome to Cowgate.

Lower consumption of meat and dairy products will not have a major impact in combating global warming — despite persistent claims that link such diets to more greenhouse gases. So says a report presented Monday before the American Chemical Society.

It is the bovine version of Climategate, complete with faulty science and noisy activists with big agendas.

Read more (The Washington times)

 

Climate change – Brazil: The threat posed by livestock

The livestock industry has less economic clout than the oil industry, but ranchers say it has better arguments to defend itself from accusations regarding its share of responsibility for global warming.

The livestock industry represents 40 percent of agricultural production worldwide and provides a livelihood and food security to one billion people.

The fact that it provides a source of food perhaps goes some way towards protecting the industry from the argument that it generates too much greenhouse gases, which scientists blame for global warming and climate change.

“There is no scientific proof,” says Antenor Nogueira, president of the beef livestock forum of the Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock (CAN), referring to reports that accuse the industry of being one of the biggest threats to life on the planet.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that the livestock industry accounts for 18 percent of all greenhouse gases worldwide – more than the transport industry, which is responsible for 13 percent, and is a major consumer of oil.

Read more… (IPS News)

 

It’s raining, it’s pouring

“It’s so hot!” “Why can’t it stop raining?” “The lightning was terrible” I’m not sure about you but I keep finding myself complaining about the weather.

Global warming, Copenhagen, recycling, climate change – it’s like we just keep hearing it over and over again. Remember last year when we turned off the lights for one hour. I recall it causing quite a confusion for some – do I turn off all my lights or just a few or will one do? Can I still watch TV? What about my laptop, can I use it, or should that be turned off too? I remember being out in Kuala Lumpur having dinner under the stars, inhaling the pollution and being bitten by mosquitoes – thinking I really like electricity.

I calculated my carbon footprint years ago. I was confident that I’d get a good low score. After all I recycled regularly and was pretty aware of environmental issues. What a reality check that was. Not only do I have relatively large feet for a Malaysian, my carbon footprint is massive.

Read more (The Sun Daily)

 

Activists have a beef with livestock-keeping and meat intake culture

It is not the best time for livestock breeders to be in Copenhagen, especially those whose livelihoods and culture are intertwined with the precious creatures that provide meat in diet.

Negotiators and activists here say the world has to cut its meat consumption and activities around raising chicken, pigs, and cattle, saying they are major contributors to global warning, which is blamed for the drought that led to deaths of hundreds of thousands of cattle in Kenya.

In addition, activists are calling for the scaling down of livestock rearing even in Africa and lobbying consumers to limit meat intake.

Read more (Business Daily – Kenya)

 

Livestock is no villain

BLAMING livestock for global warming distorts reality and will not solve the world’s complex environmental and economic problems, says IAIN WRIGHT

Cattle have been getting some bad press lately.

Western editorials report the consumption of too much fatty red meat leading to increased heart disease, the inefficient use of grain as feed for livestock and the production of methane gases by cattle, a factor in global warming.

Read more. . . (Weekly times)

 

Livestock methane needs research: expert

Developing countries would suffer if livestock numbers were reduced to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, a visiting expert says.

Iain Wright from the International Livestock Research Institute is in Australia this week to look at ways emissions from livestock can be curbed while not adversely affecting global food supplies.

He advocates improved livestock feeding systems for small farmers in developing countries. Emissions from livestock represents about 18 per cent of the contribution to global warming.

Read more. . . (The age News)