Discussion:
An alternative view on NZ methane emissions
Add Reply
Crash
2021-03-17 18:22:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html

Owen Jennings is not a scientist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.



--
Crash McBash
John Bowes
2021-03-17 22:23:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
--
Crash McBash
An excellent article. Pity fools like James Shaw are firmly behind the crap from the IPCC!
Rich80105
2021-03-18 01:00:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
John Bowes
2021-03-18 03:02:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
So speaks a propaganda bot in favour of the UN's commands! Without the comprehension to see the wealth of evidence that their science is flawed!
Rich80105
2021-03-18 03:25:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 20:02:58 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
So speaks a propaganda bot in favour of the UN's commands! Without the comprehension to see the wealth of evidence that their science is flawed!
I'm keen to see it, John. Do you have a url?
John Bowes
2021-03-18 05:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 20:02:58 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
So speaks a propaganda bot in favour of the UN's commands! Without the comprehension to see the wealth of evidence that their science is flawed!
I'm keen to see it, John. Do you have a url?
LIAR! You haven't got the comprehension skills needed to understand it when it's in front of you Rich and you know it!
Crash
2021-03-18 04:34:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
https://news.aut.ac.nz/news/sheep-and-beef-farms-near-carbon-neutral
for detail on the research from Dr Bradley Case and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 for detail from
Allen, Shine et al.

This adds significant bones to the claims made by Owen Jennings in the
original article I cited.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2021-03-18 19:47:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
https://news.aut.ac.nz/news/sheep-and-beef-farms-near-carbon-neutral
From that article,
"The study led by applied ecologist Dr Bradley Case estimates the
woody vegetation on New Zealand sheep and beef farms is offsetting
between 63 per cent and 118 per cent of their on-farm agricultural
emissions. If the mid-point in the report's range is used, on average
the woody vegetation on sheep and beef farms is absorbing about 90
percent of these emissions."

""This research shows that of the remaining emissions, the vast
majority are being offset by the trees on our farms and New Zealand
sheep and beef farmers are on the way to being carbon neutral by
2050."

We can excuse Dr Case for the headline, 90% is not near carbon
neutral; presumably he anticipates that further sequestration of land
for vegetation will happen to meet that further 10%. The point he
makes about credit for sequestration does seem reasonable, but I do
not claim to be an expert on this - and the article acknowledges that
this is being owrked on.

But then we have:
"He says it should be noted that the study has not quantified the
sequestration taking place on dairy farms."

My impression is that most concern about 'dirty farming" has related
to dairy farming, and that from the wikipedia article referred to
above Owen Jennings may have been a dairy farmer:

"Before entering politics, Jennings was a farmer. Jennings was active
in New Zealand Federated Farmers, becoming its National President in
1990. He served three years. Prior to this he was National Dairy
Section Chairman. He was a director of the Karamea Dairy Company, Atas
Marketing Meat Ltd and Combined Rural Traders Ltd. "

Much of the concern relating to emissions has been in relation to
dairy farming rather than sheep and beef.
Post by Crash
for detail on the research from Dr Bradley Case and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 for detail from
Allen, Shine et al.
This adds significant bones to the claims made by Owen Jennings in the
original article I cited.
Perhaps you could explain how that second article supports the claims
made by Owen Jennings
James Christophers
2021-03-18 21:37:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
https://news.aut.ac.nz/news/sheep-and-beef-farms-near-carbon-neutral
for detail on the research from Dr Bradley Case and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 for detail from
Allen, Shine et al.
This adds significant bones to the claims made by Owen Jennings in the
original article I cited.
At least the authors sign off with their Ethics declaration: "The authors declare no competing interests."

No such openness and honesty from Jennings, one notes, and how could there be when he speaks of and for his own self-interests and those of the very people he is owned by.

But atmospheric degradation associated with dairy farming is by no means all there is to it. So try this brand new update, fresh in from our friends and mentors at ABC (ostriches need not bother):



Early in the piece we get this sweeping half-truth rhetoric from yer typical hear-no-evil-see-no-evil Canterbury ostrich.

“Do we want agriculture, do we want production - or do we want to get rid of agriculture?” (1' 30")

This, kindly note, is the dead-end "thinking" that Mr Jennings's self-serving constituency gives voice to.

'Nuff said.
Nellie the Elephant
2021-03-18 22:52:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
https://news.aut.ac.nz/news/sheep-and-beef-farms-near-carbon-neutral
for detail on the research from Dr Bradley Case and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 for detail from
Allen, Shine et al.
This adds significant bones to the claims made by Owen Jennings in the
original article I cited.
Your question is an excellent one and the article you originally
posted asks many questions. I seriously wonder why most of the media
only appear to publish one side of this.
Rich might argue that there is only one side, I would disagree.
James Christophers responds in his usual way by attacking the
messenger (Jennings), a method that he appears to enjoy.
"Nuff said"? Not by a long shot.
James Christophers
2021-03-19 00:31:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
https://news.aut.ac.nz/news/sheep-and-beef-farms-near-carbon-neutral
for detail on the research from Dr Bradley Case and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 for detail from
Allen, Shine et al.
This adds significant bones to the claims made by Owen Jennings in the
original article I cited.
Your question is an excellent one and the article you originally
posted asks many questions. I seriously wonder why most of the media
only appear to publish one side of this.
Rich might argue that there is only one side, I would disagree.
James Christophers responds in his usual way by attacking the
messenger (Jennings), a method that he appears to enjoy.
"Nuff said"? Not by a long shot.
Whatever polemic Jennings offers in this topic - fact-based or otherwise - I think it fair to remind those who may have forgotten, that Jennings - a dyed-in-the-hide libertarian - writes both as past President of, and present-day defending lobbyist for, a group that today gives rise to a universal concern over what is a currently perceived and further potential degradation of the overall global environment.

Now bear in mind that the National Party is historically and familiarly known as “The Farmers’ Party”.

So, that said, farmer’s lobbyist Jennings writes as a “guest” of Kiwiblog, a website owned by the Farmers’ Party’s paid employee/propagandist David Farrar, a lobby-loitering amateur scribe who not only influences through suggestion and insinuation but has also unequivocally admitted more than a few times that his messages are based at least as much on speculative mischief as on established fact.

Or, to put it another way: it might have been rather more prudent for Mr Jennings to have chosen a more “solid” publisher through whom to make his opinions known, which is not in any way to imply that what he has to say on this occasion is in itself in any way invalid.

IOW, caveat lector.
Nellie the Elephant
2021-03-19 01:12:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:31:17 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
https://news.aut.ac.nz/news/sheep-and-beef-farms-near-carbon-neutral
for detail on the research from Dr Bradley Case and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 for detail from
Allen, Shine et al.
This adds significant bones to the claims made by Owen Jennings in the
original article I cited.
Your question is an excellent one and the article you originally
posted asks many questions. I seriously wonder why most of the media
only appear to publish one side of this.
Rich might argue that there is only one side, I would disagree.
James Christophers responds in his usual way by attacking the
messenger (Jennings), a method that he appears to enjoy.
"Nuff said"? Not by a long shot.
Whatever polemic Jennings offers in this topic - fact-based or otherwise - I think it fair to remind those who may have forgotten, that Jennings - a dyed-in-the-hide libertarian - writes both as past President of, and present-day defending lobbyist for, a group that today gives rise to a universal concern over what is a currently perceived and further potential degradation of the overall global environment.
Now bear in mind that the National Party is historically and familiarly known as “The Farmers’ Party”.
So, that said, farmer’s lobbyist Jennings writes as a “guest” of Kiwiblog, a website owned by the Farmers’ Party’s paid employee/propagandist David Farrar, a lobby-loitering amateur scribe who not only influences through suggestion and insinuation but has also unequivocally admitted more than a few times that his messages are based at least as much on speculative mischief as on established fact.
Or, to put it another way: it might have been rather more prudent for Mr Jennings to have chosen a more “solid” publisher through whom to make his opinions known, which is not in any way to imply that what he has to say on this occasion is in itself in any way invalid.
IOW, caveat lector.
I suggest that you address the content rather than the man. As I
prviously made clear. Who he is or what his allegiances are does not
affect the content which has been ably supported with links from
Crash.
Rich80105
2021-03-19 11:05:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:52:19 +1300, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
https://news.aut.ac.nz/news/sheep-and-beef-farms-near-carbon-neutral
for detail on the research from Dr Bradley Case and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 for detail from
Allen, Shine et al.
This adds significant bones to the claims made by Owen Jennings in the
original article I cited.
Your question is an excellent one and the article you originally
posted asks many questions.
Its not clear to me what question you are referring to - there were
questions in the various articles, but which question of Crash were
you referring to?
Post by Nellie the Elephant
I seriously wonder why most of the media
only appear to publish one side of this.
I suspect there are more than one side, and some of the fringe views
are not held by very many people. Not all issues are 50/50 binary; our
response to dealing with the international agreements we are committed
to regardig climate change has many facets.

James identified one "opinion" in his quote :
“Do we want agriculture, do we want production - or do we want to get
rid of agriculture?”

The answer is of course we want the mix that best suits our personal
position - and no-one is suggesting getting rid of agriculture

Not all agriculture is the same - currently we are being told that it
costs a farmer more to shear a sheep than will be made by selling the
fleece - that seems quite a different issue than dairy. Sheep farmers
are not asking for a subsidy from government. Dairy farmers seem to
want to be exempt from sharing the cost of cleaning up dirty rivers
and town water supplies, or from costs of our not reducing emissions
under agreements that have been supported by the last National and
Labour-led governments. Farmers know that they trade in open markets -
some sheep farmers have put more into crops or trees (and some of the
trees have been more from erosion protection than CO2 sinks). Why
should dairy be supported through poor trading conditions when we
don't support other farmers - and they don't expect support?

I suspect the media have published the comments by Jennings because
they are controversial and may sell media advertising
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Rich might argue that there is only one side, I would disagree.
James Christophers responds in his usual way by attacking the
messenger (Jennings), a method that he appears to enjoy.
"Nuff said"? Not by a long shot.
Nellie the Elephant
2021-03-20 02:01:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 11:52:19 +1300, Nellie the Elephant
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
That is fair, but equally we should be interested in any credible
science that supports the claims Jennings makes.
https://news.aut.ac.nz/news/sheep-and-beef-farms-near-carbon-neutral
for detail on the research from Dr Bradley Case and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 for detail from
Allen, Shine et al.
This adds significant bones to the claims made by Owen Jennings in the
original article I cited.
Your question is an excellent one and the article you originally
posted asks many questions.
Its not clear to me what question you are referring to - there were
questions in the various articles, but which question of Crash were
you referring to?
The only implicit question he asked. Read what he wrote. He is asking
for scientific evidence to refute Jenning's opinion.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Nellie the Elephant
I seriously wonder why most of the media
only appear to publish one side of this.
I suspect there are more than one side, and some of the fringe views
are not held by very many people. Not all issues are 50/50 binary; our
response to dealing with the international agreements we are committed
to regardig climate change has many facets.
“Do we want agriculture, do we want production - or do we want to get
rid of agriculture?”
You and James have one thing in common, neither of you have addressed
the topic, both of you have addresse side issues. James focussed on
the man and not the issue, you focussed on entirely different and
off-topic matters.
Pity really, it would be informative to see somebody answer Crash's
implicit question and at the same time to actually look to debate on
the issue rather than take the topic somewhere else.
Post by Rich80105
The answer is of course we want the mix that best suits our personal
position - and no-one is suggesting getting rid of agriculture
Not all agriculture is the same - currently we are being told that it
costs a farmer more to shear a sheep than will be made by selling the
fleece - that seems quite a different issue than dairy. Sheep farmers
are not asking for a subsidy from government. Dairy farmers seem to
want to be exempt from sharing the cost of cleaning up dirty rivers
and town water supplies, or from costs of our not reducing emissions
under agreements that have been supported by the last National and
Labour-led governments. Farmers know that they trade in open markets -
some sheep farmers have put more into crops or trees (and some of the
trees have been more from erosion protection than CO2 sinks). Why
should dairy be supported through poor trading conditions when we
don't support other farmers - and they don't expect support?
I suspect the media have published the comments by Jennings because
they are controversial and may sell media advertising
Post by Nellie the Elephant
Rich might argue that there is only one side, I would disagree.
James Christophers responds in his usual way by attacking the
messenger (Jennings), a method that he appears to enjoy.
"Nuff said"? Not by a long shot.
James Christophers
2021-03-18 04:27:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
Mr Jennings is what one might call 'decidedly rural-centric'. He has been National President of Nw Zealand Federated Farmers, no less, and a member of the ACT party. He may therefore fairly be regarded as being of the more libertarian persuasion with a well-greased barrow to push.

Since Mr Jennings centres his piece on cattle farming while also saying he seeks some "balance", he could have made a start by offering an acceptance statement immediately after his opening para, declaring that no human being needs to eat beef or consume any dairy product. IOW, dairy is not only an indulgence the world can well do without, but multiple alternative sources of protein and mineral nourishment are already long-acknowledged and available and can be more efficiently and sustainably produced while simultaneously maintaining and enhancing a cleaner and healthier environment all round.

Not to mention a directly corresponding reduction in New Zealand's sky-rocketing and unaffordable cardio-vascular count.
John Bowes
2021-03-18 05:29:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
Mr Jennings is what one might call 'decidedly rural-centric'. He has been National President of Nw Zealand Federated Farmers, no less, and a member of the ACT party. He may therefore fairly be regarded as being of the more libertarian persuasion with a well-greased barrow to push.
Since Mr Jennings centres his piece on cattle farming while also saying he seeks some "balance", he could have made a start by offering an acceptance statement immediately after his opening para, declaring that no human being needs to eat beef or consume any dairy product. IOW, dairy is not only an indulgence the world can well do without, but multiple alternative sources of protein and mineral nourishment are already long-acknowledged and available and can be more efficiently and sustainably produced while simultaneously maintaining and enhancing a cleaner and healthier environment all round.
Not to mention a directly corresponding reduction in New Zealand's sky-rocketing and unaffordable cardio-vascular count.
Not to mention even more garbage from Keith in defence of shonky science! And you know it! :)
Gordon
2021-03-18 06:46:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
Okay this falls into the zero emissions claim of electric cars. Sure grass,
being bio matter, as are trees, take up the CO2 to produce the grass. Okay
we can stop there. However nature tends to have cycles.

The cow eats the grass and low and behold the CO2 reappears. All animals
emit CO2, all plants sink it. The so called carbon cycle. Plants also emit
CO2 as they are living, but overall they sink CO2.

Grow a tree. It dies and then it decays. Food for all sorts of bugs, which
the birds eat. This rotting is nothing more than slow burning, the CO2 is
returned to the atmosphere.

Whats seems to get lost is that there is this cycle and it has been going on
for about 3.6 billion years on Earth. By burning the fossil fuels all humans
are doing is freeing up some CO2. Of course that might be important. After
all we have a year long climate emergency now.
Rich80105
2021-03-18 19:56:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2021/03/guest_post_saving_dolly.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Jennings but he was a farmer and
politician. If anyone has any credible science that debunks the claim
Jennings makes I would be interested to read about it.
Okay this falls into the zero emissions claim of electric cars. Sure grass,
being bio matter, as are trees, take up the CO2 to produce the grass. Okay
we can stop there. However nature tends to have cycles.
The cow eats the grass and low and behold the CO2 reappears. All animals
emit CO2, all plants sink it. The so called carbon cycle. Plants also emit
CO2 as they are living, but overall they sink CO2.
Grow a tree. It dies and then it decays. Food for all sorts of bugs, which
the birds eat. This rotting is nothing more than slow burning, the CO2 is
returned to the atmosphere.
Whats seems to get lost is that there is this cycle and it has been going on
for about 3.6 billion years on Earth. By burning the fossil fuels all humans
are doing is freeing up some CO2. Of course that might be important. After
all we have a year long climate emergency now.
Here in New Zealand over the last say 200 years we have cleared much
of the original native forest for farming, and have also dug into the
ground and burnt coal - effectively releasing additional CO2 from both
of those major actions; that is morroed around the world, albeit at
different rates over different time frames. That appears to have
changed the 'cycle' you referred to, leaving us with higher levels of
CO2 in our atmosphere, with subsequent obervable changes to climate.

There may also be other effects of the chemicals that are affecting
our climate and global temperatures:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/18/toxic-chemicals-health-humanity-erin-brokovich
Loading...