We are all told by finger-wagging climate activists and vegans that eating meat contributes to climate change. The science is clear that this is bollocks and that meat and dairy farming is 100% sustainable, yet this lie is perpetrated by the media as fact and by left-wing governments wanting to tax farmers.

The grass that cattle eat is made mostly from Carbon Dioxide and water etc. The cow's body is made from the same and during its life it will produce milk and meat for human nourishment. What the killjoys will point out is that during their life, cows produce a lot of methane which is a far worse GHG than CO2.

What these activists don't mention is that Methane in the atmosphere decays into CO2 and water with a half-life of about 6 years and after 30 years only about 1% of the original methane remains. In fact, the net contribution to global warming of one cow measured over say 60 years is vanishingly close to zero.

So cattle farming is one of the most sustainable activities known to man.

Can we say that the old cow, Linda, who is well known for her big "utters" and smelly rear end, was right when she moo'ed it was all the work of a lying young cow named Brittany! If you ask me, I think its all a lot of hot, but rather smelly air!

I see the village idiot has joined this thread with his usual stupidity.

Pauliar, the greens Bull would be Jonathan Doig I guess, and the rat would be Bandt?

I guess the village idiot is incapable of an intelligent discussion.

Shonky,

You're not even half funny, no Rolf Harris award for you! You're an "udder" disgrace!

p/s, Do you not think the tone of this site would be improved a thousand percent if we could only add emoji's and GIF's to our posts, I found a beauty of a cow farting, I want to send it to you. Just no sophistication here!

Village idiot,

No sophistication or intelligence would ever be expected from you.

That the entire meat/climate change issue is a farce is something that you clearly cannot understand.

Shonky,

You are pissing in the wind, the science is unequivocal, CLIMATE CHANGE due to human activity is real, and its with us now, not tomorrow, not next week, NOW! No matter how much an old conservative like you wants to deny it, the reality is climate action is required NOW!. Whether farting cows are a problem or not the reality of the situation needs to be dealt with in a positive way. You will get agreement from other old octogenarian deniers, who are not far off being carbonised themselves, but its meaningless. We would be better off discussing your belief that the earth is flat, than the pros and cons of CLIMATE CHANGE.

Shadow,
'Tis not a myth. The calculations of the global warming potential of methane do take its atmospheric half life into account.

Denialists keep assuming the scientists are doing it wrong, but fail to actually check. Every time they discover anything that's new to them, they assume the scientists don't already know, whereas in most cases the scientists have been well aware for decades.

Meanwhile farmers have the option of supplementing the cows' diet to reduce the amount of methane they produce.

What utter god damn twaddle Aidan.

The CO2 & methane passed by cows came from guess where Aidan? Could it be from the air that supplied the carbon to enable the grass to grow. Cows, & all other life forms supply a sequestering service, tying up carbon for a number of years.

Without the cows the CO2 in the grass would rot, or be consumed by termites, returning the CO2 to the air more quickly. Kill off the cows, & an immediate boost in CO2 will follow.

Cowshit, coal and gas are all good; they have given us the standard of living we have enjoyed for decades in Australia. Leftists, politicians and climate crooks are all bad, because they are taking our wealth and way of life away from us.

Village idiot,

Once again you display your stupidity. This is not about climate change as a whole but rather the idiocy of including methane from cows in the PERMANENT contribution to GHG.

The effect on global warming 30 years after a cow is gone is close to zero.

Aidan, Look up the calculations and you will see how bogus it is.

In Adelaide today, the CMO, having reduced her usefulness to society by dropping from real doctor (paediatrician) to public servant, has now become a witchdoctor, blurting out during a radio discussion on Covid, that climate change has an effect on human health. The fact that the world has never been healthier and wealthier doesn't seem to have shown up in the chicken bones she threw down on the table this morning.

It has been scientifically proven that Old Farts emit 200% more methane and hydrogen sulphide (that's the smelly stuff), than a regular lentil eating Greenie or the average old moo'. It has been established that the Old Farts exclusive diet of "Baked Beans in Tomato Sauce" is the cause of their excessive flatulence. Fortunately, a breakthrough remedy has been discovered, its the "Corker", once inserted in the appropriate orifice, the "Corker" will permanently prevent the expulsion of these nasty climate destroying gases!

As the village idiot is one of the oldest farts on OLO I guess that he is talking about himself.

What the moron forgets is that leafy vegetables eaten by gangreens also create lots of gas and measures taken by paedophile greenie Jono Doig don't help reduce gas.

No need for profanities Hasbeen! Nothing I said was incorrect.
The CO2, which I didn't mention, is largely a red herring for obvious reasons that you and Shadow acknowledge. Although there are exceptions, such as when deforestation is involved. Farming can be sustainable; that doesn't mean it always is.

But methane has a much higher global warming potential despite its short atmospheric half life. An overview can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

There are different calculations done over different timeframes, so you could argue the appropriateness of the timeframe. And there is uncertainty of the atmospheric half life of methane: a twelve year figure is most commonly used. But even if we go with Shadow's optimistic eight years, the 60 year results are VERY far from "vanishingly close to zero".

Did you miss the point accidentally, intentionally, or do you simply not understand Aidan?

Cows can only produce in farts & burps, what they have taken in in the grass & other carbohydrate. If they don't do so either other, mostly termites or rot will produce the same chemicals into the atmosphere, even quicker. At least cows will have a period where they will sequester some of the CO2 used by the grass to grow.

What is it you don't understand about this?

Shonky Trumpster,

Since you mentioned it yet again. You seem to have a fetish with paedophilia and paedophiles, you mention them often enough here, you must get off on it or something?

Hasbeen,
No, I didn't miss the point. I saw that the point you were trying to make was based on false assumptions and red herrings.

You have greatly underestimated the global warming potential of methane. You seem to regard it as similar to CO2, but in reality it's a lot higher,. The IPCC has rated it at 56 times higher over 20 years, or 21 times higher over 100 years. If new high quality research shows the methane's atmospheric half life to be lower, that's good news - but there's no way it would make the figure "vanishingly small".

Cows v termites is another red herring. Yes, cows do compare favourably in that regard, but it's unlikely the grass would be consumed by termites if the cows weren't there. Grazing by kangaroos would be a more sensible comparison, and there the cows compare very unfavourably (though as I said before, dietary supplements can change that).

Village idiot, they seem to be welcome in the greens.

Aidan,

A paper from MIT gives the half-life of CO2 as about 7 years which means that after 60 years 0.2% of the methane emitted still exists.

C02 exists in the atmosphere for centuries so any comparison between CO2 and CH4 in decades is spurious. Methane emitted a century ago has no more effect on the climate today than CO2, cows a century ago that absorbed and cows a century ago have zero effect on the climate today and cows today will have zero effect on the climate 100 years from now.

Eliminating all the cattle today will have a small effect today but do nothing in the long term.

It is all a lot of bulldust anyway.
I have asked this question previously and never get an answer.
"If co2 generated by man & women, cause the planet to heat;
why is it that the temperature rises first then the co2 rises ?"

No one comes back with a sensible answer.

Here is a new clarification of global warming.
It seems to be a self regulating system, and the questions raised will
be hard to argue against.

http://rclutz.com/2023/06/07/what-if-climate-is-self-correcting/

Just think about it, it does seem to answer the real question and
make irrelevant the "Its ALL about CO2 !" panic.

Yawn.

"Certain purveyors of climate-myths seized on this observation, claiming it to be “proof” that carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change. Wrong, wrong, wrong. But how? The answer lies in a beer-can.

In fact, you can do this one yourself. You need two cans of any fizzy beer. On a nice summer's day, take one out of the fridge and place it outside in direct sunshine for a few hours. Leave the other where it is. Then open the two at the same time. The warm one will froth like mad, half-emptying the can and making a mess. What is left in the can will be horrible and flat. Conversely, the one straight from the fridge will just give a “pfft” noise and will be pleasant to drink, being cool and fizzy.

What's that got to do with this myth? Well, you have just demonstrated an important point about the solubility of CO2 in water. CO2 gives fizzy drinks their fizz and it is far more soluble in colder water. As the water warms, it cannot hold onto as much CO2 and it starts to degas. Hence that flat lager."
http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

He believes he has the answer to Climate Change'

http://www.facebook.com/watch/?comment_id=814119026432277&v=1251059508566351

http://www.facebook.com/NITVAustralia/posts/121833542486770/

Proud Boy Jose'

Are you disagreeing with what these people have say. If so what particularly gets you riled up. Is it what they say, or is it their skin colour?

You seem to have no problem with myths, your god deity you like to pray to, is most certainly a figment of your imagination, there is no evidence for the existence of your god, or any gods for that matter, therefore god is a myth. Agree?

Sorry SR, good try, but what caused it to warm up in the first place ?

The problem with SR's somewhat puerile example is that what is true for beer is not necessarily true for seawater.

When CO2 dissolves in water it forms carbonic acid and comes out of the water when it is heated. If the water is alkaline the carbonic acid reacts with the alkaline and generally remains in solution unless a high temperature is reached.

As the sea is alkaline (pH of about 8.1) the sea usually permanently absorbs the CO2.