Albrecht Glatzle. Domestic Livestock and Its Alleged Role in Climate Change. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80389
It is very old wisdom that climate dictates farm management strategies. In recent years, however, we are increasingly confronted with claims that agriculture, livestock husbandry, and even food consumption habits are forcing the climate to change. We subjected this worrisome concern expressed by public institutions, the media, policy makers, and even scientists to a rigorous review, cross-checking critical coherence and(in)compatibilities within and between published scientific papers. Our key conclusionis there is no need for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and even less so for livestock-born emissions, to explain climate change. Climate has always been changing, and even the present warming is most likely driven by natural factors. The warming potential of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been exaggerated, and the beneficial impacts of manmade CO2 emissions for nature, agriculture, and global food secu- rity have been systematically suppressed, ignored, or at least downplayed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and other UN (United Nations) agencies.Furthermore, we expose important methodological deficiencies in IPCC and FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) instructions and applications for the quantification of the manmade part of non-CO2-GHG emissions from agro-ecosystems. However, so far, thesefatal errors inexorably propagated through scientific literature. Finally, we could not find a clear domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distributionnor in the historical evolution of mean atmospheric methane concentration. In conclu-sion, everybody is free to choose a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, but there is no scientificbasis, whatsoever, for claiming this decision could contribute to save the planet’s climate.
“The claim that aggressive climate change mitigation programs helps the poor is egregiously misleading. Modern coal plants are a success story, as pollutants emitted have fallen dramatically with technological improvements over the past several decades.”click here
“New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.” click here
“Some voices are well-intentioned but wrongheaded. Some voices use climate as a stalking horse for their real agenda — i.e., system change to socialism. Some see business or “rent- seeking” opportunities in climate alarm. Some go along with climate out of political correctness.
As we have shown — and have done so exclusively through the voices and reports of climate alarmists — there is absolutely no reason for any Republican to offer a plan to “combat climate change.” Such a plan, if enacted would accomplish nothing good for American or the climate.” click here
The talking point is often made that “the majority of climate sciences” believes this or that or that someone is not a “climate scientist.” For example,
“Both of those researchers say that humans play a minimal role in climate change, a position rejected by the vast majority of climate scientists.” click here
Actually, the author of this article does not have a clue what “the vast majority of climate scientists.” No one does because the study of climate and changes in climate is a multidisciplinary field. The study of climate and climate changes extends well-beyond counting tree rings and government-funding of elaborate computer models. There is no credible way to know what “the majority of climate scientists” without asking all “climate scientists”.
As food for thought, here is a slide listing disciplines where climate and climate changes are studied.