The almost spiritual connection thin skinned farmers have with their cows means nothing David Parker could have said about dairy polluting our water was ever going to be acceptable.
Farmers were so complacent having their Party run the country for them over 9 years they didn’t acknowledge their pollution. They jumped on Key’s plan to put all our cows in one Beijing paddock and heavily indebted themselves for dairy intensification and have blinded themselves to what their greed has left us.
It should not surprise any of us that almost half of National Party voters are still climate deniers…
…Sacred cows run NZ politics and two legged sheep vote for it – meanwhile the climate melts…
Almost all the ice covering the Bering Sea has melted, throwing Alaska communities into disarray
Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming
Scientists Say Ocean Circulation Is Slowing. Here’s Why You Should Care
Sea levels could be rising faster than predicted due to new source of Antarctic ice melting
…with synthetic milk and meat on the horizon, intensive farming is a sunset industry as much as the oil industry is. The reality is we need to be adapting our economy and culture far more radically and with far more speed than we are doing right now.
Farmers, their political representative and those profiting from the existing flawed models of capitalism will refuse to accept there is a problem even while they are drowning from the very climate change their refuse to acknowledge.
When it comes to climate change, the right in NZ are a geography lesson being run by flat earthers.
Because I’m an actual scientist, I actually prefer to look at the data, and the data says the planet has been cooling for the last two years.
You can get it all, for free, right here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
From February 2016 to Feb 2018 global average temperatures have dropped 0.56°C. Indeed if this trend continues, then by the end of the year we’ll be back at 1980’s temperatures, despite CO2 levels continually rising. It’s no surprise that not a single climate model to date has yet made an accurate prediction on temperature changes because they all revolve around the false assumption that CO2 is the primary driver of said change, something that not a single iota of historical data backs up:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/co2_temperature_historical.png
With all due respect Nitrium – you are quoting an infamous climate denial site set up specifically to muddy the waters by pretending climate change is not happening.
It is disappointing you have fallen for such bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
I quote only NASA data and an image that I’m pretty sure is factually correct (the references for it are clearly cited). I quoted no text from that site whatsoever. If you prefer, the original image can be found here:
http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html
As I see it, “climate change” (which is obviously real, as that image also clearly shows) has become a sort of religion (mostly driven by zealots and politicians), with most of the “news” surrounding it not remotely aligning with reality. Does it not concern you that the fact that global temperatures have declined by over half a degree over the last two years has gone entirely unreported in the MSM? Why is that, do you think?
So the fact we’ve had hottest years and decades means nothing, Nitrium? NIWAs information is at odds with your claims.
You say you’re a scientist? What is your field and is that your actual profession?
New Zealand might have had some historically very hot years recently, but that is not true for the planet as a whole. You can try and deny the NASA data, but keep in mind how this very same data was previously used to “prove” anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 emissions was real for the last few decades (i.e. in that it aligned with effectively what you wanted to hear).
As I said previously, if the current trend continues we’ll be back to 1980’s temperatures by the end of this very year, undoing decades of warming trends. I can’t wait to see how climate “scientists” (yes I use the term very loosely), make their models “fit” this new data, and then claiming this was predicted all along.
Al Gore and Michael “hockey stick” Mann have a lot to answer for, since imo they sold a giant bunch of half truths and misinformation based on nothing I would consider hard science (I was enlightened to this in numerous science conferences while candidly talking to the students doing the research).
All that said, time will tell who’s right on this and I’m more than ready to be proven wrong if that is what the facts reveal.
“You can try and deny the NASA data”
Not at all. As NASA pointed out:
“Earth’s global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.
Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016” – https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/201
NASA disagrees with you, mr Nitrium.
NASA … never a sensible answer … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiE75z2miuQ&t=1s
With 17 of the 18 hottest years occurring since the year 2000 – *(Independent analyses by NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)). And you are basing your opinion on two years record, Nitrium?
when did the word ‘scientist’ become an auto-antonym?
Air and land surface temperatures vary HUGELY from day to day, from month to month, and sometimes from year to year -depending on factors such as cloud cover or volcanic eruptions, and also Earth orbit factors.
The only thing that is a true long term indicator of warming is the heat content of the oceans. It is the highest (by far) since measurements commenced, and has been rising steeply since 1968.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
And the reason the heat content of the oceans is so high (and rising rapidly) is that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is 180 ppm above the long term average (230 ppm) and 120 ppm above the pre-industrial level (280 ppm).
‘Because I’m an actual scientist, I actually prefer to look at the data’
Because you are fake and a climate change denier (maybe even a troll), you prefer to not look at the data!
Thank you NITRIUM for some balance in the midst of all this hysteria. Just because your are a “climate change” doubter does not mean you are a right wing fascist, not does it deserve such derision that you have been subjected to.
“Earth’s global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.
Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016” – https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/201
That contradicts your claim, Nitruium. And its from your source.
Mr NITRIUM (actual scientist, false prophet and sower of discord):
Well, because I’m an actual engineer … my perspective on global warming is one of practical concern about what we should be planning for and designing to, if we’re not to be negligent (I see before us, prospects of catastrophic sea-level rise beneath storms of truly terrible ferocity).
As an engineer, my approach to the science has been in the tradition of taking up scientific discovery and engineering it into something useful. In so doing, I was to find that it takes no great intellectual ability to recognise the nature of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and the role of CO2 in global warming – actually, the science is rather obvious: the relationships are universally observable and measurable; the evidence is empirical.
So then, Mr NITRIUM, what is anyone to make of your post – other than that, upon your word, you also have to be mad or corrupt (or both). In any case, there is no good to be had from your post, so why post it: honestly, Mr NITRIUM, who are you, and what are your motives?
No “motives” what so ever. I just don’t automatically take the word of people with an obvious agenda, and that includes scientists (after all, they’re all desperately trying to get research grants within very limited governmental budgets). Nor do I assume a “consensus view” is necessarily the truth. Think religion – there was time not that long ago that “everyone believes in God, so it must be true”. Indeed, a great number of people still know for certain that God exists. Are they right?
I wonder who it will be who survives the coming Anthropogenic Global Exctintion.
Will it be the 1 million National Party voters surrounded in there luxurious Warehouse items.
Or will it be every one else all to failure with life on a complex planet.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
And besides a bit more CO2 is good for the planet, it promotes greening.
And reducing emissions has squat effect.
And the models are wrong.
And it’s definitely the sun.
And it’s definitely Milankovich cycles.
And it’s definitely PDO.
Actually, it’s anything but CO2 and greenhouse gases.
Besides it’s not very much warming anyway.
If it is CO2 then it’s from natural causes not man made.
It could be sunspots.
Jennifer Marohasy has interesting theories.
Actually, Patrick Moore reckons that CO2 follows warming not the other way round and he was a founder of Greenpeace so that must be the reason.
Like I say it’s definitely not warming but if it is, and it isn’t, but if it was it’s only a tiny bit and it’s definitely not caused by man made gas emissions.
I see, Mr NITRIUM, that you have given rise already to the likes of Gary, and the cherry-picker, E-Clectic: “… All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest …” (Paul Simon, The Boxer).
You are a trouble-maker, Mr NITRIUM: good for nothing at your best. And by any objection perhaps you might explain your choice of avatar, the icon under which you post: the menacing eye of a demon (… yet another a glaring example of the devil operating in plain sight …).
Well farms don’t vote labour so Parker is not beholden to them
I think most of the stirring originates from National, because on Morning Report yesterday FF dairy Chris Lewis seemed quite philosophical about the coming changes.
It is almost unbelievable that climate change is still being denied in the face of so much evidence. Lets face it, most deniers are older generation, ignorant, blind and deaf. They don’t want to face the mess they have caused. Nice article Martyn.
While there is of course research going on into artificially made milk and meat, it is very unlikely that this will result in dairy becoming a business model that is on the ‘out’.
If we go by historic experiences, the synthetic or industrially produced artificial and replacement products will mostly be made for the increasing number of the poor and working poor in the world, perhaps a share of the middle class, but most who can somehow afford it, they will continue to get the ‘real thing’, as they perceive it to be better quality, more natural, more nourishing and more tasty and so forth.
It is like believing that luncheon would commonly replace real ham and the likes, which it has not. As a cheaper product, it is consumed by those who cannot afford real ham, I would suggest.
It would be a better solution to realise the potential of organic milk and organically produced meat products, and continue farming with dairy and meat production, in a sustainable way.
Some interesting statistics on dairy herds, cows per country, output, percentage share of world production, and so forth:
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/5235182/Statistics-Dairy-cows.pdf
New Zealand farmers will continue with dairy, an international comparison shows that the cows per land area are not that intense here when compared internationally, or rather not much different to what is common in many European and Asian countries, where they though use more pigs and other animals for different dietary preference reasons.
What is necessary is to ensure less affluent goes into soil and then waterways and lakes. There are many ways that can be done, and that is where the challenge is and can be met and mastered.
Some other useful info on dairy, cattle and also other animals per country and regions on the planet:
https://www.drovers.com/article/5-countries-have-more-cattle-people
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/20/5825826/these-maps-show-where-all-the-worlds-cattle-chickens-and-pigs-live
Fair to consider:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11938961
(Rachel Stewart on synthetic milk and challenges for the dairy industry)
Other useful info:
https://agrihq.co.nz/section/dairy/view/synthetic-milk-two-years-away
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/how-synthetic-milk-may-put-cows-out-of-business-1.2222468
It may be a bit more ‘efficient’ to produce artificial meat, but are we not simply delaying the inevitable crisis of an ever growing world population being unsustainable? It is not only food that is needed to maintain higher populations, they also create more waste, so where will that go?
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/08/the-future-will-be-full-of-lab-grown-meat/
Priorities
It is fun watching scientists who are in fact not scientists telling us what is happening to our planet.
In the meantime, we have City Councils pouring untold volumes of sewerage (complete with toxins) into sea coasts. Which wastes get shovelled back to us by the tides.
We have industries that also pollute. Mostly Diesel and Petrol. Both of which cause extreme health problems. Problems which never get discussed.
Then we have the Farmers (who don’t give a shit about what they do to their plots) have embarked on a total pollution of all of our water ways. For crying out loud.
To sum up : The thing is that we can get by without cows milk. Most of the world’s population is allergic to dairy milk anyway.
We can get by without Diesel / Petrol particulates. Hurrah.
But we cannot get by without pure clean water.
The Government which Passes Legislation to Abolish Pollution of Water – whether on Land or Streams, Rivers or Sea will be the Government that wins the Mind and Heart of New Zealand.
The National Party has resolutely gone with with all the Polluters. They encourage Pollution to the hilt.They bask in it. It is their precious foul delight – along with Sugar.
I think it is because National is made up of uneducated personnel. They are are not technically minded. Too difficult for them.
The problem is that our Planet has been given its water supply. There is no more. And even though lots of farmers want to use more and more water (because their farms are getting dryer an dryer) and they are in denial – they are responsible for polluting the water.
A responsible Government would give City Councils (and Rural) 3 years to run sewerage waste pans. Else have their Council taken to Court and personally fined and jailed.
Likewise for Industrial waste polluters.
Farmers should be given no more than three years to remove nitrates (and other pollutions) from their land and run offs and streams / rivers. The penalty would be heavy fines and Jail.
We are as a nation soft on crime and fraud. We cannot afford to be soft on Pollution. We die if our water is not H2,0.
National are Nitwits. Uneducated greed driven nitwits. And that’s not the half of it. I bet you any money you like, they will not adopt electric vehicles – which are clean. Which cost 4 cents a litre of energy. Very fast cars.
We need a Government that has a Brain. And we need it now.
Yep OT,
We are living on borrowed time now and reached the point of no return as CO2 levels rise ever higher the one point we have missed is that the sea level is rising and oxygen levels globally are dropping also and we cant breath when oxygen drops so what did we think will happen when CO2 levels keep rising????
Best we learn to grow gills?
it all looked good in the bank managers office but now the real bills are due.
Martyn,
Martyn:
Marc says, “What is necessary is to ensure less affluent
goes into soil”.
I am “less affluent”, am I too,to become effluent?
Graeme
Typing too fast and forgetting to check the spelling and grammar, thanks for pointing to the obvious.
We are long past peak cow. We are long past polluted waterways and industrial dairying. We are long past ECAN with no democratic input. We are long past new irrigation schemes too. I speak as an Ag Science graduate in Soil Science, Dairy Science, Microbiology and Ecology.
Yes they did and we can see it happening here in the east coast where cows are being moved around this Gisborne district who are bringing in cheap feed (palm material) to supplement and fatten them while ruining our narrow soft dirt roads and wearing out the highways also using trucks and burning lots of diesel to move these big mobs of cattle around in the dirtiest farming I have ever seen in my 73 yrs of life, shame on them.
… And notice the repugnant colour and texture of that cow shit – that must be pellet feed cow shit. The poor cow.
Back in my younger days when cows only ate grass, cow shit was dark green, almost black, … and sloppy, and fell onto the ground to form cow-pats – which, come to think of it, weren’t half so offensive.
Comments are closed.