One of these molecules is not like the other one


Pastural Farming Climate Research has released a short video to explain the ?methane mistake?. Quote:

The consultation document for the Carbon Zero bill proposes three options, two of which propose different treatment for methane emissions.

The Minister for Climate Change and his Ministry officials obviously do not realize that the third option is exactly the same as the second option.

The second option requires methane emissions to be stabilized but not reduced and the third option requires methane to be at net zero by 2050. The reason these two options are the same is that methane emissions that are stable are at net zero.? End of quote.

They are not increasing or decreasing so there is no net change.? No net change equals net zero. This short video explains why that is.


The next question that has to be asked is why the Minister and his officials are so misinformed about methane they make such an obvious mistake, and why it is that our Government has misled us for so many years about the impact of our livestock on global warming.??End of quote.

I wonder why this group even buys into the whole “carbon” scam?

Suppose that you were morally, philosophically and legally opposed to polygamy.? Would you attempt to convince a man with two wives that he should not take a third because she was ‘different’ on the basis of the colour of her hair or that she was left-handed?? No, of course not. You would argue from first principles that polygamy was wrong.

The promoters of this video seem to be dancing on the head of a pin saying this molecule of CO2 is bad whereas this other molecule of CO2 is okay.? How on earth does the global warming/climate change mechanism pick and choose between the CO2 molecules? Quote:

Methane? from our cows and sheep is a greenhouse gas but it is not the same as the greenhouse gas produced from coal and oil?End of quote.

The video suggests that CO2 from “fossil” fuels is different from the CO2 that comes from the oxidisation of methane (from farming) because the farming CO2 came from grass and is turned back into the grass. Where do they think the CO2 in oil and gas came from?? If you accept that they are “fossil” fuels then the CO2 came from plants and animals (albeit on a longer time frame).

They also buy into and promote the black dirty CO2 imagery of the Greens. The car in the video is belching filthy exhaust fumes and a cloud of black CO2 rises:



CO2, as they should know, is a colourless, odourless gas.? Very poor imagery in my opinion.

The video tells us that “the scientists came up with the idea to invent a unit called ‘carbon’.”? Nonsense. From the web. Quote.

The term ?carbon? can be confusing as it is used as a shorthand expression to refer to either just CO2or to greenhouse gases in general (although not all GHGs contain carbon!). In addition, converting CO2?to carbon is not particularly useful as doing so does not allow comparisons between different GHGs, in the way that converting to CO2e does. As a result it is less and less common to see CO2emissions reported in terms of ?carbon?. End of quote.

The video then tells us that the three main greenhouse gases are CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. Wrong again:??The primary greenhouse gases in?Earth’s atmosphere?are?water vapour,?carbon dioxide,?methane,?nitrous oxide, and?ozone.

Water vapour, the most powerful greenhouse gas, miraculously gets a free pass in the whole climate boondoggle.?On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect.

Here is why water vapour gets a free pass; “Water vapour?is not considered to be a cause of man-made global warming because it does not persist in the atmosphere for more than a few days.” A curious reason as water vapour is always in the atmosphere. But that is not the point of this video.

Although the video happily mocks the climate scientists and shows flaws in their arguments towards the end, on the whole, I found this video less than inspiring as they had lost my interest back at 51 seconds with the black CO2.

The video ends with the statement “‘Carbon’ is not real and its invention was just a big mistake.” Quite true, so attack the issue there.? I realise that the video makers are trying to protect their patch (the farm) but why not argue that the whole thing is wrong from first principles rather than my molecule is OK, those other molecules are the bad ones?

See also:

Our warmer planet is due to atmospheric pressure.

Fundamental error in the climate maths.