Grounded firmly in science?

We pay for a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment,? Simon Upton. The website for this taxpayer funded trough ($3.5 million/year) tells us that, “The Commissioner’s primary role is to give independent advice to Parliament.”

A recent article published by Simon is about methane from agriculture. Quote.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton, has today [30 August] released new research on the impact methane from New Zealand?s livestock has on global warming.

?I hope this new work will help promote debate on reducing methane emissions that is grounded firmly in science.?

?It shows that holding New Zealand?s methane emissions steady at current levels would not be enough to avoid additional global warming.?

The modelling underpinning the research indicates that if New Zealand wished to ensure that methane from livestock contributed no additional warming beyond current levels, emissions would need to be reduced by at least 10-22 percent below 2016 levels by 2050, with further reductions by 2100. End of quote.

Well, there is a fail straight away. The paper is not grounded firmly in science it is based on computer models that are programmed by fallible and biased programmers.

The foreword to the paper has this comment. Quote.

The three main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. While most countries are focused on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, New Zealand is forced to think harder about the contribution of methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture, which together make up a particularly high proportion of our total emissions. […]

As part of that research I commissioned some modelling to provide a better understanding of how much warming a given level of methane emissions from livestock causes, and over what time frame. End of quote.

Second fail, Simon.? To quote the most warmist of sources, Wikipedia, “In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are?water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.? If you are going to be “grounded firmly in science” at least get the facts correct.? And forget the models, they have not got a single prediction correct yet.

The detail of the paper tells how Simon engaged a modeller to work this all out. Quote.

To do this, [the modeller] needed first to estimate New Zealand?s historical emissions of methane from livestock.? ?Those estimates were then combined with data from New Zealand?s greenhouse gas inventory and emission projections. This information was fed into a widely-used, relatively simple climate model, which simulated the warming effect resulting from the scenarios outlined above. End of quote.

So the whole thing is based on a SWAG (Scientific wild-arsed guess)?about the past, added to another SWAG about the future and fed into a simple climate model.

A really “grounded firmly in science? process.? Yeah/Nah

I could go on with more, but you get the picture.? And speaking of pictures, this one is really appalling.? It would be hard to find something less “grounded firmly in science?.

Look at that horrendous temperature rise. It is almost, um, err, hang on – there is no scale on the vertical axis – but it looks really bad!

Now look closely at the graphs.? At year 0 (whenever that was) there was no methane, then suddenly there was a lot of methane emissions.? How much is ‘a lot’?? No idea, no scale, no numbers!

Here is a picture of Simon Upton grounded firmly in science.