Guest post by Michael Oxenham
Best use of taxpayers’ money?
I have been an admirer and daily reader of WUWT for over 5 years, which, together with many other sites, links and papers have given me, I feel, a good insight into the climate debate. Veterinary research projects related to global warming/climate change have not featured on your site very often, so you may be interested in this short post from a concerned taxpayer and retired veterinarian. – Michael Oxenham
VETERINARY RESEARCH AND GLOBAL WARMING
On 25th February ’12 the Veterinary Record, the weekly journal of the BVA, published a news report of a research project, which had coined the title, ‘Ruminomics’. This was essentially to investigate the possibility of reducing the methane and nitrogen emissions from dairy cattle by varying their genome and their ruminal microbiome. This was all clearly predicated on the conjecture that these emissions cause or drive global warming/climate change. The project was described as a 4-year study in partnership with 11 European organisations, coordinated by Prof. John Wallace of Aberdeen University. It was funded by a grant of €7.7m from the EU Commission. Regrettably this seems to be a classic case of a ‘follow the money’ project.
On 24th March ’12 the VR published my letter of comment under the title ‘Best use of taxpayers’ money?’ In it I expressed my incredulity at the size of the grant and that I knew of no published empirical data or falsifiable experiments that demonstrate a link between these emissions (and CO2 for that matter) and GW/CC. The Editor strangely censored one sentence from this letter, which was – ‘I am bound to ask if due diligence was followed in the award of these funds’ – my point being that if the grant application had not been accompanied by references to published empirical data or falsifiable experiments of a link between methane and GW, then due diligence had not been followed.
Interestingly a previous letter of mine was published in the VR on 18th Dec. ’10. In it I commented, inter alia, that I hoped the keepers of the public purse would, in future, closely scrutinise fund applications which had GW/CC tagged on to the project title. I mention this because previously several of my letters to the VR on Veterinary GW/CC topics have been totally or partly censored. I get the impression therefore that there is a Guardian-type ideology in the Editor’s office. For example a BVA committee produced a very dodgy ‘Brief’ on how members could help in tackling GW/CC. My letter challenging various statements in the ‘Brief’ was totally censored.
It was strange but significant, that no one from the ‘Ruminomics’ team challenged my comments of 24th March. If ‘results’ of the project are submitted for publication, I hope reviewers will look at them with due diligence.
A side issue of this matter was that the GWPF wished to reproduce my 24th March letter in full. However the publishers of the VR, the BMJ Group, demanded a copyright fee of $895. The Foundation considered this to be an outrageous sum for a letter of comment of about 118 words. So for copyright reasons I have only been able to cite parts of that letter.
The facts of this story remind me of the late Prof Hal Lewis’s observations in his resignation letter from the APS in 2010.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One can only hope that some useful genetic science emerges from this shambles, improved techniques for genetic manipulation, or genome analysis, or something.
I am a veterinarian and am ashamed that these journals are falling for this BS. WE are now on guard. Will be advising due diligence on this matter
As an aside comment it seems Australia is literally freezing for months now look at the COLA MAPS
I suggest using innocent and transparent code. Abbreviate due diligence as d-d, then D.D., then d.d., etc., and include references in every second sentence. Make the censors work for their pelf!
wait, if it’s your letter, you own the original copywrite and the GWPF can publish with your permission alone. Dare the journal to go after you for the copywrite infringement. Make it a HUGE court case, then you’ll get attention to this. Seriously. Defend yourself. This is nonsense.
This display of rent seeking wouldn’t be complete without a few million devoted to analyzing as to how cow tipping may vary the results.
Eh? What? WHAT????
Whether or not you attached the copyright mark the copyright in your letter is yours unless you specifically assigned it elsewhere.
Merely publishing what you wrote, whether edited or otherwise, gives the journal no rights or powers over your copyright. You may publish as you please.
I do not not know what agreements you may have signed with the publisher, and if you did more fool you, but the mere writing and sending of a letter does not and cannot impose any legal obligation on you as to the copyright: whether it was published or not. Whatever the recipient and publisher might urge to the contrary.
Without a formal written contract any attempt to hijack your copyright in such a way is simply intellectual property piracy: unless of course the reproduction is itself a copy of that laid out as read in the Journal: as opposed to the mere text of the letter.
Kindest Regards.
Thanks Jones, for backing me up — when you write a letter, IT’S YOUR LETTER. You own the copywrite. You can send a million copies to a million other publishers. they can choose to publish or not, but it’s YOUR LETTER. Please, post the full letter and their replies.
Has beer consumption increased with global Warming?? The EU should sponsor my research which entails researching the various pubs in england and 5 star restaurants on the continent in search of tell tale signs that Global Warming is anything but complete B/S. Couple of mill should do it. Pounds course.
And since they never published your letter in full… then it would be pretty obvious that they were doing so from a different source than the scam artists charging $895.
You are free to say now whatever you may have said then, word for word, and feel free to quote youself. None of us may know what you said but all of us will fight for your right to say it… again.
the veterinary guys want some money too
“…This was essentially to investigate the possibility of reducing the methane and nitrogen emissions from dairy cattle by varying their genome and their ruminal microbiome. This was all clearly predicated on the conjecture that these emissions cause or drive global warming/climate change. …”
And all the millions of bison that inhabited the North American continent for centuries had no effect?
Most publications state that if you send them a letter to the editor it becomes their copywrite, and I believe that has been tested in court.
On the other hand…. what are they going to sue you or GWPF for? Since they have by their own hand fixed the value of their copywrite at $895, they would be hard pressed to sue for damages in excess of that.
At today’s legal rates, that ought to fund an intial consultation and 2 1/2 sentences of a nasty notice letter.
Mr Lynn says:
July 23, 2012 at 7:36 pm
a jones says:
July 23, 2012 at 7:22
If the if the publication stipulates that any letters submitted and published become the property of the publication, then I think by simply submitting a letter you have relinquished your copyright, and no further contract is necessary.
Of course, if this policy is not clearly spelled out in the publication itself, then you would have a case that you granted only non-exclusive rights, and retained all others for yourself. Worth checking the journal’s written policies to be sure.
/Mr Lynn
——————————————————————————————————————–
NOT SO SIR.
It is a commonplace misconception that this is the law when it is not and is much played upon by scoundrels in an attempt to extort money from innocent souls.
No reputable Journal tries to impose any such stipulation, not only because it has no force in law, but also because they do not wish to damage their credibility by doing so.
Thus, for example, some great newspaper might ask, not unreasonably, the letter writer to confirm that his letter is exclusive to them and has not been sent to any other publication before they publish it: and indeed can expound this as their policy even though it has no force in law.
They thus depend upon the goodwill of the letter writer. They do not claim any rights in the said letter other than to publish it as fair comment.
The originator of new material, words, tunes etc. owns the copyright absolutely even if they do not protect it by making it public with with a copyright C and date. The author cannot assign the copyright unless it is done by a contract evidenced in writing with consideration. And even then the contract must specify in full what exact rights have been purchased.
If it does not do so it is null and void. As is the stipulation your refer to.
It is no contract at all. Mere bluff and bluster.
This is the law of England and indeed of the UK and many other jurisdictions such as the USA, the EU and so on.
Kindest Regards.
They didn’t embarrass the poor cows with gas collecting bags like this did they?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1033656/Reducing-cow-burping-key-tackling-climate-change.html
I am also a vet and grazier, and this is at first view a foolish use of taxpayers’ money……but I can understand why Aberdeen University applied for the funding.
While the link between ruminant methane emissions and climate change is unproven and probably insignificant, it is well accepted that methane production by ruminants is a source of production inefficiency and economic loss to livestock producers.
In short, this is because instead of organic compounds in the rumen (one of the stomachs) being processed into volatile fatty acids that the animal can absorb and turn into milk or meat, they are lost to the air as an energy-rich gas. For this reason, ionophores such as monensin have been used in the rations of intensively fed ruminants for decades to change rumen biology and reduce the amount of methane produced. My own experience in intensively fed beef cattle is that it improves feed conversion efficiency by 10% or more.
Under extensive conditions and in poorer developing countries, feeding ionophores is not practical or unaffordable. Genetic manipulation of gut flora may yield fruit in the future, for very little cost for individual herdsmen. Obtaining funding for something as arcane and unglamourous as gut flora in cattle must be very tough, particularly when it could take a decade or more to commercialise. So, to achieve an outcome that may benefit hundreds of millions of poor farmers worldwide, the researchers may have decided to play the game and cook up a Global Warming story to make it attractive to funding agencies. One can argue over whether the end justifies the means….Ideally one should be completely honest about the justifications of one’s research programmes.
Just send it to me. I will publish it here in Australia and invite them to send out a lawyer to meet with my lawyers to sort it out. Of course that won’t cost me a cent as both my son and his wife are both lawyers but I imagine their fees may be quite high. Too high for them to persue it actually.
If ‘Simon of the Caucasus’ comments are correct, then this study obviously has value, unlike the tens of billions of dollars completely wasted elsewhere on so called climate change research projects.
Grant addiction is one of the many unpleasant side effects of the ‘research’ undertaken by ‘climate scientists’. Climate change grant addiction, just like its sister drug addiction, has proven to be a huge cost burden for our societies. Both types of addiction are economic burdens, without any benefits whatsoever, to us all – the sole exceptions being for a small group of greedy individuals who peddle their products to the public. One group peddles scare stories generated from manipulated and/or fraudulently interpreted data, the other peddles drugs.
The morals of the leaders of the CAGW cult, such as the Team, Hansen, Gore etc are little different from those of the Colombian drug lords.
I agree with what Simon of The Caucasus says. The aims of this research seems laudable. And the case for GHG warming by methane is somewhat stronger than it is for CO2. Irrespective of whether you think the amount of warming is a problem or not.
Although, there is the risk that significantly reducing ruminant CH4 emissions may cause climate cooling. As Simon says, there is a significant economic incentive to implement any succesful discovery.
Hmmmp! …. and where is 581 King St. Aberdeen, Now ? … no longer the School of Agriculture – so what’s it all about – no longer fit for purpose Uni ! strong words – but the way Politics has taken over. I am a former Agri Graduate and went on to study Engineering…….. and likewise we have Engineers following the money in AGW projects ….. but in my conversations with Jo Public, no one wants to know……… I’m becoming random again ( I’m informed ) must be as a result of the education ( Grass root stuff ) no pun intended either. Life can be enjoyed but is not a game for messing others around as the Politician types have it……… here we go again……..
Tea break’s over!
Peter;
It is notable that drug lords are scrupulous about not sampling and getting hooked on their own wares. I wonder if the same is true of Hansen, the Hokey Team, etc? I suspect some of them have been carelessly hooked, others are more cynically rational.
There is a piece of research on ruminant CH4 production that I am sure will never be done under present guidelines.That is to compare the production of methane from semi arid areas of Australia by the biggest producer, the white ant, and the production of methane from the same land after it is improved and cattle are grazed.
The null hypothesis would be that there was no difference in methane production between the two pasture uses.
Since cattle compete directly with white ants for the dry matter available, and white ants are an efficient producer of methane, I would predict that cattle would reduce the total amount of methane produced from the land, since a lot of the carbon would turn into protein and be shipped out as steaks.
If this were established it could be argued that cattle were ‘good for the planet’
And yes Rogelio Diaz, its freezing in Sydney.
It is my understanding that methane is produced by breakdown of organic material by bacteria. This can occurr in consumers that feed on plant material from termites to elephants. Termites have bacteria in their bodies that help them digest wood fibre. The production of methane also occurs in swamps and in leaf litter in forests. A high fibre diet also produces increased flatulence in humans. Methane is also produced during organic decomposition in septic systems.
Does anyone know what is the methane produced by decompostion/consumption of organic matter by the various animals and natural decompostion? It would be interesting to see a chart of how much methane is produced per ton of organic material for the following: Various ruminants, termites, humans, aerobic decompostioh, anerobic decompostion & septic systems. This would also have to be further broken down by diet and type of fibre to be technically meaningful.