From @philipb-h.bsky.social podcast, the Teagasc MACC seems to confuse product emissions with system emissions in national accounts. Early finishing will reduce national emissions only if it comes with reductions in the cattle population. @peterthorne.bsky.social @swimsure.bsky.social

There are signs of clarity emerging from the confusion caused deliberately by scientists with agendas. Following confusion about GWP*, the Teagasc MACC seems to confuse emission reductions per unit product (carbon footprints) with system level emission reductions that impact on national accounts.

A pushback against the 'Agroecology' nonsense and humbug is long overdue. It is a simple linguistic fact: ‘agroecology’ is not a farming system or approach to farming; it is a scientific discipline, and certainly not a belief system geneticliteracyproject.org/2025/04/11/v...

My letter related to an article in the IFJ, not Teagasc. Instead of addressing my point about GWP*, Dr Richards refers to irrelevancies (in this context) and then uses a (dishonest) strawman argument falsely saying that I asserted that Teagasc is a “climate denying organisation”. @teagasc

The abuse of GWP* was revealed in my paper with Caspar Donnison ( doi.org/10.1088/1748... ). Explaining metrics to the House of Lords was an interesting experience here committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/129705/pdf/ . Their report reflected our contribution well.

I hope that my letter in the Irish Farmers Journal helps clear very muddied waters. The issue is not for or against a particular metric, it is understanding clearly what each does and does not do. GWP* does not assess the warming effect of emissions.