http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climat... The author suggests that "Some tried to publish a critique of the study" ..."but none were able to do a good enough job to get such a critique published in a peer-reviewed journal." However, I don't see any evidence that the study to be critiqued was peer-reviewed itself, and I can't imagine how it would be without references. I think anthropomorphic climate change is a serious issue. But I hate to see claims without serious data. It only leads to extend debate.
For example, this statement on pg 12: Carbon dioxide fromlivestock respiration accounts for 21 percent of anthropogenic GHGs worldwide, according to a 2005 estimate by British physicist Alan Calverd. He did not provide the weight of this CO2, but it works out to about 8,769 million tons. could easily have a citation for the study by Calverd. I did find a link on that page: "A Radical Approach to Kyoto," Alan Calverd, Physics World, July 2005." So maybe that's the source? At any rate, World Watch could stand to change their format if these are in fact the sources for the data quoted. Otherwise I have a hard time taking an article like this seriously. I mean, when the author says something like this: Calverd’s estimate is the only original estimate of its type, but because it involves only one variable (the total mass of all livestock, as all but cold-blooded farmed fish exhale roughly the same amount of CO2 per kilogram), all calculations of CO2 from the respiration of a given weight of livestock would be about the same. ...I need some reason why I should take his word on how much CO2 fish and livestock exhale. To me it's a shame that so much effort would be put into and article like this, and yet I can't see it justifiably being used to inform policy. There are plenty of good publications out there that host climate and environmental studies. World Watch should step it up. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the link. Not dishing on you, btw. Just problems I see with this article.