Forum menu
We could all keep warm by burning coal and we could all drive internal combustion powered vehicles without it having any effect on the planet’s climate if we were sufficiently small in numbers.
Basically, environmental damage == population size x impact per person.
Presumably you feel that you are disagreeing with me over something but I have no idea what. Still, no worries 😃
@ernielynch, I just disagree with the idea that 'population is the root cause'
I disagree with the word 'the' in the middle of that
That said, I think we agree on much of all this so, I agree with you on the no worries 🙂
Inequality is a far bigger issue than population, reducing the per capita emissions of the richest 10 percent to the EU average would cut annual emissions by over a quarter.
I just disagree with the idea that ‘population is the root cause’
Strange, if there was no human population there obviously wouldn't be any anthropogenic climate issues, if there were a million humans, even if they didn't care about how much carbon they released, there wouldn't be any serious anthropogenic climate issues, and so on until you get to a point where the population is so large that it becomes an issue.
Yes you can take measures to mitigate the effects of a large otherwise unsustainable human population but I'm with David Attenborough on this, not the Pope 😉
But the logic works exactly the same the other way around
You could have 20 billion living in an ecologically benign society, with access to all the tech and sufficiency that entails, then increase impacts per person and at some point you are no longer sustainable
Or, to capture greentricky's point
You could have a world of 10 billion living sustainably as a whole, then the top 10% get progressively richer until the society is unsustainable, to which the top 10% say 'well there are just too many people'
Enjoyed this conversation with Kevin Anderson
So, for those of you wondering if we're on a slow death spiral or whether we're going to hit a series of points where we accelerate - look at the gap in the graph in this article and try not to be alarmed*:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66387537
We have take-off.
Additonally, the throwaway comment about Florida's sea surface temperature being 38.44 degrees - that's not a liveable temperature. It's nice in a hot tub (don't want much hotter or your heart starts racing as your body tries to pump blood to the bits of you that aren't in the water in an effort to cool you down before you die of the heat) but it ain't no good in the sea.
*(If you're not alarmed, you can't read graphs btw).
You could have a world of 10 billion living sustainably as a whole, then the top 10% get progressively richer until the society is unsustainable, to which the top 10% say ‘well there are just too many people’
This. The population reduction argument is simply a justification for maintaining the unsustainable lifestyles of the rich minority (and yes I include myself in that). We need to take radical action to change our economies and lifestyles so we can live sustainably, and that action needs to start at the top and target the rich first.
We need to take radical action to change our economies and lifestyles so we can live sustainably, and that action needs to start at the top and target the rich first.
You can see why that won't work though can't you, i.e. the rich are those running the world and they don't want to get poorer to ensure a better world for people in the future - not really their style.
In that are you allowing for development in developing nations? Currently their CO2 footprint is a lot less than ours (I think - can't be arsed to look it up). Development will inevitably cause a rise in emissions for them even with the cleanest of tech as development requires more energy usage and more raw materials usage
Which means those of us in developed nations need to make even huger cuts to our emissions
to feed 10 billion we need intensive agriculture especially considering crop growing land will reduce in area and yield as temps rise. Are these 10 billion all going to be veggie? going to give up their cars, stop having pets, stop flying abroad, stop importing stuff?
Again this is the dark green / light green split. I simply believe that current population levels are simply unsustainable. I live a relatively low emissions lifestyle for a westerner. If everyone on the planet had my lifestyle then its still unsustainable and look at the flak I get for even hinting folk could go down that road
not really their style.
It's already happening. This is why western countries have committed themselves to net zero. It's why the UK reducing its carbon emissions is important even though we're only 2% of the global carbon load. It's obviously not enough and too slow at this point in time, but it will accelerate, especially now that China and the US are taking more action.
I simply believe that current population levels are simply unsustainable.
Of course they're not sustainable, but trying to do something about population will not help for all the reasons already explained. It's easier and more effective to make lifestyles of the global rich minority sustainable than it is to reduce the global population.
Of course they’re not sustainable,
In which case its back to " we are all doomed"
The human population has been growing for thousands of years, and rather than slowing down and stabilising it is actually currently accelerating at an alarming rate.
No it's not. Where did you get that idea from?
It’s already happening. This is why western countries have committed themselves to net zero.
DOn't know what other countries commitment are but the UK is 2050 isn't it. That is 27 years time, do you really think that will stay at 2050 after another 7 or 8 governments have had a go at it.
I would bet money on the 2030 no new petrol/diesel cars getting kicked down the road so that will be a good indicator when we get closer to it.
People really don't care/can't get their heads around something that is planned for 27 years time.
In which case its back to ” we are all doomed”
Only if we give up and do nothing. I appreciate you're not suggesting that but many on this thread and more widely across society have moved directly from being in denial to being fatalistic. It's just another excuse to do nothing.
But that is what you are agreeing. All the steps you consider acceptable added together will make no difference. radical action is needed which seems to be unacceptable
The Kaya Identity is relevant to this discussion, you can replace GHG emissions with overall environmental impact if you want:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity
The Kaya identity is a mathematical identity stating that the total emission level of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide can be expressed as the product of four factors: human population, GDP per capita, energy intensity (per unit of GDP), and carbon intensity (emissions per unit of energy consumed)
Arguing over whether A, B, C or D "matters more" to the value of AxBxCxD is a fairly fruitless endeavour. Some may be easier to change than others though.
radical action is needed which seems to be unacceptable
I've never said radical action isn't required. Of course it is, but it's not going to happen before we do the non-radical stuff. This is why I've said that the most effective thing people need to do themselves is to vote and influence politicians to take the actions that are required and then support and accept them when they do.
I agree that doomism and fatalism isn't helpful. This problem isn't a binary question, do we survive or do we die? (Newsflash: yes you're going to die. Grow up and get over it.) It's a question of how to reduce and minimise our harmful impacts on the environment, as quickly as is practicable. Arguing that action X is pointless because it doesn't (on its own) solve the entire problem is just making up excuses to do nothing, because there is no action X that will on its own solve the entire problem, and never will be such an X.
We need to be concerned and motivated, not scared and fatalistic. Some environmental communication leans too much towards the latter in my opinion (which I believe is supported by the scientific literature on both climate and communication).
No it’s not. Where did you get that idea from?
Because that's what has been happening? The graph in your link shows it, everything after 2022 on the graph is a prediction : "such milestones could top out by the end of the century"
It might well be a perfectly reasonable prediction, after all many people argue that immigration is necessary to plug the gap in reduced population growth in wealthy countries. The prediction doesn't however prove that indefinite population growth is sustainable, it isn't, which was very obviously my point.
"We can't go on increasing at the rate human beings are increasing forever, because Earth is finite and you can't put infinity into something that is finite"
- David Attenborough
This is why western countries have committed themselves to net zero
Net zero is the lie.
As close to actual zero as possible is required with efforts to reverse the damage we've done. We can't make actual zero of course, but the net zero greenwashing allows us to be massively polluting whilst we point to "gains" we're making elsewhere (bearing in mind every time we look at the 'offsetting' thing it turns out to be bullshit).
Cognitive dissonance.
People really don’t care/can’t get their heads around something that is planned for 27 years time.
Pensions, mortgages, dams?
Humans can and do plan for the long-term. It's only because of that ability we have come so far.
The problem is capitalism here which has short-termism coded into its DNA.
Companies and governments are based on quarterly results and election cycles.
Perhaps consumerism plays a role too insofar as we, as consumers, are encouraged to think short-term because the product life cycles of the things we buy are generally measured in two- or three-year periods.
Our economic system has brought uninmaginable wealth and comfort, but it now no longer seems fit for purpose.
This is why I’ve said that the most effective thing people need to do themselves is to vote and influence politicians to take the actions that are required and then support and accept them when they do.
And then get on with drivng a stinking car everwhere, turning up the gas central heating, flying around the planet, buying tat from the other side of the world etc. One vote changes nothing and never has, however, one person such as you, dazh, can use alternative transport (or buy an EV in needs must a car), insulate and fit a heat pump, take less polluting holidays and change your habits of consumption.
You're one of the few "do nothings" on these threads, most of the people in here are doing something.
There are petrolhead threads with the couldn't give a ****s, and eco threads with the do somethings. That's a reflection of society in general. Look at member pseudos on the Volvo thread , or the small 4x4 thread, and search for members also posting in here. You're in here, Dazh, and someone said "**** SUVs" on the 4x4 thread.
Voting won't change anything when the Volvo/4x4 fans outnumber the people on this thread. So do something yourself to reduce your carbon footproint, it's all you can do short of gluing yourself to a road
My "just stop flying" jibe on a thread thread really touched a nerve with someone really into EVs, solar panels, batteries etc who works in aerospace - it's only 2-3% on world emissions he says, but the lowest hanging fruit on the tree. Now have look at the return from holiday thread. One person dragged his bike and trailer up 104 steps, I walked home from the bus station and the vast majority flew or drove a huge distance home.
20 years back these forums were full of climatic change deniers. Now realising that to further deny makes them look foolish they just ignore the issue and in some cases take pride in the most CO2 productive activities possible.
radical action is needed which seems to be unacceptable
I’ve never said radical action isn’t required. Of course it is, but it’s not going to happen before we do the non-radical stuff.
that's me on the SKS thread 🙂
Also - halving the world's population? Over what time period and what's your strategy? It'll take a few generations unless genocide is an option. And the global population is topping out anyway. It's not part of the solution, it's not even the main problem starting from where we actually are. So why bother talking about it? I'll stop.
Over what time period and what’s your strategy?
Make me world dictator. Rightwingers, covid deniers, climate chage deniers. all on my list 🙂 I'd sort the problem in a decade.
In all seriousness poulation growth is a huge part of the problem. the crisis is so bad that it needs everything done not just the low hanging fruit
You’re one of the few “do nothings” on these threads, most of the people in here are doing something.
Where the hell have you got that from? I've been vegan for 30 years, cycle everywhere, take very few foreign holidays, consume as little as possible (apart from bikes of course) and spent a good part of my youth as an eco-activist warning about this stuff 20 years before everyone else even knew it was a problem.
I don't have an electric car because I can't afford one. Same goes for heatpumps and solar PV etc. If someone wants to give me 50 grand I can be energy and fuel carbon neutral in a matter of months.
It’s not part of the solution, it’s not even the main problem starting from where we actually are. So why bother talking about it? I’ll stop.
Because it is widely seen as a very important issue?
Where the hell have you got that from?
You contributions to heating and motoring threads. You have consitently argued against insulate and heat pump claiming it's not practival and too expensive. It's really easy to DIY insulating walls on the inside and the return on investment is so fast in both money and CO2 it's illogical to argue against it. Once insulated a house can be heated with a heat pump very economically, you argue against this.
On another thread there was a link to an advert for £13 500 second-hand Zoé 52kWh. I don't care what ICE you drive, it won't be cheaper over the next 10 years than that Zoé.
You argue against the ways you could reduce your carbon footprint the most.
You don't need 50 grand to make a start by insulating the rooms you spend most time in from the inside. But you argue against.
As for reducing population being a "red herring" and arguing against... .
You have consitently argued against insulate and heat pump claiming it’s not practival and too expensive.
Think you must be hallucinating because I can't even remember posting on any threads about motoring or heating.
You argue against the ways you could reduce your carbon footprint the most.
Go and find me posts I've made which argue against people reducing their carbon footprint. You're talking absolute bollocks.
And BTW my entire house is already insulated. I have no idea why or where you got the idea that it isn't.
Over what time period and what’s your strategy?
Make me world dictator. Rightwingers, covid deniers, climate chage deniers. all on my list 🙂 I’d sort the problem in a decade.
In all seriousness poulation growth is a huge part of the problem. the crisis is so bad that it needs everything done not just the low hanging fruit
Are you really proposing killing people on an industrial scale? That is indeed radical. If you're just talking about reducing number of babies born, that's happening anyway, accelerating this trend is great but will take decades for impact and we don't have that much time.
Because we can't act on it the population stuff is one of the parameters, it's like saying the problem is that the sun is too hot. Okay - what are you going to do?
And there's loads of knowledge and evidence on population dynamics. The gapminder.org website is brilliant on this stuff. You can use it to do your own modelling, or check the short and very clear vids. Here's one on falling birthrates
https://www.gapminder.org/answers/how-did-babies-per-woman-change-in-different-regions/
A couple of very simple and specific questions, Dazh because this is beginning to feel like your Brexit apologist stuff (or Starmer thread) and my memory isn't that bad.
What's your car?
What's your heating system?
Is your house anywhere near properly insulated because every house is "already insulated".
Walls beter than R=1.5? Because that's just an insulated cavity wall whereas R>3.5 is current standard.
Floor better than R = 3?
Johnx2 - did it not come over I was being facetious?
If you’re just talking about reducing number of babies born, that’s happening anyway, accelerating this trend is great but will take decades for impact and we don’t have that much time.
so will all the other steps folk are suggesting. My point is simple. We need to be doing everything not just picking the low hanging fruit. All possible steps taken now might just stave off the collapse. Just doing the easy stuff / tinkering around the edges / pretending we can continue with out current lifestyles mean the collapse is inevitable.
and my memory isn’t that bad.
And yet you don't provide any examples. I'm not engaging with any of your holier than thou "I'm more eco than you" nonsense until you can evidence your accusation that I argue against reducing people's carbon footprints. I"ve never done anything of the sort.
What I have argued though is that reducing individual's carbon footprints needs to be done at a macro-economic level implemented by governments. It's all very well slapping yourself on the back about how eco-friendly you are but your own contribution is irrelevant if the other 99% of the population don't have the means and/or the time to do the same.
Are you really proposing killing people on an industrial scale?
Johnx2 – did it not come over I was being facetious?
Ah, the ol' Edinburgh Defence, now you are claiming that you weren't really serious about killing all right-wingers, covid deniers, and climate change deniers, within a decade.
We need to be doing everything
reducing births will have at best marginal impact on the environment over decades and could have no impact at all depending on behaviour, at human cost of implementing something like China's one child policy. Watch the vid or check out the modelling on gapminder to understand the underlying population dynamics.
(I usually try not to make a point more than once on grounds that's enough to plant a seed with anyone marginally interested. Not sure why I came back to this one. Hey ho.)
And yet you don’t provide any examples.
And you don't answer simple questions, Dazh. 😉 Inconvenient thruths eh. 🙂
You've been posting on this forum for as long as I have, I could spend an afternoon linking your stuff, I've got better things to do and that would be negative use of the forum. I'll address one point because you could act on it and it would help both your finances and the environment. A quote from yourself (you asked for some).
I reckon some people will be keeping warm by burning down government buildings when the riots start. I’m currently paying £480 a month (increased from £250/month). God knows what it’s going to be in October/January, and there’s not a lot I can do to reduce consumption in the short term other than turrning the heating off for the winter.
Your home energy consumption is enormous, you monthly bill is higher than my yearly bill yet you claim "And BTW my entire house is already insulated". Your annual bill based on last Summer's bills was £5600 and you were anticpating it being higher in the Winter suggesting high heating bills. Insulate, it will pay for itself.
You've told us so much about yourself on this forum on various threads over the last 13 years that I'm really not hallucinating.
You always blame the governement. However, you can do more to reduce you own CO2 production than any government can.
Your home energy consumption is enormous
I've actually solved most of that problem by getting rid of the aga at great expense (which is what stopped me doing it earlier). As for the insulation, if you've been stalking me that much then you'll know I live in a grade II listed farmhouse. It's insulated as much as it can be, but stuff like cavity wall insulation isn't possible due to the 18 inch thick stone walls.
Your answer is basically spend x tens of thousands of pounds on fancy cars and eco-homes. It's very nice for you to have the means to do that but most other people don't, so maybe spare us the pious lectures?
if you’ve been stalking me
Dear me. You're one of the most visible people on the forum Dazh, one of half a dozen who dominate political threads and have an opinion on everything. It's not stalking it's shaking my head is dismay at the inconsistencies and remembering them. But I'll remain positive:
It’s insulated as much as it can be, but stuff like cavity wall insulation isn’t possible due to the 18 inch thick stone walls.
There are a lot of old buildings like that around here, insulating from the outside isn't a good option on walls without a damp -proof course so that's out. You're left with the inside and there are plenty of options. You don't say if the wall is plastered, lined, lath and plaster or exposed stone; there will be a variety of solutions in each case. Building a frame and then using natural fibre insulation with a breathable finishing product, often lime based is common. Ventilation and moisture control are important in old structures, even if you can't seal the building to modern standards a heat recovery mechanical ventilation system would no doubt save energy and avoid damp.
Oooh - he knows to call me TJ - presumably lurking for a while or a previously banned troll returning
I mean - its sad enough that many of us spend far too long on this forum debating stuff but to join just to post ignorant nonsense on the climate thread. ...............................................
*points and laughs*
Yes it's very strange that people would actually go to the (admittedly minor) effort of setting up an account just to post that sort of boring drivel. It suggests that the incel thing is probably projection.
People don't post that sort of thing just out of naive ignorance. It's deliberate stupidity, not something they can be helped out of.
I think we have a trolling winner here, some genuine novelty in that first post
BTW, was it your RS4 that pulled you out of your incel phase?
Nice how you dropped that in there
EDIT: RS6, I'm so sorry
I think one of the most tragic things is individuals choosing not to have children for the sake of the 'environment'. How did the human race end up here?
azku - I can only answer for me. I never had much of a drive to have kids. I knew climate change was happening 35+ years ago. I decided to minimise my environmental footprint and not having kids is the biggest thing a person can do to minimise their environmental footprint. I also did not want to be responsible for bringing another person into the world when I strongly believe that in 50 years from now environmental collapse will hugely degrade lifestyles and mega death is coming. Overpopulation is a key issue
How did we end up here? Capitalism
Also someone mentioned birds above have wings and can fly to other places, true, however those other places may not hold the correct habitat or provide the type of food that particular species require, eg a kingfisher is more or less stuck with clean rivers, streams or at a stretch canal waterways.
If they die out .. so what in the vaste scheme of things?
Are Kingfishers more important than stopping or mitigating climate change and tens or hundreds of millions of humans dying?
We need to take radical action to change our economies and lifestyles so we can live sustainably
What we need to do is mitigate climate change ASAP ... it doesn't matter if it's sustainable or not.
DOn’t know what other countries commitment are but the UK is 2050 isn’t it. That is 27 years time, do you really think that will stay at 2050 after another 7 or 8 governments have had a go at it.
It's the equivalent of being stuck on a submarine with 100 hours of air but refusing to use it "because it's not sustainable" whilst some fanatic promises to invent some new tech that will not only save everyone but be better at some point in the future.
TJagain
so will all the other steps folk are suggesting. My point is simple. We need to be doing everything not just picking the low hanging fruit. All possible steps taken now might just stave off the collapse. Just doing the easy stuff / tinkering around the edges / pretending we can continue with out current lifestyles mean the collapse is inevitable.
We need to be doing stuff that makes a difference...we need to kick off the nuclear reactors TOMORROW we need to make greenwashing illegal .. we need to make using terms like "sustainable" or "eco" in the same sentence as climate change carry custodial sentences with no internet access. We don't have time to do all the nice stuff and it's pointless in any case if climate change continues because there won't be anywhere for "the Kingfishers" (or whatever)
We aren't doing "the easy stuff" what we are doing is either what someone can make money from or some "wouldn't it be nice if we had the luxury of time and doing this the environmentally friendly way". Then the "wouldn't it be nice" crowd are trying to sabotage the realistic things we could do.
An example all rolled up is Richie flying by a private jet to go grant new exploration licenses and then saying "it's fine we are working on a sustainable jet fuel" ... but instead the green lobby are concerned about granting licenses to produce oil and gas as cleanly as possible... and we wouldn't even be in this position if we had kept up with fission technology.
Lots of animal and plant species die out every year (~600 in 2022) and nobody seems to care and the world moves on. I suppose when there are almost none left people may start to actually notice...
If birds die out they will probably be proceeded by the invertibrates and that will be follow by lack of polination of crops. Invertibrates are diappearing at an alarming rate and farming and gardening practices are doing little to improve the situation.
By the time the bulk of the population accept they need to do something and change there life style, I fear we will be up a creak without a paddle.
Sunack's latest back tracking shows the mainstream political parties are more interested in getting elected and filling their mates' pockets than the long term implications of the change in the climate.
I am 69 and won't feel the worst effects of this and I am doing my best, what's wrong with the rest of you who are younger with children?
I disagree. There is a definite and noticeable increase in insects around here again.
As Neil Oliver says “someone is lying”.
He was referring to our climate change overlords buying multi-million dollar beach front houses whilst telling us sea levels are set to rise 10ft.
But it’s true in so many areas of this debate.
Believing something bad is happening that demonstrably isn’t is seems to be like a curious right of passage into this depressing climate-cult.
Neil Oliver ? Really ?
kerley
Lots of animal and plant species die out every year (~600 in 2022) and nobody seems to care and the world moves on. I suppose when there are almost none left people may start to actually notice…
Lots of people do care but MOST people don't care if a specific species dies out compared to tens or hundreds of millions of human deaths.
However the other point is there is no point even trying to preserve species (if you think it's worthwhile) unless they have an ecosystem to live in and climate change is a major factor in that.
Bruce
If birds die out
Birds are not going to die out... they survived the K-T extinction... what will die out are specific species of birds and many of those will be due to us but many are just following evolution.
and that will be follow by lack of polination of crops
Neither of these is good but you have to decide between climate change in the next year or so ... or longer term environmental damage that will need to be cleaned up.
Climate change is about what we can do right now and the next 5-10 years or we are screwed either way.
Sunack’s latest back tracking shows the mainstream political parties are more interested in getting elected and filling their mates’ pockets than the long term implications of the change in the climate.
I don't think anyone is surprised by that... or needed him to fly to Scotland to prove it but it does demonstrate to his backers and the markets.
In the same way Greenpeace are still trying to excuse not using nuclear clearly demonstrating they don't give a toss about climate change either.
He was referring to our climate change overlords buying multi-million dollar beach front houses whilst telling us sea levels are set to rise 10ft.
Guess we're ingoring the super-rich buying their underground bunkers in New Zealand then
They started out innocuously and predictably enough. Bitcoin or ethereum? Virtual reality or augmented reality? Who will get quantum computing first, China or Google? Eventually, they edged into their real topic of concern: New Zealand or Alaska? Which region would be less affected by the coming climate crisis? It only got worse from there. Which was the greater threat: global warming or biological warfare? How long should one plan to be able to survive with no outside help? Should a shelter have its own air supply? What was the likelihood of groundwater contamination? Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system, and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” The event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, solar storm, unstoppable virus, or malicious computer hack that takes everything down.
Insect populations have crashed by a huge amount. someone is lying yes - Oliver is. Its actually really obvious the crash in insect populations. 30 years ago after a drive in summer your car would be covered in insects. Now it is not
this is one of the things that there is zero doubt about
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/insects-dying-out-uk
As I said the other day- that’s simply not true this summer. I met a guy out photographing an insane display of butterflies the other day. He said it was the best year for decades.
I went to the beach last night- bike is covered again and I had to juggle riding with my fly stained visor down and with having it up and dodging an endless stream of moths 🤷🏻♂️
(And also- the “insect apocalypse” is another one of those conflated issues that is more land use than CC).
thats nothing like the splatter used to be and you are conflating single events with long term proven trends. Read the scientific papers and you will see
You are just being a denialist and it makes you look daft. The global crash in insect populations is not controversial - its proven.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 Shifting the goal posts there.
I used to have this debate all the time on twitter and have got loads of video’s of butterfly safaris round the estate here. 10min clips of me driving through swarms of them.
There, like here- I was told to ignore what I see and submit to the Armageddon cult 🤣
(Just like the people telling me shoot’s are bad for raptors when I can’t get out the garden without seeing a kestrel, buzzard, kite, sparrowhawk and having the Tawny Owl hooting at me 🤣 Let alone when I plough a game cover crop and have up to 70 kites and buzzards following me when, as a kid, a buzzard was a noteworthy sighting 🤣)
In fact it’s very often the same people 🤔
“Follow the science and ignore your eyes!”
As I say- insect decline *is real* in places where habitat management is still poor but is NOT a climate issue and the current take up of environmental stewardship options seems to be delivering a noticeable improvement. Along with things like uncut verges etc.
Again- it’s optimist V Pessimist and the latter is another entry requirement to Club Climate Cult.
I disagree. There is a definite and noticeable increase in insects around here again.
I am literally lol, and incredulous, at the spectacle of someone claiming that all the research into the decline in insect populations must be wrong because there are loads of them in their garden, or wherever they have happened to look.
Although I guess that there is nothing remotely funny about the issue.
how desperate do you have be to make your appeal to authority Neil Oliver! 😀
Just like the people telling me shoot’s are bad for raptors
1/3 of all scottish eagles are killed on grousemoors before their natural lifespan is up Hen harriers? much higher
Again - this is proven.
https://blogs.gov.scot/rural-environment/2020/08/13/action-on-raptor-persecution-and-wildlife-crime/
I think you are best ignored - climate change denialist and now pro shooting shill
You’re literally all making his point 🤣 It’s hilarious. “Tuh! Neil Oliver” whilst doing exactly what he’s describing 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I’m not a shill for anyone thanks. I saw my first wing tagged kite in 2004 and what a fantastic experience it was and now we have several pairs nesting here yet people on the internet are telling me what I do is ‘bad for the environment’.
Managed to catch this tag number last year and phoned it in. Came all the way from Dorset!
It’s beyond parody really. And so similar to everything else in the culture wars.
I agree that the collapse in insects is primarily land use driven, rather than climate and ecological collapse is probably the bigger existential threat than climate over the long term but to claim a slight increase in bug splatter this year compared to other recent years is very much shifting baseline syndrome in practice. You might have a few more insects than last year but it will still be significantly less than decades ago. It is also likely a localised issue, to argue otherwise goes against a large body of scientific work based on multi decade observations in the field. A good example is there have been a nationally reported decline in number of house and sand martins, swallows and swifts this year and more sightings further north, that is driven by the decrease in insects for them to eat.
Anecdotally for me, who suffers badly from insect bites but spend a lot of time in reedbeds and woods, i have had far fewer bites this year
Yawn
the plural of anecdote is not evidence
But the ‘shifting baseline’ needs to account for the extra human population too.
With the extra pressure on farms to feed humans- there’s not going to be the volume of fallow land that there was to support the same biomass of insect.
That’s where extra co2 helps- we’re now growing more on less acerage than ever before. Allowing land to be re-spared for nature.
Farming harder and more intensely where it’s profitable and land sparing where it isn’t is the way to a sustainable future.
That ecosystems allowed to exist can recover still- illustrates how climate is not the problem.
Yawn
the plural of anecdote is not evidence
Oh this is brilliant 🤣🤣 👏🏻 👏🏻
So glad I posted the Oliver link now 🤣🤣🤣
“There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”
I’ll keep trusting the truth I see with my own pair of these for now I think 👀
Bruce - thanks for being so much more articulate than I.
Every insect, bird, mammal, fish and amphibian has its place on this planet and is needed in its true environment (not invasive species). Without these creatures (we are not in charge of nature, we need to be part of it) we are doomed.
crosshair - in my own small wildlife garden I have done everything possible to help nature, it's full of all the creatures you see plenty of. Our adjoined neighbours have very few if any, they have paved their garden, she pours disinfectant over every morning before collecting the dog dirt, they do very little to help with climate change, in fact I doubt they even know it exists. What I'm trying to say is yes your patch is doing quite well, as are a few other areas, but that is not the case for most of the country.
Every child born in the western world needs, nappies that take decades to decompose, plastic tat from China,various pieces of equipment, food, clean water and fresh air, clothes, all of these things are going to be harder to get hold of. I am not against people have children, but it should not be a decision taken lightly.
Good for you @bunnyhop 👏🏻
But it’s important to describe what you are illustrating accurately.
It’s actually the real pressing issue- the huge disconnect most people have with nature.
But that’s not “Climate change”. It’s abuse and neglect of our natural world.
That the latter is getting lumped in with the former tells me all I need to know- that Climate Change is propaganda to suit an agenda, piggy backing on *real* problems.
Always curious about Neil Oliver. He's like the modern day David Icke. Does he serioulsy believe all this stuff and think he's had some sort of revelation or insight that no one else has, or is he (and Icke before him) simply exploiting his celebrity to carve out a career where he can monetise the paranoia and fear of a significant minority of the population?
When he first came on the scene I thought he was a nutter but comparing what he says there for example, V the quite frankly bat s**t crazy assertions being made in this thread- I think he’s on the right side of history.
After all, we now know there was certainly more truth in everything he said about Covid than there was in the propaganda FB, Twitter and YouTube were “allowing” us to see- let alone the BBC and Sky!!
I think he’s on the right side of history.
that Climate Change is propaganda to suit an agenda
Ah, so most of the worlds climatologist are the thought police for the Illuminati/Jewish New World order?
"I used to think he was a nutter, then he said some things I agreed with, hes ok now"
we now know there was certainly more truth in everything he said about Covid than there was in the propaganda FB, Twitter and YouTube were “allowing” us to see- let alone the BBC and Sky!!
I don't know why I engage but this is simply not true. Oliver is a covid denialist, climate change denialist and has zero credibility
Its just he tells you and others like you what yo want to hear
With that:
Don't feed the troll
No- I pretty much always agreed with him, I just thought he was odd. Now I think he was just exasperated to breaking point by all the doublespeak luvvies he had to work with over the years 🤣
we’re now growing more on less acerage than ever before.
Nationally and globally, has that not been driven by increased inputs such as larger fossil fuel derived fertiliser use rather than additional CO2, there isn't the same increase in biomass production in non agricultural land, so CO2 can't be the main driver of higher yield although does contribute
It’s hilarious how gleefully you guys tackled the “real” trolls in this thread. With your “climate change internet warrior kit” of links and Ah-ha gotcha’s ready to bat them away.
Yet faced with inescapable logic that disproves, at the very least, the association between CC and a host of things that are nothing to do with it- you have to shut the debate down 🤣🤣
That’s why Oliver’s illustration about the obvious dissonance on display by the heads of the Cult is so clever 🤣🤣
Of course (and crop genetics too). Another huge benefit of fossil fuels 😀 😉
I’m not sure about non farming biomass. Clearly there has been global greening on unfarmed land too? Presumably with winners and losers in terms of species that live there.
Nothing to do with CO2. A lot to do with development of cereal varieties with higher yield, pesticides, herbicides, better irrigation, the use of satelite images and drones to optimise the use of forementioned.
2022 was a good year for the UK but a poor year for many parts of France due to a long period of drought and three heat waves. Locally farmers are changing crops in some of their fields to cope with drier conditions. A strategy being seen country wide as high water demand varieties are no longer viable. We've seeing more soja for example, in the 6 years up to 2021 a 50% increase. Maize which enjoyed a lon boom with impressive gains in yields is now staganting and in some areas it is being abandoned for less water intensive crops.
Crosshair you need to read some peer reviewed published papers rather than people with no track record in science potificateing on the internet.
It was quite funny in the farm meeting this spring when the Land Owner (prob been listening to too much Radio 4) was spouting off all his latest ideas to cope with our “new hot dry summers” 🤣🤣🤣🤣
As he was saying it, I just knew I’d be spending all Summer in wellies puddling though mud. And lo!!!
The effect of increased atmospheric co2 on wheat alone is like 12%…
That means every 100 acre field can have a 10 acre wild bird mix plot 🎉