Forum menu
TJ used the word shill… an appropriate word when considering whether to outsource ALL your thinking to ‘peers’ 😉
The effect of increased atmospheric co2 on wheat alone is like 12%…
You didn't follow up that quote I made from NASA did you. I'll reapeat it. 12% increase at 420ppm (now) is rubbish. This time read and think.
According to the study, the impact of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations on crop water productivity and yield varies regionally. Results show that maize suffers yield losses with doubled carbon dioxide levels, due in large part to the plant’s already greater efficiency at using carbon dioxide for photosynthesis compared with the other crops. Maize yields fall by 15 percent in areas that use irrigation and by 8 percent in areas that rely on rain. Even so, losses would be more severe without the carbon dioxide increase: yields would decrease 21 percent for irrigated maize and 26 percent for rainfed maize.
Having read that thoroughly try this:
Your quote refers to maize- I was talking about wheat?
As for the NASA link ‘model’ this, ‘projection’ that ‘simulation’ the other 🤷🏻♂️
while wheat could potentially see growth of about 17%
🧐
bunnyhop
Every insect, bird, mammal, fish and amphibian has its place on this planet and is needed in its true environment (not invasive species).
No wonder people turn to Neal Oliver... if you define an environment as/around a specific species then you can claim its "needed" simply by definition but that doesn't mean its presence or absence has any other consequence.
We are back to Red Squirrels as an example... so by verbal wordplay "Red squirrels are absolutely needed in the Red Squirrel Environment" but if they all get a squirrel pox virus and die they will just be replaced by grey squirrels and life will go on. Even the virus will continue in a species that have evolved to be mostly unaffected.
The replacement of red with grey will have no measurable affect on the existential threat of climate change.
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.
How does a child NEED nappies that take decades to decompose or plastic tat from China?
You seem to have a very casual use of the word NEED...
Greentricky
ecological collapse is probably the bigger existential threat than climate over the long term
Over the long term (millions of years) the two are linked.
Over the short term climate change is going to kill millions to tens of millions to hundreds of millions.. depending how quickly and how thoroughly we act.
There isn't an option anymore for only a few hundred or a few thousand dying, barely an option for millions...
🤣🤣🤣🤣
It just doesn’t even pass the sniff test though does it. There’s already technical solutions to exist in a 100 degree range of temperatures.
As I said in my previous post farmers are replacing water intensive crops with crops that need less water, notably wheat and soja. **** all to do with CO2 aiding wheat crowth and a lot to do with climatic change induced drought
Try reading again, perhaps as far as:
“You can think of plants as collecting sunlight over the course of the growing season,” said Ruane. “They're collecting that energy and then putting it into the plant and the grain. So, if you rush through your growth stages, by the end of the season, you just haven't collected as much energy.” As a result, the plant produces less total grain than it would with a longer development period. “By growing faster, your yield actually goes down.”
I remember seeing your 12% somewhere, IIRC it was based on doubling CO2 without taking into account water availability, so 840ppm which would take us back to the late Cretaceous and you really don't want to be on the planet in late cretaceous conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous_Thermal_Maximum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenomanian-Turonian_boundary_event
Edukator - don't feed the troll? His mind is clearly closed. Waste of good electricity trying to convince someone who thinks Neil Oliver is an authority.
"non so blind as those who will not see"
It's not just feeding the troll, TJ. With a bit of luck other people will be reading the links. I've been reading the insect/bird stuff with interest, it's not my speciality so I'm just following with interest.
However geology, paleoclimate, Humbolt zones and pollution are fields I've studied/worked in and even if I don't know everything about every aspect of research I have an overall view that means I have a feel for what's rubbish or not and know where to look for the detail. Hope people find it interesting, not just crosshairs.
Who said he’s an authority? He just made an observation that resonates with the rank illogical hyperbole in this thread.
Abstract
Climate change effects on UK winter wheat grain yield are complex: warmer temperature, negative; greater carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, positive; but other environmental variables and their timing also affect yield. In the absence of long-term experiments where temperature and CO2 concentration were manipulated separately, we applied the crop simulation model Sirius with long-term daily meteorological data (1892–2016) for Rothamsted, Hertfordshire, UK (2007–2016 mean growing season temperature 1.03°C warmer than 1892–1991), and CO2 concentration over this period, to investigate the separate effects of historic CO2 and weather on simulated grain yield in three wheat cultivars of the modern era. We show a slight decline in simulated yield over the period 1892–2016 from the effect of weather (daily temperature, rainfall and sunshine hours) at fixed CO2 (294.50 ppm, 1892 reference value), but a maximum 9.4% increase when accounting for increasing atmospheric CO2 (from 294.50 to 404.21 ppm), differing slightly among cultivars.
Around 10% benefit to the UK wheat yields in the past 125 years according to this study 🤷🏻♂️
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2021.0250
Fair enough Edukator.
Same as me countering the lies of the religious fundamentalists
Ten percent is often touted as a nice round figure for ‘land sparing’. Ie farmers should ‘give back’ 10% of their productive land to nature.
That’s literally only possible with no reduction in yield V how much land we would have needed in 1892 thanks to atmospheric co2 increases 🎉
Fossil fuels- turning dead dinosaurs into wildlife 👏🏻🤣🤣🤣
Come on crosshairs, you can do better than that. You've cut off the quote just when it got interesting and they said the model didn't work because, I'll finish for you:
but the positive yield trend with actual CO2 values does not match the recent stagnation in UK wheat yield.
It's a model and fails to take into account some of the factors identified by Nasa such as faster growth early season leading to lower yield overall.
Fact is ther hasn't been an icrease in yields due to CO2 even in the UK which is one of th eareas of the globe which may benefit from warmer temperatures due to global warming (which are real and recorded) . I linked a graph of yields at the top of the page. There's more variation from year to year now but the moving average has moved very little over 20 years - especially considering all the technological gains over the period.
But it highlights the ignorance of the ‘co2 bad!’ argument.
We are feeding twice as many people with **less** land than we did in 1875. Even if we can’t untangle the exact number it seems obvious co2 has played a part in that.
Whatever ‘war of the models’ we want to engage in- none of them are reliable enough to destroy human progress for!
Uk wheat yields doubled 1926-2015.
This work suggests that on average, at the regional scale, climate change is likely to have more positive impacts on UK wheat yields than previously considered.
And in the future it’s all about ‘weather’ not ‘climate’ 😉
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/13/1377/2022/
Have you never heard of "the green revolution" which has nothing to do with being ecological. On the contrary, it's the agricultural revolution base on improving yields through mechanisation, varity selection, GM, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides, irrigation and high tech.
Dig out some photos of wheat production techniques in 1926 and compare with now. France after the Great War:
The green revolution India
https://www.javatpoint.com/green-revolution-in-india
Of course. My grandfather took great delight in attaching an early tractor to his father’s horse drawn cultivator and pulling the tines out straight in order to settle an argument about horse power v ICE power 🤣
But atmospheric co2 has added a useful Brucey Bonus
You obviously aren't reading my links but I'm reading yours, crosshair. Again you cut off the quote when it gets interesting:
This work suggests that on average, at the regional scale, climate change is likely to have more positive impacts on UK wheat yields than previously considered. Against this background of positive change, however, our work illustrates that wheat farming in the UK is likely to move outside of the climatic envelope that it has previously experienced, increasing the risk of unseen weather conditions such as intense local thunderstorms or prolonged droughts, which are beyond the scope of this paper.
In France farmers have long known that climatic zones are changing and are adapting to new conditons. What wasn't anticipated was the rapid increase in extreme events: fire, drought, floods, hail, storms, tornados, insect swarms, mildew, fungus... . "beyond scope of this paper". That's why my farmer friend has had to take out insurance.
Or not….. it’s a model after all.
It reads to me like they have to say that at the end not be ostracised by their doomsday culture peers.
It’s all the same:
“The world is getting greener but…”
“Climate change will be good for the UK wheat crop but….”
“Co2 has increased yields but….”
“Less people are dying from natural disasters but….”
🤣 right on cue comes the ‘fact checker’ site link
Edukator
You obviously aren’t reading my links but I’m reading yours, crosshair. Again you cut off the quote when it gets interesting
The problem here is you are arguing over secondary information sources in an area crosshair isn't specifically educated for that at either side are demonstrably lying and deliberately misleading AND neither side between "the authorities" OR "the Greens" seem particularly bothered about climate change or more specifically so bothered about it that it is the main and overwhelming priority. Both are at best giving "spin" on science... Richie is selling "sustainable jet fuel" (that magically will power jets without burning) the green organisations are selling their own ideals and conflating them with climate change...
So then you have a subject on which someone is well educated and knowledgeable (in this case UK agriculture) AND has their own experience on top.
Then you get someone on YT who say's "this is what I can see with my own eyes and they are lying, what can you see"
This works for Flat Earth, Covid deniers and Michael Gove... and more relevant to this thread climate change.
This grift isn’t new that’s the trouble. None of my generation were supposed to know what snow looks like. Let alone have any oil left.
And polar bears were supposed to have vanished, not doubled or trebled or whatever their true population is now.
If team Armageddon can’t explain why the climate change mafia are happily still buying houses and building properties at sea level then I don’t need to know anything more scientific. It’s failed a basic logic test.
Likewise someone flying to a conference to tell me not to fly somewhere can do one.
I hear the liberal elite are droning Russian oil tankers to the bottom of the sea now- sounds like they’re really concerned about pollution, climate change, peak oil, the health of our oceans etc etc etc.
It’s an incoherent mess.
Good to see the liberal elite are involved as well now. I suppose they do read the Guardian so we already knew it.
First use of the term 'climate change mafia' too, well done.
7/10
If team Armageddon can’t explain why the climate change mafia are happily still buying houses and building properties at sea level then I don’t need to know anything more scientific. It’s failed a basic logic test.
I'm sure the "mafia" isn't quite so organised as you think. The actual SCIENTISTS aren't buying beach property if only because they don't get paid to buy that strip in Florida. Of course the superrich (including those making money out of greenwashing) are super rich and can buy the property anyway... if and when it goes tits up they won't be there.
I don't know if you count Elon Musk as being part of them... I mean he's raking it in through Tesla...?
It doesn't matter really... he can buy a £100M beachhouse in Florida Keys and use it once. If its under water before the second time he's not losing sleep over the investment.
Let's face he he paid $44 billion for Twitter...
It’s an incoherent mess.
Sure .. nothing in the first 2m20s of that video you posted I disagree with but its just opinion not the actual science.
2min 20s to 3m17 sec ... basically a load of fluff... "some scientists said some stuff but it turns out they are the wrong ones" I mean they may or may not have been but that's just "I'll interpret this for you"
3min17-3min43s .. false premise that one side or the other must be totally wrong.
3min 43 to 4min47 ... more fluff
I'm nearly 5 mins in and no actual science yet.
What there is plenty of is trying to conflate some "mafia" or "liberal elite" however you want to put it with science and what there isn't as he wouldn't understand it is the actual science.
So who are you and who pays you, crosshair? You can't be a farmer, our drummer is a farmer, even when it's dark in the middle of Winter he calls to cancel rehersals and we can hear the tractor running in the background. There's so much to do during the long Summer days that even Welsh Farmer of this parish is too busy to post in the middle of the day.
I'm retired and recovering from being out on an MTB all morning, don't you have anything to do,you know, cut verges, maintain hedges, treat crops, maintain machines, fix the roof, fil in holes, work towards complying with environmental normes... ?
Your last post reads like something out of a Russian troll farm.
Yes my last link was as lazy as the post before it that inspired it.
Crosshair, you clearly understand the science because you are cherry picking and selectively quoting your own links when you find that they don't fit your agenda. Using them despite the fact they destroy your own made up facts. The real question is why. It's a bit like Jambalaya and Ernie on the Brexit threads, the first living between London and Paris without a French passport and the second living in the UK on a French passport; the people most threatened by Brexit arguing in favour.
Here we have someone who purports to being a farmer claiming CO2 and climatic change are good for him whilst a glance at his insurance premiums will tell him it's not.
If team Armageddon can’t explain why the climate change mafia are happily still buying houses and building properties at sea level then I don’t need to know anything more scientific. It’s failed a basic logic test.
I'll repeat my last post that you ignored, which unlike yours has a reference:
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.
Likewise someone flying to a conference to tell me not to fly somewhere can do one.
A few pages back you said you wouldn't listen to anyone that isn't living off grid in a mud-hut wearing hemp, or something along those lines; now you're backtracking to try and sound more reasonable
It’s an incoherent mess.
Welcome to society -- if you've found a bit that isn't like that please let me know where
I haven’t said I’m a farmer?
I literally google stuff in about two mins when I need backup 💻 🤷🏻♂️
I’m indoors on a Saturday because it’s cold and raining 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Although back to work for evening checks round the farm in a minute.
And we have 4g everywhere so can argue and work at the same time anyway 😎
If team Armageddon can’t explain why the climate change mafia are happily still buying houses and building properties at sea level then I don’t need to know anything more scientific. It’s failed a basic logic test.
Better still, find me a shred of evidence that climate scientists are snapping up properties in areas that models predict are exposed to sea level rise
I did skim that ‘super rich prepper’ article but there’s poor, right wing preppers too so 🤷🏻♂️
I'm in France in a region with a maritime climate, low winds, 176m above sea level with high mountains nearby. I was tempted by but didn't buy a flat on the coast. Though that was mainly because the coast is a traffic snarled tourist infested nightmare for the months of the year we'd have been free to live in it.
As for preppers, I really wouldn't want to survive any of those events. I'm a softy accustomed to a life of comfort and pleasure me.
Edukator
So who are you and who pays you, crosshair?
Crosshair, you clearly understand the science because you are cherry picking and selectively quoting your own links when you find that they don’t fit your agenda.
You don't need to understand "the science" because all this is easy copy/paste scripts.
Do a private browser session and don't log in and just watch some Flat Earth videos'...rebuttals and rebuttals of rebuttals.
Most will use the lies we get told at school... and use this as proof in a non sequiter as "so everything you got told about science is a lie".
In this case we have 2 sides lying AND they are relatively easy to debunk. The video I watched 5mins of spends the first 5 minutes establishing "you are being lied to" and I can only assume (I accidentally closed the tab when writing the post) the rest just goes on to build on "you are being lied to".
The real question is why. It’s a bit like Jambalaya and Ernie on the Brexit threads, the first living between London and Paris without a French passport and the second living in the UK on a French passport; the people most threatened by Brexit arguing in favour.
In the words of Michael Gove, the country is sick of experts (or whatever his exact words were)
The same thing happened with Covid... The Government lying repeatedly and either ignoring the science or telling the scientists what questions they could answer and what questions they weren't asked so an answer isn't required so STFU.
It doesn't provide any proof Covid wasn't and isn't real... it just proves (and this can hardly be a surprise) our politicians lie to us as a matter of course (OK Boris was even exceptional in that)... BUT it's very easy for anti-vax types to hijack the "they are lying to you" and extrapolate that "therefore Covid isn't real".
Obviously when friends and loved ones died of Covid it's less convincing but for a whole load of people it's easy to see that as proof.
Interesting. May late grandfather was a farmer, worked from 14 until early 90s.
He was very much aware of the change in climate is recent decades, the change in seasons, the reduced wildlife and fauna, the increased amount of weather phenomenons too. He’d loved to be in doors on a wet Saturday too but that was no excuse.
I think I’ve explained why I’m still posting- I’m sick of the disingenuous doublespeak where the threat of climate change is explained using examples of unrelated issues. I’m sick of propaganda. People telling me things I can see with my own eyes aren’t true.
Why? Why is everyone so desperate to live this regressive, damaging lie? 🤷🏻♂️
My favourite political porky was:
Theresa May commits to net zero UK carbon emissions by 2050 .
If you're gonna tell a porky make it a really big fat smelly disgusting one.
My father *was* a farmer. And my grandfather. And at least his father too.
My grandfather loved telling stories of how every dodgy growing season we had or delayed harvest was worse in his day or worse in his Father’s Day 🤷🏻♂️
Cool! If we’re going that far back I can trace my roots to the 1800s of farming across the borders and Northumberland. Notice how I didn’t claim delayed harvest is a new thing
Theresa May was an idiot. Maybe on that we can all agree.
She had her order from on high and sure enough it got waved through “for the greater good” 🙄
Probably diverge from there over whether the lie is that it’s needed, desirable or achievable of course….
I can trace my roots to farmers in 1600s - what do I win?
crosshairFree Member
I think I’ve explained why I’m still posting- I’m sick of the disingenuous doublespeak where the threat of climate change is explained using examples of unrelated issues. I’m sick of propaganda.
However that's exactly what you've been doing yourself. Now check out what what I've been doing - links to paleo-climates corresponding to CO2 levels proposed by yourself in your claims CO2 improves crop yields (whilst your own sources says yields are stagnating and that isn't proven).
If anybody is confusing the issue it's the deniers of which you are one.
I've talked about sources of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ( CO2 and methane), the correlation with temperature and climate in the geological record and what we can expect from current and projected levels.
I've lost count of the number of times I've posted this:
If you understand the science you know what the consequences will be; it's in the geological record.
crosshair
Free Member
I haven’t said I’m a farmer?
Why the question mark, can't you remember whether or not you said you were a farmer?
I'll remind you of what you said:
crosshair
Free Member
Yields have increased thanks to the extra co2. My granddad used to be happy with 2ton an acre of milling wheat and now 4 is the norm.I grow crops myself and we’ve had one drought year in the 13 I’ve been here. If anything we could do with a few weeks of heat for my maize.
Generally speaking if you grow crops you are considered to be a farmer. Growing crops usually isn't something that people do in the evening after their day jobs.
I suspect crosshair works on a shooting estate. Maybe does a bit of crops. Certainly a denialist of raptor persecution which like anthopogenic climate change is proven
Just a standard day in the office growing crops but nope- 100% not a farmer.
I fixed some pipe fittings yesterday but I’m not a plumber either 🤷🏻♂️🤣
To get back to the thread title:
Green house gas emissions are increasing and that CO2 graph is getting steeper, sinks are clearly not coping at current levels of emissions and carbon capture doesn't have a hope of reversing the trend. methane leaks have increased along with oil/gas production and transport, and also the end of flaring.
Buffers are being used up and destroyed on land and in the oceans. Both land and sea ice are decreasing in extent and volume, solar energy absorbed is thus increasing and energy reflected decreasing. More forest is being destroyed than created so less sink. A warm ocean results in changes in plankton resulting in less absorbtion of CO2; less sink. Desert zones are increasing.
So as the emissions graph steepens the buffers are used up and reduced, the rate of change will increase. Temperature will increase more rapidly and the climate change as a consequence. More energy in the atmosphere will mean more extreme weather events.
All this has been known for decades, we are now in the thick of it and living it, changes will become impossible to ignore and denial implausible. Whether people are prepared to do anything to mitigate the damage reamins to be seen. At present we have our foot hard on the gas and have just opened the nitrous valve.
That's not your image, crosshair.
The only way to match consumption with sustainable emissions is nuclear.
Human progress has been built on energy. Once it was man power with armies and slaves. Then horse power and then fossil fuels. Whatever comes next needs to be better.
‘Renewables’ aren’t better. Not when the Chinese are being applauded for backing them up with two new coal power stations a week and global oil consumption is smashing new heights.
Until we stop getting scammed down a dead end- nothing will improve.
Yes it is my image….
It’s a Class I hired to power harrow my maize plots when my Case broke down 🧐
(Which then exploded my Power Harrow PTO shaft as it was 80hp too big for it 🤣🤷🏻♂️)
What an odd accusation 🤣 That’s definitely my hand 🧐
Apologies, the weather and url led me to believe it was an old image and not yours. And still you claim not to be a farmer. Second crop planting?
Meanwhile in china
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/29/china-wind-solar-power-global-renewable-energy-leader
Love how they need two new coal power stations a week to back them up but still get a pass from Green inc. to explain away the lunacy of such a huge emitter ‘winning’ at stupid irrelevant renewable targets
🤣🤣 Well played Xi well played 👏🏻
Edukator I grow a couple of hundred acres of maize and conservation crops across 3000acres for the game and wildlife 👍🏻
Energy saving measures are definitely better, and that's where there's plenty of scope, but there's a lot of resistance as proved earlier in this thread and on any what's-your-energy-bill or petrolhead thread.
So a shooting estate hence the nonsense about conservation and raptors not being killed
Raptor killing is something I follow and crosshair has just parroted the usual lines from the shooters lobby - all of which are pure nonsense
WTF. I haven’t parroted anything. Just because your lives revolve around recycling links doesn’t mean we are all incapable of original thought.
Raptor persecution on grouse moors was a thing. I think it’s less of a thing but I’m not a grouse keeper and never will be so can’t really comment. I drove my boss up once for three days shooting and saw Hen Harrier’s on all three days and the first thing I saw when walking the dogs on day 1 was a buzzard 🤷🏻♂️ Not my department.
What I do know is that I spend time on maybe 20-25 lowland shoots each season and they all exhibit the same displays of raptors we have here.
We’re fairly boring mixed woodland/ farmland and have Goshawks back, little, tawny, barn and long eared owls, red kites, buzzards, kestrels, Sparrowhawks, occasional peregrine’s, transient Merlin’s and hobbies and one passing Hen Harrier. #despiteClimateChange 🤣
You were loving my garden kestrel family pics before 😉
Ironically I just came down the back lane and had to stop for a wet sparrowhawk and her kill to move out of the road and thought of you 🤣
That’s the reason the analogy was apt- keyboard warriors stating “facts” that anyone with a pair of binoculars can debunk.
We have un-shot farms around us and the biodiversity (especially of the raptors) is night and day better on the shot farms.
(Hence Conservation inc. having to dream up ‘spillover predation’ to smear shoots as ‘raptor persecution’ is so obviously false now. )
Yes you have - you simply parrot the shooters nonsense over raptor persecution. Its still a thing. Its routine on every grouse moor pretty much.
Its proven . simple fact
Lowland shoots are not as bad I agree. But they still routinely kill raptors on many of them. Proven fact
To have parroted it- I’d have had to have read it somewhere whereas I am merely telling you my direct personal experience: the same experience you gave me credit for mentioning earlier in the thread when it suited you 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You’re just walking straight into these now 🤣🤣
Ok.
Can we lay off with the bickering please. It would be a shame to close this thread.
apologies Drac
Perhaps we need another thread.
During the climatic optimum Europe was pretty much entirely tree covered with species adapted to the local climates. man cleared nearly all of that forest using the wood for construction and fuel, and grazing/cultivating the cleared land. Peak deforestation in France was around 1815, from that point on fossil fuels replaced wood as fuel and steel/ceramics took over in construction.
Since then the land has been managed by farmers. "Custodians of the countryside". Their activities are mainly driven by supply and demand and the need to make money. There's also the culture of the countryside. I lived in a working farm in Wales for three years, young farmers, the pub, sheep dog competitions, agricultural shows, specializing in certain breeds of sheep, motocross bikes, fast cars, big tractors... . I was also the man from Welsh Water, the pollution specialist, the enemy. 🙂 200 farms visited to "advise" 🙂 or prosecute 🙁 ... in one campaign. The landscape and habitats we ride in are the result of that management.
I met as many attitudes as farmers, many had guns (one used his to march me off his land) and most used them wisely. I meet a lot of hunters out locally on my local mtb trails. We always stop for a chat, ask where the "battu" is taking place so we can avoid it, ask what they're hunting, just take an interest. We keep a horse on a farm and know the owners well, Madame hates the hunting season because horses don't like guns going off when she's out riding. I've had a couple of worrying moments involving hunters on quads when out on horse back (on bridle ways).
So - IME the hunters are mainly concerned with pest control - pests are well defined, there's a list. Then there are the managed species the hunters are fond of because they taste nice - there are permits and it seems to me they self-police pretty well. Then there are a few rogues, "braconniers". Just as there are cyclists who ride on the pavement and jump red lights there are hunters who don't play by the rules.
On this thread I think it would be wise to consider crosshair as a hunter who understands his role in countryside management and plays by the rules. 🙂 Even if he seems to delight in posting provocative bollocks on greenhouse gas driven climatic change. 😉
I find it hard to respect people who hunt animals for sport.
I stayed in a Hotel on Anglesey a few years ago and was having a meal. There was also a large shooting club group who were eating at the same time.
As they got more drunk and louder they were openly boasting about the birds they had "accidentally" shot.
To me any form of sport hunting and shooting are unacceptable.
IMO there is a huge difference between deer hunting where culling is needed and it needs a fair degree of skill and effort and grouse / pheasant where its really just shooting at live targets. Pheasant / lowland shoots at least mean shelter belts of trees and so on. Grouse moors are indefensible as it creates green deserts, soil erosion and impoverishment and raptor persecution is rampant and widespread still. fox / deer hunting with dogs is deliberately cruel and has no utility.
Grouse shoots and dog packs are also just one huge criminal conspiracy
crosshair
I think I’ve explained why I’m still posting- I’m sick of the disingenuous doublespeak where the threat of climate change is explained using examples of unrelated issues. I’m sick of propaganda. People telling me things I can see with my own eyes aren’t true.
Why? Why is everyone so desperate to live this regressive, damaging lie? 🤷🏻♂️
I'm sure I already answered this... but the reasons are different for different stakeholders.
e.g.
Yes you have – you simply parrot the shooters nonsense over raptor persecution. Its still a thing. Its routine on every grouse moor pretty much.
(I'll put more context into this later and it's not aimed at any specific individual including the one I quoted it from) Obviously some people care more about birds (rats, amphibians, etc.) than people .. and don't believe or don't care about climate change, it's just something to conflate with their agenda or they know more about birds (in this example) and nothing about the science behind climate change so they are doing what you are doing and looking with your own eyes.
crosshair
The only way to match consumption with sustainable emissions is nuclear.
Human progress has been built on energy. Once it was man power with armies and slaves. Then horse power and then fossil fuels. Whatever comes next needs to be better.
‘Renewables’ aren’t better. Not when the Chinese are being applauded for backing them up with two new coal power stations a week and global oil consumption is smashing new heights.
Until we stop getting scammed down a dead end- nothing will improve.
Many people that call themselves environmentalists have spent decades campaigning and spreading lies and misinformation about nuclear.
They would rather see global warming to catastrophic levels than admit they were liars or taken in and believed the lies.
Ultimately they are the ones responsible for climate change but they aren't going to admit that so they double down.
"Sustainable" and "renewable" are marketing buzzwords... that can be exploited in a "green economy" along with "eco" and a whole raft of other words. Every time you see these words you can be pretty sure someone is trying to sell you some product and trying to link it to climate change.
Not when the Chinese are being applauded for backing them up with two new coal power stations a week
That might not be so unexpected from the Chinese Communist Party ...
I think it's more relevant that the German GREEN party is reopening mines and coal powered stations because they closed and refuse to consider nuclear.
I can see why you see that as "the effects of climate change can't be real" or how can the German Green Party just refuse to use nuclear... but the sad reality is whether they believe or not in climate change and whether they believe or not in the devastating effects is less important to them than not using nuclear.
As Edukator say's the evidence in the fossil record (and I'm including detailed isotopic analysis and geologically recent "not fossils" (i.e. non mineralised) on the effects of climate change are absolute "fact" (so well correlated and modelled as to be beyond discussion). The same way the link between CO2 and mean global temperature is proven beyond a doubt.
You've obviously been listening to Patrick Moore a co-founder of Greenpeace saying things like (Wikipedia) "In 2005, Moore criticized what he said were scare tactics and disinformation employed by some within the environmental movement, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism"
Indeed however as I posted earlier people like Funtowicz and Ravetz started off the whole "post-normal age science" because they found the rigid fact based scientific method and doctrine didn't support environmental sciences (Note climate science is NOT environmental science) You can do your own google on either the authors or "post normal science"
and here is why you are so confused....because quasi-sciences (post normal) are claiming to be science AND people/organisations are getting paid or donations to support other people making money out of "the green movement".
So the context... or at least part of it.
So climate change is real and the complex effects well known in the bigger picture. This bigger picture though is often deliberately thrown out...
So if we take the RSPB and really very few people really care about raptors... they can see that by linking to climate change they get more support. If we take some "eco" or "green" or "planet friendly" product the same thing...
Ironically I just came down the back lane and had to stop for a wet sparrowhawk and her kill to move out of the road and thought of you
About a month ago I had to stop for a fledgling Peregrine... what must have been one of their first kills that was too big for them to fly with. (Mistle Thrush)...
anyway back on Moore
(wikipedia)
Moore contends that "most of the really serious [environmental] problems have been dealt with", and that the environmental movement seeks to "invent doom and gloom scenarios". He suggests they romanticize peasant life as part of an anti-industrial campaign to prevent development in less-developed countries, which he describes as "anti-human".
I'm not disagreeing here....
wikipedia
In 2006, he disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change in a letter to the Royal Society, arguing there was "no scientific proof" that mankind was causing global climate change and believes that it "has a much better correlation with changes in solar activity than CO2 levels". He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change.
So the "falsely" here is correct... it was at the time but it's even more proven now.
One very simple proof of it not being solar activity is the cooling of part of the upper atmosphere that is both predicted by climate models and even if it wasn't would increase not decrease as a result of increased solar radiation.
For what it's worth I think he's railing against the "anti-human" side more than the science and a increasing realist over idealist.
This is where I think you are being misled...
There is a venn diagram between "people who care for the environment" and people opposed to "humans being humans".
This overlap has shifted considerably due to people against eating meat, shooting birds or animals etc. has hijacked "climate change". It's an extension of the "anti-human" philosophy... it doesn't matter to some what diversity of raptors are on the managed shooting because it's the shooting and eating of birds they object to.
Moore has stated that global climate change and the melting of glaciers is not necessarily a negative event because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees.[63] Rather than climate change mitigation, Moore advocates adaptation to global warming.[64] This, too, is contrary to the general scientific consensus, which expects climate change to lead to some irreversible impacts.[12]
Again, I only listen to logic and judge with what I see with my own eyes.
Mary Colwell in Curlew Moon found quite the opposite- Grouse Moors are literally all that is stopping many ground nesting species from becoming extinct. The one place where predators are controlled vigorously enough to have an impact and get results the RSPB can only mimic in tiny reserves fenced with 10' high prison grade electric fencing.
Hunting with dogs is an interesting one. Pre-Ban, I'd be forbidden from culling foxes and have to tolerate any fox-losses to make sure there was a nice huntable surplus for them come November.
Gamekeepers were seen as an enemy of the fox and therefore an enemy of the hunt.
Now, 'keepers are free to cull foxes as hard as they like. With thermal imaging, it is ridiculously easy and effective.
So what's better for the fox population?
The original model of fox hunting actually mimicked a lot of the habitat creation pheasant shoots now do- land was spared from intensive agriculture and turned into thick, wildlife filled coverts for foxes to breed and shelter in.
They compensated angry Tennant farmers for livestock losses and by mopping up sick, lame, and road injured foxes, they acted as proxy Apex predators.
Sadly all that got lost in the prejudice and misunderstanding that lead to the ban. Most hunting people's houses resemble a shrine to the Red Fox with paintings, mugs, books and table mats devoted to their love of them.
The best thing that could happen for the fox would be a full repeal. But my life is easier being able to cull as many as I like 🤣
Deer Stalking is not hard or skilful! It's kind of made out to be to justify extortionate guide fees and rents.
It's no surprise to me that as Deer Stalking has become more popular, so the population has exploded. 30 years ago, Gamekeepers were left to manage them for beer money (mind you, I know one old keeper who bought two houses to rent out with Fallow Deer money 🤣) and as a result, we had woods full of shrubs and flowers. Now, the entire country seemingly has a 6' browse line.
Pheasant and partridge shooting is like the ultimate free-range farming. It's a way of monetising the most nature friendly parts of the countryside. Here, we literally pay rent to take intensive agricultural land out of production and plant wildlife friendly winter food mixes. The farmer here will have a higher tier conservation bird mix next to mine and the two are indistinguishable other than the fact ours is funded by wealthy shooting enthusiasts and theirs is funded by the tax payer.
To me- I don't care how many one individual or one shooting party choose to kill in a day- if it's morally right to kill one, it's morally right to kill 1000. Provided they go into the food chain.
I love how a shoot day replicates the way tribes used to turn out en-mass to net a bay for fish or surround a thicket to hunt some meat. It's what makes it special for me. Seeing everyone laughing and joking and enjoying the countryside and working together as a community to achieve something- then all walking off at the end of the day with a brace or two of fresh free-range meat for the table is really very special.
What saddens me most is how quick people are to judge without going and experiencing it for themselves. It's like they are terrified of losing virtue points so instead, stay entrenched in their bunkers throwing ignorant, nonsensical tirades.
Back on topic, it's like 10 degrees outside here today. I guess team Armageddon are going to have to go for "GULF STREAM IS COLLAPSING!" this week as 'The World is BOILING' doesn't seem too credible.
Crosspost as if you prove the point...
I find it hard to respect people who hunt animals for sport.
You're confusing weather and climate and using capitals to take the piss. Bookmark the thread and we'll come back in ten years to see how the planet is doing and how your grain yields are holding up. If there's still STW and a Net for it to run on..
To me- I don’t care how many one individual or one shooting party choose to kill in a day- if it’s morally right to kill one, it’s morally right to kill 1000. Provided they go into the food chain.
The local hunters have quotas for some species because if they killed a 1000 that would be the end of the breeding population, = no more hunting. Wise hunters manage numbers so that the population is stable and healthy. As for the overly abundant pests, fire away, have fun.
stay entrenched in their bunkers throwing ignorant, nonsensical tirades.
Back on topic, it’s like 10 degrees outside here today. I guess team Armageddon are going to have to go for “GULF STREAM IS COLLAPSING!” this week as ‘The World is BOILING’ doesn’t seem too credible.
Pot Kettle Black
Except the tribe are the rich who can afford to pay to kill things.
The countryside mafia use conservation as an excuse for there practices which large portions of the population find unacceptable, while preventing people having reasonable access.
I suggest you stick your fingers in your ears as you are entirely deaf to any rational arguement.
There's plenty of people whose shooting budgets are less than the average STW annual cycling budget....
Our cheapest day is £150 for walked-up shooting over spaniels. That's not even most STW members weekly coffee budget 🤣
Crosshair
Back on topic, it’s like 10 degrees outside here today. I guess team Armageddon are going to have to go for “GULF STREAM IS COLLAPSING!” this week as ‘The World is BOILING’ doesn’t seem too credible.
Again you need to separate the science and quasi-science no what is outside your window on any given day.
Climate change isn't local... it's a fully global phenomena.
Just because fanatics make incredible claims doesn't mean the underlying science is bad, just being misused.
To quote Sagan "incredible claims require incredible evidence" but making wild claims just distracts many from the actual evidence.
As I mentioned earlier the mesosphere is cooling ... not only does this show it's not solar radiation but it's exactly what climate models predict for warming in the lower atmosphere and seas.
I'm poking fun at the ridiculous propaganda- not arguing whether humans are altering the climate.
Crosshair
I’m poking fun at the ridiculous propaganda- not arguing whether humans are altering the climate.
I realise that but you are to an extent following the Patrick Moore line.
If you accept the climate change is happening (from real climate scientists) you need to listen to those with scientific evidence for how that will affect us as a global human population. (not climate scientists.. that's not their job, they just predict/model the climate not its effects on us)
The point is just because other people have other agendas doesn't make the science behind it wrong.
People telling me things I can see with my own eyes aren’t true.
Your own eyes are extremely limited in this context.
Our cheapest day is £150
That's your *cheapest*? I've never paid close to £150 for any day of cycling, anywhere, ever.
I 've paid more than that for a day's cycling, the Etape du Tour is 139-189e. Our first trip to Ainsa for which we hired a guide cost us about that per day per person including accomodation.
Behave 🤣🤣 taking the wife and boy to Wagamama’s got me half way there the other night. Dirty Reiver and ToCambridgshire both cost me more than that all in.
The beaters get a couple of ‘thank you’ days at the end of the season so they are shooting for free. (Let me guess, deliveroo pays you to ride your bike 🙄🙄🤣🤣 )
Crosshair is talking sense. I'd rather listen to the observations of someone with experience close to the countryside issues and the ability to put his own analysis forward, rather than those who rush in with the usual tripe spouting populist, often misinformed views.
Well according to the news we've reached the +1.5°C just 8 years after the 2015 COP set that as a limit. Vicious circle.
Oooo! Presumably we can therefore measure the relative extent of the hyperbolic predictions of mass extinctions, rising sea levels etc?
Almost like Christmas has come early 🎉
What if we’ve smashed the temperature target out of the park but none of the forecast effects have come true? Does that mean the modelling is flawed?
I’m guessing we’ll see as much contrition in that case as we did from shagger Ferguson 🤣
I guess those massive forest fires in Canada didn't happen in your world, nor the cancellation of the Scout Jamboree in South Korea, or parts of China having more than a year's average rainfall in a single day just recently.
Just to mention a few things off the top of my head that happened recently.
it rained a lot yesterday so no
Just from the news tonight I'll add floods in Alaska, fires in Portugal and Extramadura, floods in Norway, fires in Ukraine, record temperatures in Spain, a reminder of China's 52.2°C, fires in Canada.