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.
…Most of which are down to poor land use practices… and round and round we go ♻️♻️♻️♻️♻️
(Or reported as “the worst XYZ since the last time it happened” 🤣🤣)
I think this why people are “fed up with experts” only, it misses the critical part off of the end- ….’not being held accountable for grossly inaccurate modelling’.
Most of which are down to poor land use practices
Land use in Alaska - you'll have to elaborate
Land use in Canada - again you'll have to elaborate, it's been forest for thousands of years
Land use in China leading to 52.2°C - again please elaborate
Record temperatures in Spain down to land use, nah
Fires in Portugal and Extramaduara, there you have a point, the lack of land use is a factor as traditional subsistence agriculture isn't viable in the modern world. A contributory factor but drought and extremem temperatures are are the main contributors.
Canada’s capacity to prevent wildfires has been shrinking for decades because of budget cuts, a loss of some of the country’s forest service staff, and onerous rules for fire prevention, turning some of its forests into a tinderbox.
Trudeau has been playing with fire! Which handily supports his agenda I guess 🎉 Neglect forest management budgets then act surprised when they catch fire.
If he thought 🌲 🔥 thanks to climate change was an existential threat, shouldn’t he have INCREASED spending?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/world/canada/canada-firefighting-capacity.html
How many holidays do I need to skip to save the carbon caused by Canadas neglect?
Once again
the plural of anecdote is not data
Weather is not the same as climate
Whataboutery is nonsense to deflect from the issues
