I see in my absence the trolls have managed to screw this thread up with their constant misdirection and untruths. That's what they do, on here and everywhere else, and it's very successful because it spreads the seeds of doubt in those who haven't the time or inclination to be fully informed, and ultimately the result of that is less momentum and public interest in solving the climate problem.
Seems to me there's an easy solution to this, which is to de-platform them in the same way we have de-platformed nazis and their ilk. Maybe a change in the terms and conditions of the forum? I would have thought the rules around deliberate trolling would be enough but apparently not. It leaves me wondering whether this forum is part of the problem or the solution?
No it isn’t… it may well be one of the consequences of climate change but it isn’t a cause.
I didn’t say it was. It will contribute though if species keep dying out then the changes this can bring will worsen some effects. Look at bees as a prime example.
I also answered your question. We shouldn’t just be concentrating on the human element. We should be looking to save as many species as possible as not doing so could lead to dire consequences. By tackling climate change we will achieve this. There is no Will to do so on a large scale though. I care but it is very clear that a lot don’t.
but I do agree that Greenpeace is demonstrating that it doesn’t care about human deaths or is just ignoring them
Greenpeace supports black lives matter
Greenpeace helps people in their fight against deadly chemical/nuclear hazards
Greenpeace successfully oposes drilling in the proximity of homes and schools
Greenpeace works to protect indiginous peoples
Grenpeace has been one of the main orgainisations rasising awareness on the our Climate in Crisis
Greenpeace promotes renewable energy
Greenpeace campaigns against bee-killing pesticides (bees are essential to many people's lives)
Greenpeace fights against illegal deforestation
Greenpeace has succesfully campaigned against hydroflourocarbons
But don't let facts get in the way, Stevextc.
Recreate that set and you will get the same ecological effect.
It's very unlikely, the interactions between species are huge, knock out a few and it has massive knock on effects on other species. Add in problems caused by not using seeds with local provenance and how they interact differently on multiple trophic levels and trust me you are not going to be recreating anything like what has been lost.
I have seen meadows that were ploughed and planted with potatoes for a year or two in WW2 and compared to those managed exactly the same on the same farms the botanical diversity is massively reduced and has remained so.
Presumably the consultants selling ‘hay meadow restoration’ advice are liars?
Pretty much, you might be surprised to find out who did the original research on the methods many of them use to....
In the context of all these 00,000,000’s of people predicted to die from climate change (now apparently because Singletrackworld are allowing healthy debate on their forum 🤣) though: arguing whether a modern reconstructed hay meadow is identical to a pre war hay meadow is kind of getting lost in the weeds 😉 🌾
Seems to me there’s an easy solution to this, which is to de-platform them in the same way we have de-platformed nazis and their ilk.
Chronic censorship to stop (checks notes) Climate Nazi’s. Isn’t that…. a little bit Nazi-ish??
(#AreWeTheBaddies Yes. Yes you are 🤣)
arguing whether a modern reconstructed hay meadow is identical to a pre war hay meadow is kind of getting lost in the weeds
Only when you come out with comments such as
We can recreate whatever we like
Which is patently bollocks like so much of what you type. You make sweeping comments, assume they are fact and then just press on with whatever point you want to make but so much is just plain wrong on a fundamental level.
The key word being 'recreate' (verb; Create AGAIN) not 'clone'. (And actually, given enough time, we could get to the same place given that the entire country was once an Ice sheet.....). The point was clearly related to what we were discussing about land use being of greater concern to biodiversity loss than 'Climate Change'. We've lost Hay meadows not because the species can no longer exist but because we dug for victory and then kept on digging 😉
I'm trying to keep this polite and keep the thread on topic in good faith so will ignore the rest 👍🏻 🙌🏻
The key word being ‘recreate’ (verb; Create AGAIN) not ‘clone’.
Not sure you understand what both those words mean tbh but saying that you are right because something you didn't say is obviously wrong is not the best debating style.
And actually, given enough time, we could get to the same place given that the entire country was once an Ice sheet…
You clearly don't understand how succession works.
Admit it boys you’re losing this debate. Crosshair is outwitting you with real world experience and intelligence. 🤣🤣
Given the propensity of chance in deciding what evolves, what thrives and what dies, I guess it is unlikely that the same exact set of species will occur. There is no 'climate change' impediment though.
The idea that one snap-shot of land management at one moment in history when humans were interacting with a set of species purely by chance in one particular way is the only valid one is ridiculous though. It is perfectly possible to recreate something equally or even more diverse.
Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make relative to the climate v land use biodiversity issue?
Simple question – do you believe Boris Johnson lied about parties and breaking Covid?
What the..?
But how much tax are you willing to give rich land-inheriting toffs to leave some weeds and grow a few seeds?
I'm happy for toffs to shoot, as long as the land is managed to a high standard for the benefit of all nature and not as a monospecies bird factory. And as long as the public still has access when shoots aren't on.
The idea that one snap-shot of land management at one moment in history when humans were interacting with a set of species purely by chance in one particular way is the only valid one is ridiculous though.
True but it has nothing to do with anything we were discussing.
It is perfectly possible to recreate something equally or even more diverse.
You keep saying that but it is still incorrect.
Otherwise, I’m not entirely sure what point you are trying to make relative to the climate v land use biodiversity issue?
We were discussing your inaccuracies as regards recreating habitats, I have no idea why you thought making such a comment, however false, helped your argument re land use v climate change. In fact I have no idea what your view on this is. I was just pointing out an example that shows how you are incorrect.
The idea that two habitats; both with the same list of species present; interacting with each other in the same way; both man made; both contingent on future management at the hands of man and thus both superficially identical are TECHNICALLY DIFFERENT is such a ridiculously obscure point to make that I’m not sure any kudus you get for making it is worth having.
But if you want to say I’m incorrect because the lack of continuity present in a restored hay meadow precludes it from your narrow definition of the original- then go for it.
The point to Molgrips relative to the topic still stands- there is, in my opinion, no *climate related* barrier to habitat recreation in most cases. That a habitat that relies on a continuous, specific, form of land management (that may have fallen out of popular economic use), renders it lost for all time, is not Climate Change’s fault either 😀
there is, in my opinion, no *climate related* barrier to habitat recreation in most cases.
Are you talking about the UK only here? We're not one of the most at-risk areas of the world.
There are places where indigenous plants and animals won't grow any more because of higher temperatures or lower rainfall, in some parts of the world.
The idea that two habitats; both with the same list of species present; interacting with each other in the same way; both man made; both contingent on future management at the hands of man and thus both superficially identical are TECHNICALLY DIFFERENT is such a ridiculously obscure point to make that I’m not sure any kudus you get for making it is worth having.A
Again you are correct, but, it has nothing to do with anything we are discussing. You just keep making things up to try and prove whatever point it might be you are trying to prove.
But if you want to say I’m incorrect because the lack of continuity present in a restored hay meadow precludes it from your narrow definition of the original
Nope that's not what I said, yet again you just made that up.
You said we can recreate any habitat we like (or words to that effect I can't be bothered to go back and look. I said we cannot and gave the example of hay meadows. I used that example as I know a bit about them and their restoration. We can make things which look to the untrained eye like them but we cannot restore what was lost. The restored meadows are better than a field of grass for diversity but not as diverse as what was lost.
there is, in my opinion, no *climate related* barrier to habitat recreation in most cases
The phrase "in my opinion" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Should we value your opinion so highly? Why?
We can make things which look to the untrained eye like them but we cannot restore what was lost.
This is correct. Soil mycelium and mycorrhiza are hugely important parts of the world we live in, and little is known. It's likely to be different in a meadow that has been there for 500 years versus one that was a factory until the 60s.
Again you are correct, but, it has nothing to do with anything we are discussing.
?? It’s exactly what you are discussing. You keep saying things along this line that make me think you aren’t arguing in good faith here.
You said we can recreate any habitat we like (or words to that effect I can’t be bothered to go back and look. I said we cannot and gave the example of hay meadows. I used that example as I know a bit about them and their restoration. We can make things which look to the untrained eye like them but we cannot restore what was lost. The restored meadows are better than a field of grass for diversity but not as diverse as what was lost.
And this is exactly what I just said, worded differently 🤷🏻♂️
Should we value your opinion so highly? Why?
Only because I seem to see things thriving on a daily basis that popular media (and some strong voices in this thread) is telling us are in dire straights.
But it’s a Bike forum Chat room and this I’d prefer people used their own eyes to form an opinion rather than take mine.
If I help one person with climate anxiety chill out and enjoy life a bit more then it’s worth wading through this petifoggery 😀
This is correct. Soil mycelium and mycorrhiza are hugely important parts of the world we live in, and little is known. It’s likely to be different in a meadow that has been there for 500 years versus one that was a factory until the 60s.
As just said in different words- I accept that point 👍🏻
But that’s not climate change’s fault 😀
Do raptors thrive in your little non-climate change affected piece of land?
And this is exactly what I just said, worded differently
It really isn't, let's take one more attempt. You cannot recreate a traditional hay meadow. The diversity will be lower, many species absent, many present in very different proportions. The mycorrhizal assemblages for example will exchange photosynthetic products between species thereby giving some a competitive advantage and others a disadvantage when the management is changed it has drastic effects on the soil fungi. Improved grassland have very little soil fungi and much higher soil bacteria all this will impact the plant community that the soil will support.
We’ve covered that already when I snapped a passing sparrowhawk pic for TJ. I have kestrels nesting at the end of the garden, enough kites to put the hawk conservancy to shame, rarities like little and long eared owls and buzzards by the flock.
I’d bring A_A round for a tour to show him what we have but I’m not that inclined to want to spend an afternoon with him now 🥱😴🤣🤣
The mycorrhizal assemblages for example will exchange photosynthetic products
That's easy for you to say....
It really isn’t, let’s take one more attempt. You cannot recreate a traditional hay meadow. The diversity will be lower, many species absent, many present in very different proportions. The mycorrhizal assemblages for example will exchange photosynthetic products between species thereby giving some a competitive advantage and others a disadvantage when the management is changed it has drastic effects on the soil fungi. Improved grassland have very little soil fungi and much higher soil bacteria all this will impact the plant community that the soil will support.
You’re making the point I just conceded. Which is completely irrelevant to the thread. Neither the fact that a precious habitat has been lost nor the fact you cannot *technically* recreate it even with seed and soil imported from a remaining hay meadow are to do with climate change- you’re actually proving my point which, all along, was that land use changes are a greater threat to biodiversity than climate change.
I obviously agree that these precious diverse habitats should be preserved where they still exist 🙏 Maybe you could agree that that would be a better direction for climate hysteria and associated funding to be pointed?
That’s easy for you to say….
It is yes
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01570.x
But that’s not climate change’s fault
No, but other things are. You accept this right?
you’re actually proving my point which, all along, was that land use changes are a greater threat to biodiversity than climate change.
Er, well, perhaps, but so what? They are sort of orthogonal concepts from a social point of view. We need to combat climate, change AND we need to protect biodiversity and habitats. Do you disagree? Do you think we should only be doing one?
No. I agree. But we need to be clear about cause and effect. Asking people to make climate change sacrifices to solve unrelated ecological conundrums just makes me think team Armageddon don’t have enough of a convincing argument after all.
Mind you, I still find it incredulous that we are just shrugging and saying ‘oh well’ about the fact that governments thought they were justified in telling porkies about Covid interventions!
I’m sure team Armageddon are similarly convinced that the end justifies the means (of conflating climate with more tangible bad things happening) now- and that’s terrifying!
you’re actually proving my point
No sure you understand what that means.
that land use changes are a greater threat to biodiversity than climate change
Maybe, maybe not I am not sure it would be possible to disentangle the effects of both on each other tbh. Land use and habitat loss can drive climate change and climate change can drive habitat loss. Long term climate change is likely to have a bigger effect globally I would think, but like I said the two are so intrinsically linked that they cannot be separated.
But we need to be clear about cause and effect.
Impossible to do
After 34 pages, I can officially add this thread to my doom scrolling list.
No. I agree. But we need to be clear about cause and effect. Asking people to make climate change sacrifices to solve unrelated ecological conundrums just makes me think team Armageddon don’t have enough of a convincing argument after all.
I don't think that's what's happening? Most people are completely ignorant as to the finer details of environmental science in all its aspects, so they just need to be told what's good and what's bad. I mean we've had a 30 page argument about something or other when we all actually agree that climate change and biodiversity both need addressing.
But at the consumer level they aren't related. I mean you can (in your view) pay to go shooting and support well managed wildlife sanctuaries, but you can fly up to Scotland and drive a hired Range Rover to the site, OR you can get the train and drive a hired EV. Similarly you can lobby your supermarket to avoid palm oil plantation products, but you could also have a Range Rover and a hot tub.
There are situations where the right thing to do is not clear, but this isn't one of those situations.
Also, why do you use words like 'team armageddon'? You're trying to trivialise the issue, and mock those who care, right? Why would you do that? You do admit there's a serious problem, right?
No sure you understand what that means.
These jibes are even funnier seeing as I’m reading them in your accent in my head 🤣
(Droll “tired with life” Northerner for those who haven’t met him).
Maybe, maybe not I am not sure it would be possible to disentangle the effects of both on each other tbh
Fair enough….
What personal action would you recommend folk take to halt biodiversity decline through that lens then?
What personal action would you recommend folk take to halt biodiversity decline through that lens then?
Whatever action they see fit.
Northerner
Midlands is not the north
You do admit there’s a serious problem, right?
Most are aware there is an issue, but most can agree that they as an individual can do totally nowt about it, other than at a personal level, which in the grand scheme of things is utterly meaningless to the problem.
Spitting at a forest fire isnt going to put it out, and while individual efforts, though meaningless to the problem might feel morally correct, they aren't going to change the issue.
Crosshairs cant fix the world, so maybe stop blaming him for not being able to.
Also, why do you use words like ‘team armageddon’? You’re trying to trivialise the issue, and mock those who care, right? Why would you do that? You do admit there’s a serious problem, right?
Not one that aligns with the interventions being suggested, no.
I’m mocking the lunacy of thinking not having kids or going to Greece on holiday when the plane is going to fly anyway, is going to change a damn thing.
If you want to save a species or protect a habitat- do it directly with your money, your hands and your enthusiasm. To outsource it to conflated solutions in the name of climate change is just dishonest. Someone is profiting on the back of your naivety.
Mind you, I still find it incredulous that we are just shrugging and saying ‘oh well’ about the fact that governments thought they were justified in telling porkies about Covid interventions!
That's because you're trying to create a false equivalence.
The collapse of the natural world, which is very much happening (unless you count 70% decline in all animal populations since 1970 a bit of made-up asshattery), dwarfs the covid idiocy into insignificance.
There is no fixing climate change without hand-in-hand fixing the bigger biodiversity issue - because ultimately the preservation of our natural ecosystems is the goal. Combatting climate change is but one thread of achieving that goal.
Of course, like Lovelock said, we're too dumb to fix it. We don't have the systems to do so. And the human race is in the last 1% of it's lifespan.
Do you think there is enough land for everyone to grow their own food?
I’m mocking the lunacy of thinking not having kids or going to Greece on holiday when the plane is going to fly anyway, is going to change a damn thing.
What? You think the number of flying hours isn’t related to the demand for flights? Or do you simply not get that many small actions can add up to bigger actions?
Of course the really big changes need to be enacted by governments working together, but demand driven changes (for better or worse) that come about though shifts in social expectations and norms will also play their part.
We live in a society, Crosshair, it's collectively we make a difference. Not having too many kids as a society will make a difference (rather than not having any). If enough people decide to take a train rather than a plane then the plane won't fly. If enough people buy EVs emissioons will be reduced. If enough people insulate their houses gas consumption will fall.
Of course the utterly selfish don't give a ****s won't contribute but if enough of us do the world will be a better place for the kids people do dare to have knowing the legacy we're leaving them.
I said a long time ago in this thread that we should worry about climate change once we’ve applied ourselves to the much more achievable goal of reforming land use. Then we’ll know where we are at. And maybe a few less 25,000,000 acre forest fires will help the atmosphere too 😉
Imagine if the money spent on new ULZ signs was spent educating Londoners on the 14,000 species of nature on their doorstep. (I’m still amazed by that stat). Ah, but there’s no cash in that.
‘We’re’ being played as fools.
Imagine if the money spent on new ULZ signs was spent educating Londoners on the 14,000 species of nature on their doorstep
The vast majority still wouldn't give a ****
It’s okay, when things get really ****ed we can just move to Crosshair’s thriving field and live a life of sublime luxury whilst laughing. Fools! We have so many insects and birds here that it balances out the losses elsewhere. 70% lost worldwide but a 9,000.000,000,000% increase here, in this field, you doom mongering Armageddon worshipping idiots!
‘We’re’ being played as fools
Actually many people can see right through your posts and are not being fooled by an occasional post with some worth. You are a good troll but you're still a troll. Or seriously misguided. Or both
What? You think the number of flying hours isn’t related to the demand for flights? Or do you simply not get that many small actions can add up to bigger actions?
The best thing would be to only fly planes at full capacity. Instead, they’ll fly them empty to keep their slot if you stay at home (because you’re assuming people in Greece won’t want to travel back and forth just because you’ve decided to be a holiday-martyr 🤣).
It’s like swapping to an EV. That’s only a good move if you ICE car is recycled. Instead it will likely get shipped abroad and carry on chugging AS WELL as your new car.
The people in this thread are almost without exception in the top 1% when it comes to global wealth. The idea that you’ve had your fill of fossil fuel-powered freedom and that burgeoning economies and populations around the world are going to sit back and let you impose like for like climate policies on them is bonkers.
Don’t want to fly in a plane? There’s plenty of places where people still will. And plenty of governments and operators that will still let them.
“You’re a kite dancing in a hurricane Mr Bond” but it’s quaint how important everyone thinks their individual actions are 🥲
