Climate change/oblivion: breaking point or slow death spiral?

My old boss rents a 2000 acre estate in Hampshire WITH rent for two cottages and farm buildings for £50,000 a year so no- that’s not an accurate reflection of what a few keen birders would need to pay a farmer to grow some wild bird plots….

That’s talking about renting the farm to run an agricultural business….

That bag of mix seemed to be mostly phacilea

Probably more to do with soil nutrient level than the composition of the seed mix

Possibly and maybe it was better suited to last years drought?
Will take some pics of this years in a minute. They’re insane 🤣🤣🤣

My old boss rents a 2000 acre estate in Hampshire WITH rent for two cottages and farm buildings for £50,000

That’s a lot of £5 a month

Maybe that’s why the green lobby hate them- they’re proof of the lie they need to peddle to exist

Umm so you think EVERYTHING the green lobby says is a lie? See, it’s fine to debate certain points and identify where things are being manipulated for certain interests – that’s really important. But when you claim it’s all a lie, that’s where you destroy your credibility.

Firstly, there is no one single green lobby…

Blah blah insect Armageddon blah blah

Whaaat? Scientists are actually studying insects all over the world and reporing serious decline, but you think that your one field that has buzzing noises overturns all that study? Seriously?

My local woods also buzz, but I understand that a) that’s just one local wood and b) I have no idea what’s making that buzzing sound and what sort of diversity that represents. You’re no better than the idiots on the green side, by the look of it.

We were talking about 5 Acres with no buildings or cottages 😉

🤩 🤩

Th point is a simple one of logic Molgrips that I’ve stated lots of times. If, where habitat is restored, insect (or any other species of plant or animal) numbers return to healthy numbers- it’s clearly a land use problem not a climate one.

Still going to be a lot of £5 a month especially when the cost of management is added and that’s before we discuss the likelihood of a farmer allowing one of his fields to be rented out and be completely altered.

I did think about starting it as a business. I’ll find the plots, do the work and build the hides.

You’d probably find a few acres on most farms for free. I have a 2ac plot of self seeded wheat here that has had literally zero establishment costs this year. You could plant five acres by hand with volunteers.

Back to Dr Woods’ channel for inspiration…

Isn’t the conservation expression “build it and they will come”?
Like at Knepp:

https://knepp.co.uk/rewilding/wildlife-successes/

But if Cljmate Change was at fault, this wouldn’t happen 🤷🏻‍♂️

funkmasterp

We need to worry about other species though. We’re losing life at an alarming rate. Lots of these creatures are a part of much wider, delicate systems. We have a duty of care as the supposed intelligent species. Look what happened when vultures started dying off in India. Replaced by feral dogs that started attacking people. Nothing worse than a vacuum in nature.

So do you think this is worse than climate change and how do you personally define worse?
Maybe you could explain how many human deaths from climate change are acceptable to save the vulture? (just to the nearest 100 million I’m not asking for an exact number)

Th point is a simple one of logic Molgrips that I’ve stated lots of times. If, where habitat is restored, insect (or any other species of plant or animal) numbers return to healthy numbers- it’s clearly a land use problem not a climate one.

LOCALLY, for sure. But there are ALSO global climate related issues. Biodiversity and habitat loss is MUCH bigger than your field in the UK somewhere. You can restore a lot of species, but can you restore them all? Is something going to be missing, because a plant it depends on is now much rarer than it was, because the climate is hotter or wetter or whatever? This is the kind of thing scientists are interested in, not just ‘look, insects’.

Listen. To. Scientists. They know their stuff, that’s the whole point.

Molgrips

Climate fear is big business? That sounds like a knee jerk reaction.

Of course, people are profiting from pretending to be green. But that does not mean climate change isn’t a real significant problem, does it? You’ve seen the movie Don’t Look Up, right? Hint: it’s not actually about meteors.

Once again you are mixing something most people don’t give a crap about with climate change.

Possibly, but a lot of anti-green comment is also driven by knee-jerk ‘it’s all bollocks’ type reactions

Erm that’s because it’s all bollox due to conflation like you you did above ^^^
The anti-green sentiment is driven by lies and conflation of something that people are genuinely worried about (climate change) and things they perhaps should in an ideal world care about but don’t give a crap.
Every lie just makes more people either switch off to both or do something they think helps climate change but doesn’t.

Nature is in constant flux. We can recreate whatever we like (assuming it’s not extinct). It’s more about the cost… 💰

Arrrrgghhhhhhh GGRRRRRRRRRR ssssss

This thread is driving me to distraction the crap circular pronostications and dodgy utube clips.

The use of Wickpeadia as evidence.

The whole thing has got completely pointless.

Sorry rant over I will go back to sleep.

So do you think this is worse than climate change and how do you personally define worse?
Maybe you could explain how many human deaths from climate change are acceptable to save the vulture? (just to the nearest 100 million I’m not asking for an exact number)

it is part and parcel of climate change. It’s not a one or the other choice. The vulture decline was used as an example of what can happen when a vacuum is created in nature. It was actually caused by humans giving drugs to cattle. I think all life should be protected where possible. We could do that if there was the will to do so, but there isn’t so we’re likely **** and have **** a lot of other species in the process.

We can recreate whatever we like

No we can’t, traditional hay meadow vegetation for examples cannot be recreated in its entirety just something similar but but not the same

It was actually caused by humans giving drugs to cattle.

Ie. Land use not climate change.

Nothing to do with land use. It was religion.

No we can’t, traditional hay meadow vegetation for examples cannot be recreated in its entirety just something similar but but not the same

Hay meadows were created once before right?
They didn’t always exist.

Of course you won’t have the site specific genetic purity but then I don’t hear rewilders telling me their imported beavers can’t still cut down a UK tree??

There’s a kind of liberal self loathing that puts our ancestors methods above our own.
Farmers once destroyed an existing habitat (probably scrubland) to create a hay meadow….

Nothing to do with land use. It was religion.

They were wild cows were they?

Nope, but the meat isn’t consumed for religious reasons and the corpses are left to rot. The drug used kills the vultures that feed on the meat. Feral dogs replaced the vultures and began attacking people and disease also spread. So no, not land use. I would give you a link but it’s to the Guardian so clearly lies and part of the biodiversity agenda or something

Surely anything a human does to use the land to their advantage (whether that be religious, food, mountain biking or whatever) is ‘land use’?

Any idea how my not taking a flight to Greece will help the problem too?

Every lie

Do you realise that going on about lies all the time makes you sound paranoid and completely obscures any point you are trying to make? I have no idea what you are talking about, even though I am actually trying to understand.

We can recreate whatever we like

Ok, so let’s do it.

Ok, so let’s do it.

It’s just a matter of funding isn’t it. We’ve already discussed three models- paying to go shooting, joining a conservation org or private intervention (this can be remarkably small scale- we used to have a keen birder who used to come and keep the puddles filled for the swallows and feed a few hedgerows through the winter for taking photos of song birds).

Another one is subsidy of course- the land owner here gets paid by the Tax Payer for growing plots identical to our ‘shooting funded’ ones.

But how much tax are you willing to give rich land-inheriting toffs to leave some weeds and grow a few seeds?

Natural England seem keener to splash the cash on Sea Eagles (that could fly to the Isle of White from Scotland if they were that bothered about living there) and Beavers.

funkmasterp

It’s not a one or the other choice.

Except for most people it is.

it is part and parcel of climate change.

No it isn’t… it may well be one of the consequences of climate change but it isn’t a cause.
When it is a consequence then mitigating the root cause (climate change from greenhouse gas) will partially restore it anyway

You still didn’t answer the question… and this is fundamental to getting honest support for climate change.
It also provides a measure how serious you think climate change is for humans.
The absolute best case scenario right now is probably tens of millions of human deaths… and that’s if we do EVERYTHING
As far as I’m concerned it’s a valid response to say “I don’t care, the more humans die the better” but equally you can’t expect 7+ billion people to agree. This is the stated reason Patrick Moor left Greenpeace because in his words they just don’t care about humans. I don’t agree with his stance on climate change is actually good etc. but I do agree that Greenpeace is demonstrating that it doesn’t care about human deaths or is just ignoring them.

The thing is though we aren’t going to do EVERYTHING … if you care how many people die then we need to do as much as we can and the things make the biggest difference. If you don’t care about human deaths just say so and be honest.

So do you think this is worse than climate change and how do you personally define worse?
Maybe you could explain how many human deaths from climate change are acceptable to save the vulture? (just to the nearest 100 million I’m not asking for an exact number)

Molgrips

Do you realise that going on about lies all the time makes you sound paranoid and completely obscures any point you are trying to make? I have no idea what you are talking about, even though I am actually trying to understand.

Simple question – do you believe Boris Johnson lied about parties and breaking Covid? [edit – added one word] laws

Hay meadows were created once before right?
They didn’t always exist.

Yes, they were created from woodland understory vegetation, the plant community you create from management depends on what you are applying that management to. If the vegetation that hay meadows were created from doesn’t exist you cannot create the meadow vegetation.

Not sure what this has to do with beavers. But it has nothing to do with being liberal or something, it’s just science.

But all the net result is, from an ecological perspective, is an interacting set of plant and animal species.
Recreate that set and you will get the same ecological effect.

Presumably the consultants selling ‘hay meadow restoration’ advice are liars?

A hay meadow wouldn’t exist if left unmanaged anyhow- it would revert to wildwood. Therefore is always a human construct 🤷🏻‍♂️

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?