Committee on Climate Change Report The Future For Farming And Land Use

Swarfmonkey · Jan 25, 2020

Who said I was scoffing? The French don't take $hit from their government. If they don't like what's being done to them by the state, they react to it. Good for them I say.

However, it's "table for 400,000 monsieur?" when the Germans go on one of their long periodic summer holidays in France

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Scribus said:
Actually I'm not a farmer as such, but I dabble. As for scientists then they are only human like the rest of us and are as likely to follow the herd and reinforce the outlook and disposition of their chosen group.

But the thing about scientists is that science is not based on instinct and assumption. Scientific studies are published and are then critiqued by peer review. If the studies don't pass a certain threshold of plausibility, with sound references and as many accepted facts and evidence as possible, they don't get published in reputable scientific journals. Even when they are published in reputable scientific journals, other scientists are actively encouraged to examine and check those findings and critique them if they can. At some point, a consensus is reached, and when that happens you generally find that there is a high degree of probability that the claim being made is legitimate. Most climate scientists have Phd's and doctorates in climate-relevant disciplines. Professionally, they do nothing else but study climate science. In what way is this even remotely similar to you drawing your own particular conclusions about the climate from a position of NOT being a climate scientist?

Scribus · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
But the thing about scientists is that science is not based on instinct and assumption. Scientific studies are published and are then critiqued by peer review. If the studies don't pass a certain threshold of plausibility, with sound references and as many accepted facts and evidence as possible, they don't get published in reputable scientific journals. Even when they are published in reputable scientific journals, other scientists are actively encouraged to examine and check those findings and critique them if they can. At some point, a consensus is reached, and when that happens you generally find that there is a high degree of probability that the claim being made is legitimate. Most climate scientists have Phd's and doctorates in climate-relevant disciplines. Professionally, they do nothing else but study climate science. In what way is this even remotely similar to you drawing your own particular conclusions about the climate from a position of NOT being a climate scientist?

I used to think that as well, but it has became ever more apparent that science has moved from the ivory towers of spotless integrity to a much more commercial postion of being just another sector of the economy.

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Scribus said:
I used to think that as well, but it has became ever more apparent that science has moved from the ivory towers of spotless integrity to a much more commercial postion of being just another sector of the economy.

How so? Have you got examples of this you can quote to support your argument?

Old McDonald · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
The key thing is probability, so if you want an absolutely clear answer, you'll be waiting forever. The question is how much risk do you want to accept? At the the moment there is a lot of risk, because most of the evidence points to human activity being the main (but not the only) driver of climate change.

Robin1966 said:
It really isn't. You cannot compare observations in a commercial glasshouse to top level climate science that studies a complex global climate and man's impact on it. That's like comparing a toy pedal car to a Subaru.

You have my support, but I am not joining in. I have covered every argument they put forward in the last few years that CO2 is good and GHGs do not increase temperatures, etc. etc. but to no avail. I have only this morning pulled out of an attempt to debate the issue on a thread about Greta Thunberg.

Your first quote was for quite a while the main point in an old FWi forum thread way back when and I reported in a thread on here called "The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think" a University study in USA showing that increasing CO2 levels to crops is not necessarily beneficial.

As I said earlier this morning - I give up. Let them believe what they want.

Scribus · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
How so? Have you got examples of this you can quote to support your argument?

Sometimes it's good to rise above what would appear to be a perfectly logical mindset and take a broader overview of life in general. Here's a read which might help in that noble aim, this passage in particular caught my eye -

As polemical journalism, the technique works. And make no mistake, the selling out of several academic laboratories (science) to commercial interests is a real problem today. Here, Greenberg has it right in the department of eroded values. None of this is news, however. The press is full of stories of bungled clinical research, suppression of academic research findings by the sponsoring corporation, lawsuits over patent rights, and the worrisome growth in conflict-of-interest controversies in academic biomedicine.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/genie/pdf/CorruptedScience.pdf

Lazy Sod · Jan 25, 2020

Swarfmonkey said:
The French don't take $hit from their government. If they don't like what's being done to them by the state, they react to it. Good for them I say.

I always used to say that French farmers were a great asset to us, now we're losing them.

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Scribus said:
Sometimes it's good to rise above what would appear to be a perfectly logical mindset and take a broader overview of life in general. Here's a read which might help in that noble aim, this passage in particular caught my eye -

As polemical journalism, the technique works. And make no mistake, the selling out of several academic laboratories (science) to commercial interests is a real problem today. Here, Greenberg has it right in the department of eroded values. None of this is news, however. The press is full of stories of bungled clinical research, suppression of academic research findings by the sponsoring corporation, lawsuits over patent rights, and the worrisome growth in conflict-of-interest controversies in academic biomedicine.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/genie/pdf/CorruptedScience.pdf

I agree that scientists are not immune to encroachment by commercial interests and narrow-minded political biases, but in general, when that happens to climate science, climate scientists tend to fight back. An example of this is the establishment of 'Alternative NOAA' on Twitter by climate scientists opposed to President Trump's interference in and attacks on climate science.

Scribus · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
I agree that scientists are not immune to encroachment by commercial interests and narrow-minded political biases, but in general, when that happens to climate science, climate scientists tend to fight back. An example of this is the establishment of 'Alternative NOAA' on Twitter by climate scientists opposed to President Trump's interference in and attacks on climate science.

And Twitter is peer reviewed by who?

An Gof · Jan 25, 2020

Suffolk Serf said:
The NFU should sack their chief advisor on "Renewable Energy and Climate Change".

He operates on a different plane to the rest of us and usually manages to lose me ......

An Gof · Jan 25, 2020

Frank-the-Wool said:
I have been a trouble maker for a long time within the NFU which I am sure Guy Smith and a few others will corroborate however my point is valid that we need a collective voice at this time of massive change that is looming over the next few months and years.
I am sorry to hear about your experience as all input should be seen as constructive. I presume from your comment that this was from a staff member and not a fellow farmer?

I note the comments about AD plants and the effect these have had where crops are being grown to supply the feedstock. If I was an arable farmer I would probably say that it is a good thing to increase the value of what I grow but as a lowly livestock farmer it increases the price of straw (which thankfully I use very little of) and increases the rental value of land which again as a livestock farmer I could never consider those rental costs anyway.
However AD should be used for waste and I will be very surprised if that is not one of the tools that is used to help with reducing Co2. In a recent visit to the Czech Republic I was impressed by how AD plants had been incorporated in large pig and dairy units that had been recently built (with EU funding).

You are NO trouble maker Frank, when you speak people listen. We need more like you as members and particularly on Council

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Scribus said:
And Twitter is peer reviewed by who?

No your missing the point. Twitter is an avenue of communication, that's it. You can use it to access the main NOAA website: https://www.noaa.gov/ but more importantly, keep track of the tweets and retweets of those scientists involved in Alternative NOAA, going back to their original sources where links are given in the tweet(s) to those sources. I agree with you that just taking what you read on Twitter at face value without checking it out is not very productive.

Scribus · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
No your missing the point. Twitter is an avenue of communication, that's it. You can use it to access the main NOAA website: https://www.noaa.gov/ but more importantly, keep track of the tweets and retweets of those scientists involved in Alternative NOAA, going back to their original sources where links are given in the tweet(s) to those sources. I agree with you that just taking what you read on Twitter at face value without checking it out is not very productive.

Exactly so, but life is short and the media, in its entirety, is vast and clamorous which can lead to a tunneling effect where one mine's only the information that is agreeable to ones current beliefs. There is also a pattern of thought amongst the scientific community which pushes them to believe that situation A, when combined with action B, will result in result C. All perfectly logical and quite provable until it is realised that neither the situation or the action are as perfectly disciplined and described as is required to give the expected result.

Poorbuthappy · Jan 25, 2020

Scribus said:
And from where does the BBC derive its funding? ;-)

Those who listen to it...

holwellcourtfarm · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
But the thing about scientists is that science is not based on instinct and assumption. Scientific studies are published and are then critiqued by peer review. If the studies don't pass a certain threshold of plausibility, with sound references and as many accepted facts and evidence as possible, they don't get published in reputable scientific journals. Even when they are published in reputable scientific journals, other scientists are actively encouraged to examine and check those findings and critique them if they can. At some point, a consensus is reached, and when that happens you generally find that there is a high degree of probability that the claim being made is legitimate. Most climate scientists have Phd's and doctorates in climate-relevant disciplines. Professionally, they do nothing else but study climate science. In what way is this even remotely similar to you drawing your own particular conclusions about the climate from a position of NOT being a climate scientist?

If only that were still true.

The CCC report and the BBC amongst others are still using the Poore & Nemcek 2018 Eat-Lancet figures for the climate impact of different foods which have been roundly criticised by climate and other specialist scientists. There was huge bias in their work, not least from the vested interests funding it, and their "peer reviewers" did nothing to highlight their obvious failings. Corrections have been issued since but the media and, it appears, the UK CCC continue to accept their original report as gospel truth.

Peer review is only as good as the "peers" chosen to do it.

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

holwellcourtfarm said:
If only that were still true.

The CCC report and the BBC amongst others are still using the Poore & Nemcek 2018 Eat-Lancet figures for the climate impact of different foods which have been roundly criticised by climate and other specialist scientists. There was huge bias in their work, not least from the vested interests funding it, and their "peer reviewers" did nothing to highlight their obvious failings. Corrections have been issued since but the media and, it appears, the UK CCC continue to accept their original report as gospel truth.

Peer review is only as good as the "peers" chosen to do it.

Which is why scientific papers need to be reviewed and checked by other scientists even after publication, as I mentioned. I didn't know that about the CCC I must admit. However, the main point I was trying to make about Poore & Nemcek 2018 is that it doesn't support the argument that everyone everywhere has to convert to veganism. What it DOES do though is point to the fact that different foodstuffs have different impacts, which means that SOME types of meat do indeed have serious impacts on the environment/climate. Therefore the CCC is absolutely right to advocate a degree of meat reduction. The fact that it isn't doing so to the same extreme extent that Monbiot is, is welcome and encouraging.

If there are some farmers here who think they can just dig their heels in and steadfastly refuse to do anything at all to counter climate change, my message to you is to think again. Everyone will have to do their bit, even farmers, but that needn't involve the destruction of the farming industry if it is done properly. To those farmers who do insist on doing absolutely nothing, I am afraid at some point I will lose patience and be almost as vociferous to you as Monbiot is being, in my own way. I do wish to help farmers and work with farmers in advocating and leading a transition towards a more climate-friendly farming industry, but that doesn't mean I am going tolerate some farmers thinking they can get away with doing nothing at all. Not going to happen.

Scribus · Jan 25, 2020

Poorbuthappy said:
Those who listen to it...

Via the filter of government.

Goweresque · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
But the thing about scientists is that science is not based on instinct and assumption. Scientific studies are published and are then critiqued by peer review. If the studies don't pass a certain threshold of plausibility, with sound references and as many accepted facts and evidence as possible, they don't get published in reputable scientific journals.

How quaint you believe that, especially in regards to climate 'science' which is basically politics now.

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Goweresque said:
How quaint you believe that, especially in regards to climate 'science' which is basically politics now.

No. It isn't. Not among most climate scientists anyway. Climate scientists do climate science. They provide the information. It is for politicians and journalists and other social commentators to take that information and draw whatever conclusions they feel minded to draw from it. However, politicians are unique in this aspect in that it is the fundamental duty of the government to protect the population they represent. That includes taking action in lieu of the findings of climate scientists. It is true though that a minority of climate scientists have becoming a bit hacked off with the politicians not doing anything or not doing enough, so yes, a few climate scientists are becoming political.

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Does anyone know if there is any farming representation on this Citizen's Assembly? If not, there should be.... https://www.theguardian.com/environ...gh-citizens-climate-assembly?CMP=share_btn_tw

Committee on Climate Change Report The Future For Farming And Land Use

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page