Am I missing something?

So COP has really annoyed me. Masses of virtual signaling, awards given to companies that aren't doing much. Lots of back patting. Adverts campaigns from ITV and Tesco to change the way we eat. Inane nonsense from leaders. Masses of coverage on food.

However in UK, stats saying 6% of of emissions come from livestock and 4% from veg and arable (our 10% total for that essential feeding people). Think I have those right from the AHDB figures.

18% come from homes and building (some from that essential air conditioning in the city).

Yet swapping to eating veg will save the planet (ultra processed veg at that) . They are all on crack. It's as simple as that. Misinformation and misdirection.

The whole thing has just depressed me. Good thing the general public have no intention on changing eating habits and with population increases, there is no way the livestock sector needs to shrink. Also went for a big drive through Wales to see all those evil climate killing sheep roaming amongst the green hillsides. The world has gone mad.

I'll get off my soapbox now (having a bad day as you will guess).
They're playing a very complex game. Virtually everyone is arguing about the primary factors that cause climate change. That means that virtually everyone has bought into the climate change ideology. They've managed to get people to skip the question of what climate change actually is and what other factors could contribute to change in temperature. They have convinced virtually everyone that climate change is a man made phenomenon by discussing and blaming certain aspects of today's society. For example, when you tell people that if all of the energy mankind uses was converted to heat then it's about 0.02% of the energy we receive from the sun, then it puts our miniscule effect into perspective. Sadly most people don't see beyond what they've been told so it's very easy to manipulate the majority into having a strong opinion without a strong grounding in the basis for that opinion. Another example, when you ask people what greenhouse gas gas the greatest effect reflects, the the answer is often CO2 or Methane, when the reality is water vapour which accounts for about 95%... but try telling people to reduce their water vapour production... The reality is that it's about control, power and money...
 

melted welly

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
DD9.
Last week I was driving along (2 litre turbo diesel high hp pee poor fuel economy but fast :love: ) when I heard one of our local BBC presenters banging on about people dying in the winter due to cold houses. he's obviously one of those wet behind the ears 20 something presenters who thinks he knows everything but actuall knows f all. He even suggested that houses were warmer years ago due to heat from the chimney stack warming the upstairs and that people had fires in their bedrooms. Fortuanetely his somewhat older producer informed him that ice on the inside of bedroom windows used to be the norm. I'm fortunate to only ever remember a properly heated house, my sisters however spent their first decade or so with cold bedrooms. One said the other day she remembered day 1 of the central heating and dad pointing at the boiler and saying that stays on I've had enough of a freezing house and I'm never living in one again.
Mum and Dad both told me that upstairs fires were only ever lit if someone was ill and confined to bed, it was just too much work
I was watching a debate on gbnews the other week and one of the liberal commentators actually claimed new houses are all being built with “no insulation whatsoever” and didn’t waver from her stance even after a builder got in touch to tell she was talking shite.
 

Ffermer Bach

Member
Livestock Farmer
I was watching a debate on gbnews the other week and one of the liberal commentators actually claimed new houses are all being built with “no insulation whatsoever” and didn’t waver from her stance even after a builder got in touch to tell she was talking shite.
I do think building regs could be stricter for energy efficiency, but to be fair she must have been talking absolute rubbish 🤦
 

thesilentone

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cumbria
Our future energy needs to come from somewhere, and we do have a reasonable renewables policy, however at great cost to the taxpayer. But, we should never write off coal and oil, both play a part in our future energy make up. What is fossil fuel ? and where does it come from ? and what is the difference between fossil fuel and biomass give or take a couple of thousand years ?

The only reasonable life cycle assessment I have ever read puts Biogas derived from waste, and petrol at the top of the fuel hierarchy compared to the other alternatives (coal, drilled gas and oil etc)

So, one of the future fuels is sxxt, in fact lots of it, turned into biogas in massive volumes at very large community plants and upgraded to natural gas and injected into the network.
 

yellowbelly

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
N.Lincs
So COP has really annoyed me.
You're not the only one :banghead:
While shepherding, on a glorious morning yesterday, I got out of the truck as yet another @rsehole was waffling on the wireless, from Glasgow, about how we farmers are wrecking the planet.

Looking up from the sheep I could see 4 airliners (not 4 vapour trails, but 4 planes were clearly visible) so I tried to film it. Unfortunately I'm not much of a photographer so the sheep look like they're grazing on a load of dry, brown tumbleweed and the planes are a bit hit and miss, but you'll get the picture ...............
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
They're playing a very complex game. Virtually everyone is arguing about the primary factors that cause climate change. That means that virtually everyone has bought into the climate change ideology. They've managed to get people to skip the question of what climate change actually is and what other factors could contribute to change in temperature. They have convinced virtually everyone that climate change is a man made phenomenon by discussing and blaming certain aspects of today's society. For example, when you tell people that if all of the energy mankind uses was converted to heat then it's about 0.02% of the energy we receive from the sun, then it puts our miniscule effect into perspective. Sadly most people don't see beyond what they've been told so it's very easy to manipulate the majority into having a strong opinion without a strong grounding in the basis for that opinion. Another example, when you ask people what greenhouse gas gas the greatest effect reflects, the the answer is often CO2 or Methane, when the reality is water vapour which accounts for about 95%... but try telling people to reduce their water vapour production... The reality is that it's about control, power and money...
Water vapour does have a greenhouse effect but if you had any knowledge about humidity you would recognise that water vapour does not control temperature water vapor is controlled by temperature. It requires another source of warming, ie additional greenhouse gases in order to raise temperature to enable a further increase in water vapour in the atmosphere. We are well aware man does not heat the earth with our consumption equivalent to 0.02% of the energy we receive from the sun (haven't checked you number here, I would have though it even lower). As you admit there, we receive a phenomenal amount of energy from the sun, because so much energy arrives additional greenhouse gasses only have to trap a tiny fraction more of this very large energy input in order to raise global temperature. How strongly are you grounded to your basis of opinion? I dont disagree there are many things science may not yet know or have wrong but these particular half baked arguments don't stand up to any scientific scrutiny yet get spread around social media like they are fact. Could it actually be, on this at least, it is you that has been manipulated? 🤷‍♂️
 

TheTallGuy

Member
Location
Cambridgeshire
For once, I don't think this is the internet. This is mainstream media. BBC, Sky, ITV combined with advertising from private companies who see an easy way to achieve a lower footprint (on paper) that costs them nothing and in fact probably increases profits selling ultra processed meals verses packed meat. They could acheive the same by educating the purchaser - but that would cost money. It would however work as we have seen with other food labelling.
And where do the mainstream media go for their "facts"? First thing that they do is grab hold of the mouse & hit the search engines, which inevitably brings up a half baked "expert" who earned their degree/masters/PhD by researching from.... the internet. Once the researcher has looked at a couple of sites that lean a particular direction, the search engines will tend to generate results that are biased that way because that's what the search engine decides that the person in front of the screen prefers... that person then generates a report that leans in that direction... someone else does a search & because there's more reports on that side of the fence the search engine serves up more of that than the opposing results.... we end up with a feedback loop that keeps on amplifying one thing whilst drowning out others!
 
Water vapour does have a greenhouse effect but if you had any knowledge about humidity you would recognise that water vapour does not control temperature water vapor is controlled by temperature. It requires another source of warming, ie additional greenhouse gases in order to raise temperature to enable a further increase in water vapour in the atmosphere. We are well aware man does not heat the earth with our consumption equivalent to 0.02% of the energy we receive from the sun (haven't checked you number here, I would have though it even lower). As you admit there, we receive a phenomenal amount of energy from the sun, because so much energy arrives additional greenhouse gasses only have to trap a tiny fraction more of this very large energy input in order to raise global temperature. How strongly are you grounded to your basis of opinion? I dont disagree there are many things science may not yet know or have wrong but these particular half baked arguments don't stand up to any scientific scrutiny yet get spread around social media like they are fact. Could it actually be, on this at least, it is you that has been manipulated? 🤷‍♂️


The problem Climate Change has is that if 100ppm of CO2 creates a 0.5 degree temperature rise.

Then how much does 100% CO2 create ? If it was a linear progression then this works out as 5,000 degrees centigrade - hotter than Lava at 1,200 degrees.
Methane and other gases are touted as 100x greater Climate Gases - this gives a figure of 500,000 degrees centigrade. Which I think is close to the temperature of parts of the sun.

The maths just doesn't add up.

Even if 100% CO2 gave 500 degrees centigrade - 0.05 degrees per 100ppm (Which is not a Climate Emergency). Then we would build CO2 Thermo Power Stations and solve all our energy needs - we don't do this.

I think it's more likely 100% CO2 gives a temperature rise of between 50 to 5 degrees centigrade - it could well be less than this when factoring in Weather/Seasons. Which means CO2 at 100ppm gives a temperature rise of 0.005 to 0.0005 degrees. Not unsurprising IMHO and irrelevant.

I'd also say that if 100% CO2 gave an increase of 50 degrees we'd be using that to capture energy in heat pumps - we don't. I seriously doubt CO2 does anything relevant at all.
 

Bongodog

Member
Surely it was the butler's duty to check that the housekeeper had made sure that one of the maids had already done this?
Grandad on my Mum's side was a butler, problem was that when he got home he thought his wife and daughters were the housekeeper and maids. Grandad thought he was privileged to be allowed to iron his Lordships newspaper and pour his drinks. Grandma however had enough and said she has spent half her life bowing and scraping and wasn't doing it any longer. He left service but spent the rest of his life still not realising that he had been more or less a slave.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.2%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 65 34.8%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,289
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top