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

[Scribus]

Is the majority of osr and cereals crops having a neonic seed dressing on for however many years considered ‘cautious’?

Y'see here we are again, another attempt to distract from the main thrust of an argument, not by coutering it directly but by diverting it into the boggy ground of the nitty gritty. Do you lads have some of manual on all this?

 

[Dan Powell]

Y'see here we are again, another attempt to distract from the main thrust of an argument, not by coutering it directly but by diverting it into the boggy ground of the nitty gritty. Do you lads have some of manual on all this?

Why don't you respond to my post instead?

 

[brigadoon]

I am not going to wrangle with climate change deniers, with their cherry picking, false assertions, manipulation of scientific findings and sometimes blatant lies. End of. If you can't deal with that, tough. That clear enough for you?

If you are going to come on here making assertions you can expect someone to check them and point out factual inaccuracies - If you can't deal with that, tough. That clear enough for you?

 

[ajd132]

Y'see here we are again, another attempt to distract from the main thrust of an argument, not by coutering it directly but by diverting it into the boggy ground of the nitty gritty. Do you lads have some of manual on all this?

Sorry, just using you’re own techniques against you.

 

[Robin1966]

If you are going to come on here making assertions you can expect someone to check them and point out factual inaccuracies - If you can't deal with that, tough. That clear enough for you?

It might help if they actually bother to read the material I supply as evidence. That clear enough for you?

 

[brigadoon]

It might help if they actually bother to read the material I supply as evidence. That clear enough for you?

I rather suspect he did read it - or recognised the name and checked it out before pointing out your inaccuracy - which you acknowledged - and then spat the dummy over the source

If you come on to a forum you can expect to be challenged - clear enough for you?

 

[Scribus]

I'm not claiming I'm as clever as a climate change skeptic that has done his own independent research that questions anthropogenic climate change. I'm just claiming I'm as clever as you.

I'll wager that between the two of us, we have precisely zero climate science credentials and are just comparing stuff we found on the internet. We may as well be a Christian and a Muslim arguing over the nature of god by comparing the Bible to the Qur'an.

Now I'm inclined to believe the consensus of climate scientists and I don't believe there is a conspiracy. There is corruption in science, no doubt about it, but think about it for a second... if you're going to follow the money, who do you think has the best chance of succeeding? A bunch of well meaning climate scientists (who let's face it are probably not earning that much) or the entire apparatus and inertia of the global economy, fossil fuel companies, car manufacturers, power companies, governments wanting to deliver prosperity to the voting public and so on? Do you really think that if this wasn't real, then we wouldn't know about it? It would be SO MUCH easier to carry on as we are.

You claim that climate science is little more than guesswork. That may be true, but it's educated guesswork and it's being refined all the time. You do realise that all science is just a best guess? Even Newton's laws were thought to be 100% accurate until Einstein showed them to be inaccurate. You watch the weather forecast and up to a point you trust it. This is the same science you are trusting. Yes it isn't perfect but it gets better all the time.

You say that there is no experiment that would remove all doubt and you are wrong. We are living the experiment right now.

The whole of science is a matter of probability and we can say some things are more probable than others based on experimentation and experience. We can say that a plane will most probably fly because if they follow various rules that effect is produced, there are no scientists or interested onlookers stating an alternative theory. There is no such degree of probability in climatology or weather forecasting and with the former there are plenty of people who are indeed pointing to the shortcomings in the great climate change theory.

Much stock has been made in the past of of a letter signed by 11,000 scientists (including a gentleman by the name of M. Mouse) demanding more urgent action from governments, but even a brief examination of the list demonstrates that climatology is not their major area of interest, there are doctors, horticultural research assistants and even a 'citizen scientist', although quite what that entails is not clear, but what is more interesting to those who retain a smidgen of critical thinking is how many scientists didn't sign the letter.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, commerce and governments welcome the whole climate change push as an opportunity to make money and gain extra powers, whether it's hard or easy doesn't come into it, making money is rarely easy so it's a ridiculous argument.

 

[Scribus]

Sorry, just using you’re own techniques against you.

No, I'm just remarking on the usual empty headed groupthink encountered whenever the great climate change theory is challenged.

 

[ajd132]

No, I'm just remarking on the usual empty headed groupthink encountered whenever the great climate change theory is challenged.

Did i actually say anything about climate change? I pointed out the cherry picking of information that farmers are using for their own agenda.
the group think thing is quite literally what you are doing, just on a different side of the argument.

 

[Robin1966]

I rather suspect he did read it - or recognised the name and checked it out before pointing out your inaccuracy - which you acknowledged - and then spat the dummy over the source

If you come on to a forum you can expect to be challenged - clear enough for you?

And what inaccuracy was that exactly?

Let me put this very simply and clearly. If you want to deny man-made climate change, back up your arguments with evidence. Meanwhile I will do the same.

This is Skeptical Science. It has loads of evidence regarding man-made climate change. If I link to it in a conversation with a climate change denier, I expect them to read it: https://skepticalscience.com/

The same goes for Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/ and by the way, if you scroll down on this particular site, on the right hand side, there are loads of links to other climate science websites, with masses of evidence.

The same goes for NOAA: https://www.noaa.gov/education/reso...te-education-resources/climate-change-impacts

The same goes for NASA climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/

The same goes for the Royal Society: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/royal-society-climate-change-briefings/

The same goes for the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia: https://www.tyndall.ac.uk/

The same goes for Nature Climate Change: https://www.nature.com/nclimate/

The same goes for Climate Central: https://www.climatecentral.org/

There is absolutely ZERO excuse for being wilfully ignorant when there is so much evidence regarding man-made climate change.

So if you carry on defending climate change deniers Brigadoon, I will hit the Ignore button on you too. I don't mind in the slightest.

 

[Dan Powell]

The whole of science is a matter of probability and we can say some things are more probable than others based on experimentation and experience. We can say that a plane will most probably fly because if they follow various rules that effect is produced, there are no scientists or interested onlookers stating an alternative theory. There is no such degree of probability in climatology or weather forecasting and with the former there are plenty of people who are indeed pointing to the shortcomings in the great climate change theory.

Much stock has been made in the past of of a letter signed by 11,000 scientists (including a gentleman by the name of M. Mouse) demanding more urgent action from governments, but even a brief examination of the list demonstrates that climatology is not their major area of interest, there are doctors, horticultural research assistants and even a 'citizen scientist', although quite what that entails is not clear, but what is more interesting to those who retain a smidgen of critical thinking is how many scientists didn't sign the letter.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, commerce and governments welcome the whole climate change push as an opportunity to make money and gain extra powers, whether it's hard or easy doesn't come into it, making money is rarely easy so it's a ridiculous argument.

You cannot see the wood for the trees. Believe what you like. It is going to happen to you anyway, so you might as well accept it.

I still maintain that if the balance of scientific thought were in favour of the continued use of fossil fuels then that opinion would prevail. It would be so much easier for everyone to carry on as we are.

 

[Dan Powell]

And what inaccuracy was that exactly?

Let me put this very simply and clearly. If you want to deny man-made climate change, back up your arguments with evidence. Meanwhile I will do the same.

This is Skeptical Science. It has loads of evidence regarding man-made climate change. If I link to it in a conversation with a climate change denier, I expect them to read it: https://skepticalscience.com/

The same goes for Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/ and by the way, if you scroll down on this particular site, on the right hand side, there are loads of links to other climate science websites, with masses of evidence.

The same goes for NOAA: https://www.noaa.gov/education/reso...te-education-resources/climate-change-impacts

The same goes for NASA climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/

The same goes for the Royal Society: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/royal-society-climate-change-briefings/

The same goes for the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia: https://www.tyndall.ac.uk/

The same goes for Nature Climate Change: https://www.nature.com/nclimate/

The same goes for Climate Central: https://www.climatecentral.org/

There is absolutely ZERO excuse for being wilfully ignorant when there is so much evidence regarding man-made climate change.

So if you carry on defending climate change deniers Brigadoon, I will hit the Ignore button on you too. I don't mind in the slightest.

I suspect they are paid trolls. There's more and more about. Sad really.

 

[ajd132]

I suspect they are paid trolls. There's more and more about. Sad really.

Scribus only comments on stuff that involves climate change and electric vehicles, and seems to have an awful lot of spare time to do it.

 

[Robin1966]

Scribus only comments on stuff that involves climate change and electric vehicles, and seems to have an awful lot of spare time to do it.

Well, well, if that isn't something to be suspicious about, I don't know what is.....

 

[Muck Spreader]

I find it sad that so much energy is put into denying climate change and doubtless heavily funded under the counter by the global corporations who are causing it. And the fact that agriculture is now firmly in their cross-hairs as a suitable villain to attack at every opportunity, despite only producing around 11% of GHG's. Which while it's a problem, is not bad for the world's biggest industry.

 

[Scribus]

You cannot see the wood for the trees. Believe what you like. It is going to happen to you anyway, so you might as well accept it.

I still maintain that if the balance of scientific thought were in favour of the continued use of fossil fuels then that opinion would prevail. It would be so much easier for everyone to carry on as we are.

There you go again, trying to associate me with the continued use of fossil fuels when I have distinctly and repeatedly stressed that we should be recycling the carbon already released, but that's just too green for the pseudo greens.

 

[Scribus]

I find it sad that so much energy is put into denying climate change and doubtless heavily funded under the counter by the global corporations who are causing it. And the fact that agriculture is now firmly in their cross-hairs as a suitable villain to attack at every opportunity, despite only producing around 11% of GHG's. Which while it's a problem, is not bad for the world's biggest industry.

How does one tap into this funding from global corporations?

As I keep pointing out, many global corporations are looking to make oodles more out of the climate change push, the car companies being major winners if they get their way and are able to sell disposable cars that require more frequent replacement.

 

[TelesnaAg]

Im a third of the way through the report.

Has anyone else read it from an analytical point of view as it seems to be full of holes?

Ant...

 

[Muck Spreader]

How does one tap into this funding from global corporations?

As I keep pointing out, many global corporations are looking to make oodles more out of the climate change push, the car companies being major winners if they get their way and are able to sell disposable cars that require more frequent replacement.

The problem is they need to do these things to their time scales, not the climate scientist ones. You don't think the oil industry and all the businesses that use fossil fuels is just going to rollover and say that's it were are out. It suits a great many people to kick the can down the road whilst blaming cows and planting a few trees to humour joe public.

 

[Goweresque]

I'll give you an example. There's a brook that runs through my farm. My dad caught stickleback in it. I spent my childhood making dams in it, but there were no fish. I won't now let my children play in it, because it's an open sewer polluted beyond all recognition by intensive animal agriculture.

Thats has zero to do with climate change. No one argues that humans are not capable of polluting the environment. The argument is whether by burning fossil fuels they are capable of a) changing the climate and b) if so, whether those changes are catastrophic.

That's why I put "new" in inverted commas. It's obviously fossilized carbon fixed by ancient photosynthesis. Yes the earth will be just fine with higher CO2 levels. Will humanity be fine? Will higher seas levels not wipe out cities and farmland? Will life adapt fast enough? We are in the midst of an extinction event... new life will evolve, but there may be enormous suffering along the way. Do you have children? Don't you worry what will be left of the beauty of this planet in another 50 years? Don't you worry that there will be massive movements of people from countries that can no longer sustain themselves?

The changes that are happening (and have been happening for the entire existence of the planet, climate always changes) happen so slowly that man will always adapt. Nothing happens in climate terms in less than centuries not decades. There is no 'climate catastrophe' whereby everyone dies inside a decade or two (apart from meteorite hits and super volcano eruptions, and there's not much one can do about either of those) Everyone alive today will be dead and buried before the climate has changed even enough for anyone to notice. And those who come after us will adapt to the changes, just as we have adapted to the changes since the Little Ice Age (a period of about 3-400 hundred years from about the 16th century to the end of the 19th century.

The thing is, warm is better for humans. The very reason we exist and have colonised the planet is because we are living in an inter-glacial period. The entire of known human civilisation is contained within the current inter-glacial period, the Holocene. The actual 'normal' state of the planet in its current geological era is in an Ice Age - the Vostok ice cores show a consistent pattern. The Ice Ages generally last up to 100k years, with the interglacial periods in between being about 10-15k years. If anything we should be grateful the earths temperature is currently rising - at some point in the next 5k years the earth will enter a new Ice Age. Now that will be catastrophe for humankind.