Environmental common sense at last

Muck Spreader

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Limousin

If only we had government ministers & leadership with half as much common sense!
Wouldn't disagree with anything he says, but it's preaching to the converted. We all know climate change is real and as users of fossil fuels, we know farming needs to do it's bit in reducing them. But currently farming is being lined up by lobbying from corporate multinationals, animal hating activists and certain ignorant environmentalists as a very convenient bogyman.
 

BrianV

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Dartmoor
Wouldn't disagree with anything he says, but it's preaching to the converted. We all know climate change is real and as users of fossil fuels, we know farming needs to do it's bit in reducing them. But currently farming is being lined up by lobbying from corporate multinationals, animal hating activists and certain ignorant environmentalists as a very convenient bogyman.
A very convenient whipping boy to distract from the real culprits!!
 
Wouldn't disagree with anything he says, but it's preaching to the converted. We all know climate change is real and as users of fossil fuels, we know farming needs to do it's bit in reducing them. But currently farming is being lined up by lobbying from corporate multinationals, animal hating activists and certain ignorant environmentalists as a very convenient bogyman.


"We all know" .. why is we always get the Left winger thinking they speak for everyone.

No I don't agree CO2 is the cause of "Climate Bollox" and from the last time I looked a large number of people don't either. Even the Climate Lunatics know Water Vapour & Methane is worse.

I don't think fossil fuels are necessarily bad either, in fact as regards transportable energy they are brilliant.

However, far too much money has been given to the wrong people - that I do think needs changing.
 
Wouldn't disagree with anything he says, but it's preaching to the converted. We all know climate change is real and as users of fossil fuels, we know farming needs to do it's bit in reducing them. But currently farming is being lined up by lobbying from corporate multinationals, animal hating activists and certain ignorant environmentalists as a very convenient bogyman.


If CO2 was so important, the destruction of the Rain Forests would have been stopped decades ago. Brazilian Beef & Soya would have been banned.

Imports from China would also have been banned.

Instead we have a bunch of Green Nutters harming UK workers whilst jetting on holiday and buying Chinese built imports.
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
"We all know" .. why is we always get the Left winger thinking they speak for everyone.

No I don't agree CO2 is the cause of "Climate Bollox" and from the last time I looked a large number of people don't either. Even the Climate Lunatics know Water Vapour & Methane is worse.

I don't think fossil fuels are necessarily bad either, in fact as regards transportable energy they are brilliant.

However, far too much money has been given to the wrong people - that I do think needs changing.
You can't accuse me of being a leftie, but... CO2 certainly is a very significant contributor in both primary and secondary ways. Not saying a lot of others aren't too, but it is nonetheless. (y)
 
You can't accuse me of being a leftie, but... CO2 certainly is a very significant contributor in both primary and secondary ways. Not saying a lot of others aren't too, but it is nonetheless. (y)


Okay, prove it seeing as you believe it.

Quantify that in terms of the amount of the Suns energy that would otherwise have gone back into space if CO2 was 100ppm less than today.

Please state why a City - with vast areas of Concreate, Steel, Glass, Clay Tiles, Tarmac - for all purposes a desert - produces less warming than CO2.

And then explain why the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest hasn't been stopped and seeding of Plankton with Iron WAS stopped - which is the limiting factor in the absorbtion of CO2 by Plankton - which absorbs 40% of all CO2.
 

SteveHants

Member
Livestock Farmer
Okay, prove it seeing as you believe it.

Quantify that in terms of the amount of the Suns energy that would otherwise have gone back into space if CO2 was 100ppm less than today.

Please state why a City - with vast areas of Concreate, Steel, Glass, Clay Tiles, Tarmac - for all purposes a desert - produces less warming than CO2.

And then explain why the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest hasn't been stopped and seeding of Plankton with Iron WAS stopped - which is the limiting factor in the absorbtion of CO2 by Plankton - which absorbs 40% of all CO2.
You're asking why we didn't fertilise the sea to boost phytoplankton biomass?
 

Muck Spreader

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Limousin
Okay, prove it seeing as you believe it.

Quantify that in terms of the amount of the Suns energy that would otherwise have gone back into space if CO2 was 100ppm less than today.

Please state why a City - with vast areas of Concreate, Steel, Glass, Clay Tiles, Tarmac - for all purposes a desert - produces less warming than CO2.

And then explain why the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest hasn't been stopped and seeding of Plankton with Iron WAS stopped - which is the limiting factor in the absorbtion of CO2 by Plankton - which absorbs 40% of all CO2.
So, the world's scientists are all wrong about climate change and you are correct. I need say no more. 😁
 

Danllan

Member
Location
Sir Gar / Carms
Okay, prove it seeing as you believe it.

Quantify that in terms of the amount of the Suns energy that would otherwise have gone back into space if CO2 was 100ppm less than today.

Please state why a City - with vast areas of Concreate, Steel, Glass, Clay Tiles, Tarmac - for all purposes a desert - produces less warming than CO2.

And then explain why the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest hasn't been stopped and seeding of Plankton with Iron WAS stopped - which is the limiting factor in the absorbtion of CO2 by Plankton - which absorbs 40% of all CO2.
Are you taking the p!ss? Read up on infra red attenuation, absorption and re-emission and then come back to the grown-up discussion.

In this, as with most things in life, it is best not to settle one's conclusion before establishing and understanding the facts of the matter. Anyone with an objective and empirical bent can just look at the ice core records (going back over 800ka now) and note the exact correlation between atmospheric CO2 and change; equally, anyone with a preset agenda can ignore demonstrable scientific fact entirely...

Iron was seeded by the USA on Plankton to test increased Carbon capture by Plankton, the question is why it was stopped - if Carbon capture is so important.
Hmm, plankton, just a wee bit important in the scheme of things; have a think about that... (y)

So, the world's scientists are all wrong about climate change and you are correct. I need say no more. 😁
He may be disputing that too, but my understanding of his 'argument' in this thread is that CO2 is being wholly overplayed as a factor in global warming / climate change.

Well, I think it there is a fair amount of evidence available now to bear out anyone claiming that its influence was initially overstated. It was the headline-grabber, and there can be no doubt that if anyone on the street is asked about climate change factors, CO2 will probably be the first thing they mention. But now others, notably clathrates, are beginning to be publicly recognised, at last.
 

Muck Spreader

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Limousin
Iron was seeded by the USA on Plankton to test increased Carbon capture by Plankton, the question is why it was stopped - if Carbon capture is so important.
Because it didn't really work and it was an experiment done in BC Canada. Like most things that farmers understand when growing crops or animals, more of something does not necessarily mean better if the requirement has already been met. Plus the subsequent imbalances can often make it far worse.
 
Are you taking the p!ss? Read up on infra red attenuation, absorption and re-emission and then come back to the grown-up discussion.

In this, as with most things in life, it is best not to settle one's conclusion before establishing and understanding the facts of the matter. Anyone with an objective and empirical bent can just look at the ice core records (going back over 800ka now) and note the exact correlation between atmospheric CO2 and change; equally, anyone with a preset agenda can ignore demonstrable scientific fact entirely...


Hmm, plankton, just a wee bit important in the scheme of things; have a think about that... (y)


He may be disputing that too, but my understanding of his 'argument' in this thread is that CO2 is being wholly overplayed as a factor in global warming / climate change.

Well, I think it there is a fair amount of evidence available now to bear out anyone claiming that its influence was initially overstated. It was the headline-grabber, and there can be no doubt that if anyone on the street is asked about climate change factors, CO2 will probably be the first thing they mention. But now others, notably clathrates, are beginning to be publicly recognised, at last.


Can you please give some documented science which demonstrates how much 100ppm of CO2 heats up temperatures ?


Why would anyone look at CO2 in Ice Cores ?
 
Because it didn't really work and it was an experiment done in BC Canada. Like most things that farmers understand when growing crops or animals, more of something does not necessarily mean better if the requirement has already been met. Plus the subsequent imbalances can often make it far worse.


It was several experiments from several different countries.

It did work but Green groups shot it down with regulation. They concluded that "Natural Iron" was better than Iron Sulphate and the "Cost" of seeding exceeded the Carbon Trading market - ie it was all about making money.
 
Last edited:
So, the world's scientists are all wrong about climate change and you are correct. I need say no more. 😁


Nothing stopping anyone who has the information. I'd really like to see any science which demonstrates how much temperature rises with 100ppm of CO2.

Science not opinion or assumption or theory or association.
 

linga

Member
Location
Ceredigion
Nothing stopping anyone who has the information. I'd really like to see any science which demonstrates how much temperature rises with 100ppm of CO2.

Science not opinion or assumption or theory or association.
You are simply asking how long is a length of string.
There are other factors to consider which of course you know
 

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