Lots of hot air

[selectortone]

Personally I see nothing wrong with grass fed livestock.

Swathes of Amazon rainforest are being cleared for beef production. The Amazon rainforest is often referred to as 'the lungs of the planet'. It is part of the weather system that generates the Gulf Stream which is a major factor in the annual weather patterns we see in the UK.

I think it's right we should be concerned about the effect beef production in that area might have. Plenty of tasty alternatives to beef burgers nowadays (e.g. 'Beyond Meat' burgers are delicious)

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...deforestation-driven-global-greed-meat-brazil

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Increasingly I come to the conclusion there is no answer to this debate without a radical rethink from both sides of the argument.

Those subscribing to climate change prognstications (as do I generally) need to get a consensus on controlling population growth. Every additional person on the planet creates more stress on the environment. The proposition that populations are now forecast to fall (as they already are in a few countries) is a triumph of self delusion and complacency over reality.

We regard animal populations as threatened when populations fall to a few thousand. 8bn growing to (say) 11bn will further degrade the environment, constrain personal freedoms, with war and disease as likely outcomes.

The alternative proposition - it's untrue, there is nothing can be done, the climate has always varied, leads ultimately to similar outcomes - possibly different timescales and order.

The third option is the complacent applying equally to boths sides. Control greenhouse gases, get to zero carbon, all will be sweetness and light. The alternative - do little or nothing, it's happened before and the human race survived, we can simply adapt and mitigate.

Unfortunately Option 3 closely followed by Option 2 are the easiest to implement right now - why do today what can easily be put off until tomorrow.

 

[NormanB]

I think I broke the formula.
I'm a cyclist who has went from a 'manual' bicycle to an electric bicycle, so in effect where I wasn't using any electricity, I am now.
It's also a larger carbon footprint when constructing an electric over a manual.

I'm my defence, I'm expelling far less co2

And methane.

 

[Jacob]

So we get there in the end - the sceptics seek the facts to match their opinions, the seekers after truth and light adjust their opinions to match the facts! Obvious really. Don't know why it took so long.

 

[whereistheceilidh]

See, you are doing it right now. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

well just for the count Rorschach, I do. I find the 'facts ' that you put forward poorly researched and generally unsupported by science.

 

[Jacob]

Increasingly I come to the conclusion there is no answer to this debate without a radical rethink from both sides of the argument.

Those subscribing to climate change prognstications (as do I generally) need to get a consensus on controlling population growth. Every additional person on the planet creates more stress on the environment. The proposition that populations are now forecast to fall (as they already are in a few countries) is a triumph of self delusion and complacency over reality.

We regard animal populations as threatened when populations fall to a few thousand. 8bn growing to (say) 11bn will further degrade the environment, constrain personal freedoms, with war and disease as likely outcomes.

The alternative proposition - it's untrue, there is nothing can be done, the climate has always varied, leads ultimately to similar outcomes - possibly different timescales and order.

The third option is the complacent applying equally to boths sides. Control greenhouse gases, get to zero carbon, all will be sweetness and light. The alternative - do little or nothing, it's happened before and the human race survived, we can simply adapt and mitigate.

Unfortunately Option 3 closely followed by Option 2 are the easiest to implement right now - why do today what can easily be put off until tomorrow.

Population not the problem Most of the world live a low carbon life - it's the excess consumption of relatively few which is the bigger issue.
In any case increased population is the species survival mechanism kicking in - it increases likelihood of survivors when/if the S hits the fan. Good for the species, bad for most of us individually.
Evolution looks after the genotype, we are just throw away items - in fact better for the species if we just drop dead as soon as our offspring becomes self sufficient.

 

[Rorschach]

well just for the count Rorschach, I do. I find the 'facts ' that you put forward poorly researched and generally unsupported by science.

Like I said, we all do it. There is evidence for everything I post because it is mostly things stated by others. Again it depends on which "science" you follow, there isn't a consensus, at least not a real on, there is usually a fabricated one.

 

[Rorschach]

So we get there in the end - the sceptics seek the facts to match their opinions, the seekers after truth and light adjust their opinions to match the facts! Obvious really. Don't know why it took so long.

Ummmm, I have never yet seen you adjust your opinion when given facts, you just dismiss the facts.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Polar bears: endangered, close to extinct; losing their habitat; prime evidence that the world is rapidly coming to an end.

On the other hand, polar bear numbers are increasing, and are actually higher than they have been since the 1960s. Sea ice melting later or earlier makes no difference to their ability to feed; the number of starving polar bears has not increased (starvation is the most likely cause of death for a top predator, although mostly caused by injury or illness, not lack of food), and there is no indication of stress to the populations - quite the reverse.

Which narrative is correct? There are two groups of polar bear experts, and both groups appear to study polar bears, count polar bears and publish papers on polar bears. One group says they will be extinct in (insert panicky number of years here), and the other group want to remove polar bears from the endangered animals list.

Can anyone tell me which scientist is right? I don't have time to go north and count my own polar bears, so I would be grateful if you could let me know why more polar bears means less polar bears imminently, or the reverse.

 

[whereistheceilidh]

Like I said, we all do it. There is evidence for everything I post because it is mostly things stated by others. Again it depends on which "science" you follow, there isn't a consensus, at least not a real on, there is usually a fabricated one.

There are usually fairly precise requirements for scientific reporting of research. This tends to point to a general direction for what is 'fact'. Tracking back through evidence gives a fair indication as to what research has been competently aquired ...and that which is not. Seems to operate in woodworking themes as well as climate change. .....but there are no so blind who will not see.....

 

[Jacob]

Polar bears: endangered, close to extinct; losing their habitat; prime evidence that the world is rapidly coming to an end.

On the other hand, polar bear numbers are increasing, and are actually higher than they have been since the 1960s. Sea ice melting later or earlier makes no difference to their ability to feed; the number of starving polar bears has not increased (starvation is the most likely cause of death for a top predator, although mostly caused by injury or illness, not lack of food), and there is no indication of stress to the populations - quite the reverse.

Which narrative is correct? There are two groups of polar bear experts, and both groups appear to study polar bears, count polar bears and publish papers on polar bears. One group says they will be extinct in (insert panicky number of years here), and the other group want to remove polar bears from the endangered animals list.

Can anyone tell me which scientist is right? I don't have time to go north and count my own polar bears, so I would be grateful if you could let me know why more polar bears means less polar bears imminently, or the reverse.

Can you give us the relevant links?
Often there is a clue in the sceptical anti-science material in that they kick off on scepticism as top of their agenda, saying it's all a load of rubbish before they even get to the arguments/science. It's a giveaway sign, along with attempts at sarcasm, as per your own post; indications of not being on solid ground.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

polarbearscience also known as Susan J Crockford who is a 30 expert in the area of ...polar bears. She also doesn't have much truck with things like "tipping points" because, in relation to polar bears, they would appear to be silly.

I will leave you to come up with all the anti - Susan Crockford "science", because a large number of people spend quite a lot of their time trying to refute her studies. It's fun - two groups of scientists having at it in the press, putting the boot in, because the science is settled and everyone agrees. Just remember that Ms Crockford produces published, peer reviewed papers. She also gets her tenure revoked, removed from university etc, because she doesn't toe the party line. It's a very good example of the pressure scientists are under to produce pro warming science - if you go against the narrative, you get cancelled.

Obviously, all anti - warming science is a) wrong, and b)compromised, oil - industry funded propaganda; all pro - warming science is a) correct, b) sensible and c) obvious to any right - thinking individual.

 

[D_W]

Swathes of Amazon rainforest are being cleared for beef production. The Amazon rainforest is often referred to as 'the lungs of the planet'. It is part of the weather system that generates the Gulf Stream which is a major factor in the annual weather patterns we see in the UK.

I think it's right we should be concerned about the effect beef production in that area might have. Plenty of tasty alternatives to beef burgers nowadays (e.g. 'Beyond Meat' burgers are delicious)

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...deforestation-driven-global-greed-meat-brazil

As soon as the beyond beef stuff is cheaper than beef, it will take off. At this point, it's $8 a pound here, double the price of ground beef and almost double the price of the lower-cost organic beef (the latter varies wildly depending on what the seller thinks they can get - from $5 to as much as beyond meat).

Nobody on here posting from the US could say much to south america about land use for agriculture ,though. It's pretty much subsidized everywhere here in the states to the point that we have to burn half of the corn crop in cars, and we have to mandate the use of it to get people to do that in the first place. that probably won't last forever, though, as it relies on irrigated ground, and the irrigation is coming from aquifers that won't replenish fast enough to keep it up.

 

[Jacob]

polarbearscience also known as Susan J Crockford who is a 30 expert in the area of ...polar bears. She also doesn't have much truck with things like "tipping points" because, in relation to polar bears, they would appear to be silly.

She shows her hand straightaway - the mark of the committed sceptic "denialist" in her rant; "Outlandish ‘tipping point’ rhetoric is about to be regurgitated once again during the promotion of the latest IPCC report, due today. Tipping points are those theoretical climate thresholds that, when breeched, cause widespread catastrophe; they are mathematical model outputs that depend on many assumptions that may not be plausible or even possible."

I will leave you to come up with all the anti - Susan Crockford "science",

I think you should do that yourself - you are the one needing to get back to reality

............

Obviously, all anti - warming science is a) wrong, and b)compromised, oil - industry funded propaganda; all pro - warming science is a) correct, b) sensible and c) obvious to any right - thinking individual.

Er - there isn't really any anti warming "science" as such, other than various anomalies, which are not ignored by the science anyway. All the research is for the climate change hypothesis and now we are getting the evidence - much as forecast but sooner than expected.

PS had a quick google Polar bear status and population a very variable picture it seems - that's what you get with real science. She may even be right about polar bear numbers though she only makes a wild guess, but she is certainly not right about climate change.
PPS what mystifies me is that denialists such as yourself are so anxious to avoid knowing what is going on in the world. It can't only be oil and coal industry propaganda, though that does go far and deep!
Another little reminder here 'Get out now': Monstrous Dixie Fire moves closer to small California town; Caldor Fire threatens more communities it doesn't make it into the news so much recently, as it has become the new normal.

 

[selectortone]

As soon as the beyond beef stuff is cheaper than beef, it will take off.

I agree, although sales here are pretty decent already. And one of our smaller supermarket chains, the Co-op, has made the commitment to pricing meat alternative items the same as the equivalent meat product.

I've been a carnivore for 70-odd years. There's no one likes a full English breakfast or a nice juicy steak more than me. But I'm also an animal lover (however hypocritical vegans might find that). I tried stuff like Quorn when it first came out and was not impressed. The newer stuff like Beyond Meat is much better and if it reduces intensive animal farming and maybe saves some trees along the way, that's fine by me. We can all make a contribution, no matter how small.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

She shows her hand straightaway

Someone says something you don't agree with, therefore they must be wrong. Not even worth considering, it's so wrong. Saves a great deal of heartache and thinking, I suppose.

I think I shall play the same card: you're wrong.
Problem solved - I'm off to bed. G'night.

 

[John Brown]

Polar bears: endangered, close to extinct; losing their habitat; prime evidence that the world is rapidly coming to an end.

On the other hand, polar bear numbers are increasing, and are actually higher than they have been since the 1960s. Sea ice melting later or earlier makes no difference to their ability to feed; the number of starving polar bears has not increased (starvation is the most likely cause of death for a top predator, although mostly caused by injury or illness, not lack of food), and there is no indication of stress to the populations - quite the reverse.

Which narrative is correct? There are two groups of polar bear experts, and both groups appear to study polar bears, count polar bears and publish papers on polar bears. One group says they will be extinct in (insert panicky number of years here), and the other group want to remove polar bears from the endangered animals list.

Can anyone tell me which scientist is right? I don't have time to go north and count my own polar bears, so I would be grateful if you could let me know why more polar bears means less polar bears imminently, or the reverse.

Who said anything about polar bears? Unless I've missed something (which is very likely), you've brought polar bears into the "discussion", just in order to demolish your own argument.
For what it's worth, I haven't seen any polar bears round here in years.

 

[chaoticbob]

Er - there isn't really any anti warming "science" as such, other than various anomalies, which are not ignored by the science anyway.

I think that's a good point. I spent my working life as an academic scientist and in my experience scientists are pretty voracious when an anomaly appears - wow, I want a chunk of that. I might be made a Professor...

The world of academic science really isn't some sort of stitch-up trying to preserve accepted theories. In my experience at least. It's a bear pit of people looking for original ground breaking ideas.

If climate change denying scientists could come up with coherent and persuasive arguments they would surely be feted by the scientific community, but their arguments are thin and unsupported by verified observations. I was a peer reviewer for the Institute of Physics, and although I know nowt about polar bears I would have certainly have sent Susan Crockford's article back had she submitted it for publication. Not because I didn't agree, but because it lacks scientific rigour. I would also have corrected her spelling of 'breach'.

There is an interesting (to me) article in Physics in Perspective about how scientists accept theories. It's about Einstein's theory of relativity, but I think that there is content relevant to this debate. The author talks about the pressures experienced by scientists from various angles. It's about 30 pages, so a long read - I doubt that many people would have the stomach for that and even fewer with the iron-clad guts needed for a detailed critical reading of IPCC6.

So it becomes a matter of faith. Who do you trust and why?
Bob

 

[planesleuth]

Climate change sceptics may be in the pay of oil companies etc. but climate change scientists, including Greenpeace, are directed by those that provide their funding. None can truly be universally believed. Jacob thinks population is not the problem (lmao), he and many others pick their 'facts' from wikipedia. None is correct. All is correct. In the South West, we call the holiday swarmers little ants. So does the Earth. Soon we will all be swotted and crushed and in the x billion years until the suns extinction, maybe another 'intelligent' species will arise to be a darn sight more intelligent than us!

 

[Jacob]

Climate change sceptics may be in the pay of oil companies etc. but climate change scientists, including Greenpeace, are directed by those that provide their funding. None can truly be universally believed. Jacob thinks population is not the problem (lmao), he and many others pick their 'facts' from wikipedia. None is correct. All is correct. In the South West, we call the holiday swarmers little ants. So does the Earth. Soon we will all be swotted and crushed and in the x billion years until the suns extinction, maybe another 'intelligent' species will arise to be a darn sight more intelligent than us!

Saying population is the problem is a bit like looking down on the Titanic as it sinks and saying "I see what the problem here is - too many people in the water". True in a way, but not helpful.