Biospace wrote: ↑10 Dec 2024, 7:22pm
A stretch that you read into his words that he was somehow denying Mankind is affecting our climate? Or a stretch that I gleaned from his words that BigAg and contemporary farming with its short termism is not sustainable?
Whichever, I suggest you take your issues up with him, if Google can find the posting.
You're quoting someone without attribution who is writing completely false statements about climate change.
When challenged on this you obfuscate and deflect.
Not impressive.
This is a forum for public discussion, not an academic place. Being able to distinguish genuine mistakes rather than tending to assume some conspiracy or other to mislead is a useful skill. Clearly we disagree over the intention in this case, but is there really a need to quibble on over two pages?
Here is what that person wrote but with the passage which you assumed was information deliberately intended to deceive, removed.
As a life long farmer, I'm sad how agriculture in my life time have degraded soils to such levels they don't support biodiversity, made food empty of mineral nutrition and have contributed to significantly increased flooding.
The predictions of insect collapse has happened and bird number decline will happen next. It's obvious to me it's been a mistake to separate livestock from arable. Farm area payments encouraged farmers to remove so many hedgerows and millions of mature trees. Now I am seeing fruit farmers grubbing out 1000s acres of fruit trees because of cheap imports.
Carbon credit schemes are the next mistake of our time. There are many excellent examples which show we could, and ought to be growing biodiversity, food, flowers, trees in the same space with livestock. livestock as part of arable and pasture rotations significantly improve soil health, yield, biomass, better mineralisation of food, farmland birds and invertebrates numbers recover and return.
Cutting out soil pollution and repairing broken soils with recognised regenerative practices will do more good than locking up land to monoculture trees. We will regret government payment schemes taking prime land out of food production for energy companies to continue profiteering their global destruction.
I had a look at some of the Rothamstead work relating to farming emissions. Nitrous oxide emissions have risen 30% over the last 30 years despite the huge reductions from vehicle and other exhausts in that time, mostly because of chemicals used for farming.
Last edited by Biospace on 11 Dec 2024, 1:39pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm surprised this tax lophole hasn't been closed before. Agricultural land has been a tax evasion scheme for decades. Something that has not been available to home owner's who have to sell the family home to pay inheritance tax when it's being passed on to inheritors.
Peugeot 531 pro, Dawes Discovery Tandem, Dawes Kingpin X2, Raleigh 20 stowaway X2, 1965 Moulton deluxe, Falcon K2 MTB dropped bar tourer, Rudge Bi frame folder, Longstaff trike conversion on a Giant XTC 840, Giant Bowery, Apollo transition.
Biospace wrote: ↑10 Dec 2024, 7:22pm
A stretch that you read into his words that he was somehow denying Mankind is affecting our climate? Or a stretch that I gleaned from his words that BigAg and contemporary farming with its short termism is not sustainable?
Whichever, I suggest you take your issues up with him, if Google can find the posting.
You're quoting someone without attribution who is writing completely false statements about climate change.
When challenged on this you obfuscate and deflect.
Not impressive.
This is a forum for public discussion, not an academic place. Being able to distinguish genuine mistakes rather than tending to assume some conspiracy or other to mislead is a useful skill. Clearly we disagree over the intention in this case, but is there really a need to quibble on over two pages?
Here is what that person wrote but with the passage which you assumed was information deliberately intended to deceive, removed.
As a life long farmer, I'm sad how agriculture in my life time have degraded soils to such levels they don't support biodiversity, made food empty of mineral nutrition and have contributed to significantly increased flooding.
The predictions of insect collapse has happened and bird number decline will happen next. It's obvious to me it's been a mistake to separate livestock from arable. Farm area payments encouraged farmers to remove so many hedgerows and millions of mature trees. Now I am seeing fruit farmers grubbing out 1000s acres of fruit trees because of cheap imports.
Carbon credit schemes are the next mistake of our time. There are many excellent examples which show we could, and ought to be growing biodiversity, food, flowers, trees in the same space with livestock. livestock as part of arable and pasture rotations significantly improve soil health, yield, biomass, better mineralisation of food, farmland birds and invertebrates numbers recover and return.
Cutting out soil pollution and repairing broken soils with recognised regenerative practices will do more good than locking up land to monoculture trees. We will regret government payment schemes taking prime land out of food production for energy companies to continue profiteering their global destruction.
I had a look at some of the Rothamstead work relating to farming emissions. Nitrous oxide emissions have risen 30% over the last 30 years despite the huge reductions from vehicle and other exhausts in that time, mostly because of chemicals used for farming.
It is not of "academic" interest that people tell the truth.
You provided a quote which made multiple untrue claims about climate change.
You cannot, or will not say where the quote came from.
It's not possible to have a meaningful "public discussion" you claim to crave when one person in that discussion is making unsourced and untrue assertions.
roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑11 Dec 2024, 1:45pm
It is not of "academic" interest that people tell the truth.
You provided a quote which made multiple untrue claims about climate change.
You cannot, or will not say where the quote came from.
It's not possible to have a meaningful "public discussion" you claim to crave when one person in that discussion is making unsourced and untrue assertions.
It's exactly how Donald Trump operates.
It should be clear by now I saw a clear mistake which you kindly pointed out, rather than an intention to deliberately mislead. It was stated earlier the comment had been copied without noting its origin, but likely a farming forum. Nowhere was there an assertion climate change is not anthropogenic, but you appear to have chosen to assume that in mention of "natural carbon cycles" there was an inference there is no other.
What you have done is take one incorrect number - that nitrous oxide gases remain in the upper atmosphere for 1000s of years rather than around 100 - and turn this into a two page distraction. Once this number had been corrected, how much better for the forum as a whole if some grown-up discussion had progressed.
Perhaps your previously stated affinities to large scale methods of production lead you to believe the clear thinking of the quoted farmer are flawed and in some way irritate your sensibilities?
Biospace wrote: ↑11 Dec 2024, 2:07pm
What you have done is take one incorrect number
No.
Independent agricultural research has shown pollution, CAFOs, monocrops, and nitrogen oxidation are far more problematic than natural CO2 cycles
Is false, both in that CO2 rise is not due to natural cycles, and that those things are more important than CO2 in climate change.
Additionally
upper atmosphere for 1000s years.
we agree is also incorrect.
I note the other various personal jibes and untrue assertions in your latest, but won't be responding to them, as it takes far more effort than your merely continuing to throw them out - Brandolini's law applies.
And, once more, referencing your sources rather than making assertions helps grown up discussion enormously.
roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑11 Dec 2024, 3:07pm Independent agricultural research has shown pollution, CAFOs, monocrops, and nitrogen oxidation are far more problematic than natural CO2 cycles
Is false, both in that CO2 rise is not due to natural cycles, and that those things are more important than CO2 in climate change.
...
The natural carbon cycle is of several order greater magnitude greater than Man's (he doesn't mention AGW). As previously mentioned, he was writing from a farming perspective, I read it as "more problematic [for farming] ... "
I was being careful to avoid any personal jibes, if you read what I wrote as such I'm sorry you did so - not intentional.
Biospace wrote: ↑12 Dec 2024, 2:28pm
The natural carbon cycle is of several order greater magnitude greater than Man's (he doesn't mention AGW). As previously mentioned, he was writing from a farming perspective, I read it as "more problematic [for farming] ... "
That's not what the graph that roubaixtuesday showed us nine days ago says
roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑3 Dec 2024, 7:46pm
Sadly, as so often, you don't give a link to where that came from. However, we can look at the content.
1. The current CO2 increase is not a natural cycle. It's caused by burning fossil fuels, is way outside historical bounds for millions of years and is exactly contemporaneous with the industrial revolution
rjb wrote: ↑11 Dec 2024, 1:32pm
I'm surprised this tax lophole hasn't been closed before. Agricultural land has been a tax evasion scheme for decades. Something that has not been available to home owner's who have to sell the family home to pay inheritance tax when it's being passed on to inheritors.
Yep - though it's also a very small proportion of people who have to pay *any* IHT - around 4% of estates.
I hope I'm fortunate enough to have to pay some - because that would be a significant amount of income I'd done nothing for (except maybe not annoy my parents).
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
That's a great graphic, I've seen it before but thanks for posting.
re. the comment in question, it's probably a reiteration of a standard climate denier meme based on annual fluxes to and from the biosphere.
It that narrow sense, it's true, but it's also highly misleading: whilst correct over a year in flux terms, the cumulative effect of human emissions on atmospheric concentration is far in excess of any natural processes as can trivially be seen by glancing at the graphs posed earlier covering ice age transitions.
Anyone who posts such without providing that context is either genuinely in complete ignorance of the field, or intentionally misleading/timewasting.
