Tesco pulls honey off shelves amid purity concerns

[Karol]

Never thought about that side of produce from a cow! Thanks Karol.
The OCD carbon lot have a lot to answer for, just like not allowing peat to be dug and used for seed growing compost. You're not releasing carbon in the air, you're just moving the carbon rich substance from there to yours! And kiln drying wood does not stop it releasing carbon out of the chimney, but that's okay 'cos you can plant a twig to replace that 300 year old tree you've killed.
By the way I burn timber and drive a Derv motor.

We really need to get away from the fallacy that CO2 released from burning fossil fuels is in any way a cause of climate changes because it absolutely is not. We need to tackle the real causes of climate change, i.e. injudicious exploitation of watersources and changes in land use.

Burning peat would actually help save the planet. How?

Here's the logic. Where did all the peat originally come from? Answer. Atmospheric CO2. Ergo historical CO2 levels must have been vastly higher than now. So why is there no evidence of a climate disaster prior to peat being formed? Answer. Because higher CO2 levels resulted in higher levels of vegetation and vegetation contributes directly to cooling through moisture retention, transpiration, evaporative cooling and shade.

 

[judy12]

I thought it was the methane that was the problem with cows.

 

[Erichalfbee]

I thought it was the methane that was the problem with cows.

Methane is CH4
One atom of carbon and three of hydrogen

 

[JamezF]

Methane is CH4
One atom of carbon and three of hydrogen

It is still considered to be a major problem with cows, as far as I'm aware, because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂. Obviously it's still the case that the carbon atom originated in the atmosphere anyhow, so nothing is being released that wasn't there to start with, but I think the whole situation is just far more nuanced.

James

 

[roche]

Methane is regarded as much more damaging than CO2...
The vast majority of respected climatologists consider that both CO2 and Methane are problematic, after due application of scientific method...I don't think anyone of sound mind could say that pulling more hydrocarbons out of the earth, where they have been safely buried for quite a long time, is a good idea.

 

[Dekzion]

Methane is regarded as much more damaging than CO2...
The vast majority of respected climatologists consider that both CO2 and Methane are problematic, after due application of scientific method...I don't think anyone of sound mind could say that pulling more hydrocarbons out of the earth, where they have been safely buried for quite a long time, is a good idea.

But I think that it can go to extremes of carbon removal. I do know that in 2020 when in lockdown there were no planes in the air and that sun was like a blowlamp down the allotment! Caused by extremely low pollution to filter the rays. I was reading the other day that climate change is being exasperated by lack of high level clouds (is this vapour trails etc) and the low level clouds are not dense or white enough to reflect the heat from the suns rays therefore warming the earths surface and altering the weather patterns.
I also read quite a while ago that if we don't produce enough carbon the air will be fill instead with some certain aerosol reflective particles which'll throw us back into an ice age! (it wasn't a conspiracy theory)
So why does banning peat from compost matter in the big scheme of things, you're just moving it from there to here, no carbon is being put back into the atmosphere doing that and plants won't survive without co2

 

[madasafish]

Worth reading ALL this.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/736161

 

[Karol]

I thought it was the methane that was the problem with cows.

Which gets oxidised to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or is utilised by the microbiome as food ultimately returning to the carbon cycle.

Methane is regarded as much more damaging than CO2...
The vast majority of respected climatologists consider that both CO2 and Methane are problematic, after due application of scientific method...I don't think anyone of sound mind could say that pulling more hydrocarbons out of the earth, where they have been safely buried for quite a long time, is a good idea.

Completely laughable.

It's precisely the lack of due scientific method which has allowed the fallacy to become an ideology.

What change do you think cattle have made to atmospheric methane levels which run at less than 1ppm that would have any measurable effect on climate. Scientific method? Trust me, as one of the 100 UK citizens on the UK Citizens' Assembly and as a genuine scientist, I looked very hard for evidence for scientific method and found nothing but obfustication shrouding a flawed ideology.

 

[Amari]

Cows are not net emitters of carbon. This is basic, school level biology of the carbon cycle.

Nobody disputes that but some of the carbon they emit, as CH4, is more harmful than the carbon, as CO2, most other living organisms emit. Moreover, CO2, unlike CH4, is consumed by plants to make sugars via photosynthesis,

 

[Wilco]

Nobody disputes that but some of the carbon they emit, as CH4, is more harmful than the carbon, as CO2, most other living organisms emit. Moreover, CO2, unlike CH4, is consumed by plants to make sugars via photosynthesis,

Actually plenty do, hence why farmers keep getting sniped at by morons.

CH4 rapidly breaks down to CO2. CH4 is also released by decomposing organic matter and anything that farts, especially hindgut fermenters. However, blaming those, which are also part of the carbon cycle, for our woes is just as moronic as blaming ruminants. Scapegoating livestock is an excuse to distract from the real sources of carbon emissions- humans burning FFs.

What's worse as a gg than CO2 or CH4? H2O.

 

[Karol]

Nobody disputes that but some of the carbon they emit, as CH4, is more harmful than the carbon, as CO2, most other living organisms emit. Moreover, CO2, unlike CH4, is consumed by plants to make sugars via photosynthesis,

Actually there's a significant scientific community that would dispute that claim. Harmful? Please explain how?

While you are at it, perhaps you can explain the significance of CH4 in plant regulation?

 

[Karol]

Actually plenty do, hence why farmers keep getting sniped at by morons.

CH4 rapidly breaks down to CO2. CH4 is also released by decomposing organic matter and anything that farts, especially hindgut fermenters. However, blaming those, which are also part of the carbon cycle, for our woes is just as moronic as blaming ruminants. Scapegoating livestock is an excuse to distract from the real sources of carbon emissions- humans burning FFs.

What's worse as a gg than CO2 or CH4? H2O.

None of the incondensible gases are green house gases if such a thing even exists. The green house gas theory is predicated on the work done by John Tyndall in the 1850s which confused absorption with absorbance of IR radiation and consequently gave rise to a flawed theory. Water does have a profound effect because unlike incondensible gases it does absorb radiation as a consequence of phase change and in that way it is unique and central to climate change. It is by far the most important regulator of climate and the most significant modulator of water is plant life. Lack of plants leads to desertification which leads to global warming because land without plants cannot retain water so cannot be cooled by evaporative processes. To regreen the deserts requires elevated levels of CO2 hence why we need to burn fossil fuels to combat climate change.

 

[Hedgerow Honey]

Slightly more complex than that but yes... Type of rendering used also had a role. This is one of the reasons we can't feed, swill to pigs any more.

Not wholly true, the swill ban was introduced during 2001 as a result of the foot & mouth outbreak that had been bubbling along for quite a while before it became a national issue.
there had also been previously an Anthrax outbreak nr Wrexham made worse by the farmer attempting to cover it up.

 

[Wilco]

Not wholly true, the swill ban was introduced during 2001 as a result of the foot & mouth outbreak that had been bubbling along for quite a while before it became a national issue.
there had also been previously an Anthrax outbreak nr Wrexham made worse by the farmer attempting to cover it up.

Hence me saying 'one of the reasons'.

 

[Gilberdyke John]

Grass captures carbon through photosynthesis.
Some of this carbon is stored in soil through dying organic matter.
Soil depth increases if land managed extensively.
Cows eat grass.
Cows burp out some of that carbon.
Cows turn some of that carbon into milk and steak.
Cows defecate out some of that carbon, which fertilises the ground.
Grass keeps growing.

Cows are not net emitters of carbon. This is basic, school level biology of the carbon cycle.

In other words far far beyond the comprehension level of most UK politicians

 

[Gilberdyke John]

Hence me saying 'one of the reasons'.

Holderness as a pig raising area was known as a concentration of swill boiling farms. Evidently disposing of school meal wastage. Short cuts in the boiling cycle was blamed by out of area farmers with some vehemence. I used to hear quite active debate in the local hostelries during evening visits for refreshments.

 

[Gilberdyke John]

Methane is regarded as much more damaging than CO2...
The vast majority of respected climatologists consider that both CO2 and Methane are problematic, after due application of scientific method...I don't think anyone of sound mind could say that pulling more hydrocarbons out of the earth, where they have been safely buried for quite a long time, is a good idea.

Is there such a thing as a respected climatologist?

 

[RJC]

Is there such a thing as a respected climatologist?

Yes. And with reference to the earlier debate since matter cannot neither be created nor destroyed there is no net increase or decrease in anything, ultimately. However, it is how various compounds react with each other which causes impacts. Peat, and other fossil fuels for that matter, are carbon stores; keeping it there rather than releasing it is best place for it.

 

[Karol]

Yes.

Agreed. Most of them feature on the Tom Nelson podcasts. Worth spending some time listening to what they have to say.

And with reference to the earlier debate since matter cannot neither be created nor destroyed there is no net increase or decrease in anything, ultimately. However, it is how various compounds react with each other which causes impacts.

More importantly is the understanding of the difference between temperature, heat and energy states of those compounds which tends to be the realm occupied by physicists rather than climatologists.

Peat, and other fossil fuels for that matter, are carbon stores; keeping it there rather than releasing it is best place for it.

The ideological view that ignores the cost on human lives and the wider environment.
It's amusing watching climatologists squirm as a consequence of greening of the planet from increased CO2 levels:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...IQFnoECDQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1IvmE8PvcsZuda3PH28Zv8

So, more plants are now bad because they'll take up too much water. Nothing is mentioned about how 1 ton of Lithium requires 1500 tonnes of water to produce. Nothing is mentioned of how plants retain moisture. It really is ideology at work.

 

[Penninetrader]

None of the incondensible gases are green house gases if such a thing even exists. The green house gas theory is predicated on the work done by John Tyndall in the 1850s which confused absorption with absorbance of IR radiation and consequently gave rise to a flawed theory. Water does have a profound effect because unlike incondensible gases it does absorb radiation as a consequence of phase change and in that way it is unique and central to climate change. It is by far the most important regulator of climate and the most significant modulator of water is plant life. Lack of plants leads to desertification which leads to global warming because land without plants cannot retain water so cannot be cooled by evaporative processes. To regreen the deserts requires elevated levels of CO2 hence why we need to burn fossil fuels to combat climate change.

From my limited knowledge of science, which is exponentially greater than that spouted by most climate nutters, you are entirely correct. The reason that they chose co2 to achieve their aims was after much debate, and non of it evidence based, but rather what could plausibly be sold to the gullible public. The aim ? Is to create enough indebtedness that will require transfers of natural resources of nation states to satisfy those debts. The business model will be carbon sinks that will produce never ending revenue via carbon offset credits purchased from those debt holders. Tin hat conspiracy theories, get in the real world, we are already here.