Tesco pulls honey off shelves amid purity concerns

[The Poot]

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.

See https://www.euronews.com/green/2024...al-but-is-it-enough-5-key-takeaways-from-baku

 

[Karol]

See https://www.euronews.com/green/2024...al-but-is-it-enough-5-key-takeaways-from-baku

And do we really believe that all this money will go to where it's intended?

So who's making fools of whom?

The very countries that will get these payments are the very countries that will benefit from greening of the planet.

Crisis? What crisis?

 

[Penninetrader]

See https://www.euronews.com/green/2024...al-but-is-it-enough-5-key-takeaways-from-baku

It is that carbon market, that is the goal, indebted countries will find themselves in debt for assets swaps. Those assets will allow our new world masters to rule for ever. It does not have to be so, just wake up and say no and now.

 

[Garry R]

I was in Lidl today and they are selling their "simple honey" for 75p for 454 g. Had decided to buy a load of it for winter feed, wash out the jars and fill them with my own honey next year. Well that was until I saw that they now admit it was produced in China so was put off the idea!! It really is beyond a joke.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Had decided to buy a load of it for winter feed,

That’s a really bad idea no matter where the honey comes from unless it’s your own.

 

[JamezF]

That’s a really bad idea no matter where the honey comes from unless it’s your own.

I'm not sure we're talking about anything that has ever been anywhere near a beehive (nor possibly anywhere near any kind of insect) though

James

 

[Sutty]

I was in Lidl today and they are selling their "simple honey" for 75p for 454 g. Had decided to buy a load of it for winter feed, wash out the jars and fill them with my own honey next year. Well that was until I saw that they now admit it was produced in China so was put off the idea!! It really is beyond a joke.

Major AFB/EFB risk assuming there is  some honey in it!

 

[Garry R]

That’s a really bad idea no matter where the honey comes from unless it’s your own.

It really is a joke - but it worrles me that someone might try it.

 

[ericbeaumont]

decided to buy a load of it for winter feed

Better not suggest it, even in jest: not that long ago a novice North London beekeeper found his bees starving, was unaware of the risk, fed them supermarket honey and had to dig a hole and burn the lot when the SBI diagnosed AFB.

 

[Penninetrader]

I was in Lidl today and they are selling their "simple honey" for 75p for 454 g. Had decided to buy a load of it for winter feed, wash out the jars and fill them with my own honey next year. Well that was until I saw that they now admit it was produced in China so was put off the idea!! It really is beyond a joke.

My neighbours wife buys that "honey" he knows that it is rubbish but says nowt. He delabels and washes the jars then delivers them to me in paper carrier bags, proper chap.Yes, forgot to add, do not feed any honey other than your own to your girls

 

[Murox]

Seems to me that this ideology is simply indoctrination, the process of teaching by repeated instruction. I’m sure Mr Blair (aka George Orwell) would have something to say about it and our special ‘friends’ across the pond have been pretty good at Ideological indoctrination.

 

[madasafish]

If I was producing ersatz honey, each jar would have a small but measurable amount of real honey. (eg 5g) so I could describe it as "contains honey made in #####).
Of course, if we had a proper Food Standards System and funded it properly, the resulting fines would run into £ millions "pour encourager les autres"
(See also Voltaire and Admiral Byng in 1756)

 

[The Poot]

I buy milk from a local farmer. This was glued to his dispenser today.

 

[Karol]

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.

Some time ago and on another thread you asked me to provide scientifically published works to support my stance on CO2 emissions and green house gases.

If you are genuinely interested this bears out everything that I've posted regarding climate change for the past four years:

 

[judy12]

What did it say on the Lidl label of your "simple honey" about origin? They do some good Greek honey from time too time but it's not 75p per jar.

 

[roche]

Some time ago and on another thread you asked me to provide scientifically published works to support my stance on CO2 emissions and green house gases.

If you are genuinely interested this bears out everything that I've posted regarding climate change for the past four years:

Unfortunately Nikolov has a bit of a track record:

"Nikolov and his colleague Karl Zeller, who used to work together at the forest service,
were the subject of controversy when they were caught trying to published a paper
under pseudonyms Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez multiple times from 2014 to 2016."

Springerplus published, but later retracted the paper.

Apart from the ethics of using false names, it is a bit of a blow to their credibility.

More recently, they have used pay to publish, non-peer reviewed publications to try and gain attention.

Although some academics have mentioned their publications, their theories have not gained any sort of
widespread acceptance or attention. Which is sort of the nub of the matter, don't you think?

I don't understand the science here, but I find it implausible that a couple of guys come up with an theory
in an area which is not their field, and the validity of which is contested, are going to be correct. Especially
when a lot people who know a lot about it disagree. The bulldozer of scientific method would not let that
happen. And if conventional wisdom about CO2 is a conspiracy (incredibily unlikely) - I think the integrity of
most scientists would force them to speak out.

So I am going to play the probability card here, and say that I don't think it is worth investing any time listening
to them...

There are two quotes from the New Zealand Government, which I think are apposite:

"Scientific evidence of climate change is unequivocal and the New Zealand Government is approaching
climate change using a scientific lens. "

"The science of climate change is clearly explained in a number of peer-reviewed, publicly available
papers, following the traditional and trusted scientific method. Hundreds of scientists and researchers
from around the globe participate in the IPCC working groups, reviewing thousands of these papers.
This is summarised in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, which provides a comprehensive summary
of the state of scientific, technical, and socio-economic knowledge on climate change, its impacts and
future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation."

In spite of the NZG having decimated its scientific establishment of the last 35 years, I trust its scientists
ability and integrity.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

as most people have worked out a long time ago - it's the usual crackpot anti vaxer type brigade vying to find some relevance

 

[Karol]

Unfortunately Nikolov has a bit of a track record:

"Nikolov and his colleague Karl Zeller, who used to work together at the forest service,
were the subject of controversy when they were caught trying to published a paper
under pseudonyms Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez multiple times from 2014 to 2016."

Springerplus published, but later retracted the paper.

Apart from the ethics of using false names, it is a bit of a blow to their credibility.

More recently, they have used pay to publish, non-peer reviewed publications to try and gain attention.

Although some academics have mentioned their publications, their theories have not gained any sort of
widespread acceptance or attention. Which is sort of the nub of the matter, don't you think?

I don't understand the science here, but I find it implausible that a couple of guys come up with an theory
in an area which is not their field, and the validity of which is contested, are going to be correct. Especially
when a lot people who know a lot about it disagree. The bulldozer of scientific method would not let that
happen. And if conventional wisdom about CO2 is a conspiracy (incredibily unlikely) - I think the integrity of
most scientists would force them to speak out.

So I am going to play the probability card here, and say that I don't think it is worth investing any time listening
to them...

Cancel culture at work.

There are two quotes from the New Zealand Government, which I think are apposite:

"Scientific evidence of climate change is unequivocal and the New Zealand Government is approaching
climate change using a scientific lens. "

"The science of climate change is clearly explained in a number of peer-reviewed, publicly available
papers, following the traditional and trusted scientific method. Hundreds of scientists and researchers
from around the globe participate in the IPCC working groups, reviewing thousands of these papers.

Science doesn't lie. Climate models based on the lie of radiative forcing continue to fail. Nikolov and Zeller have proven models that do work based on adiabatic expansion and albedo.

This is summarised in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, which provides a comprehensive summary
of the state of scientific, technical, and socio-economic knowledge on climate change, its impacts and
future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation."

In spite of the NZG having decimated its scientific establishment of the last 35 years, I trust its scientists
ability and integrity.

Where I diverge from Nikolov and Zeller is that anthropogenic climate change is real. What Nikolov and Zeller haven't twigged is that albedo closely correlates to forestation and therefore CO2 does play a role in climate change but not because there is too much but because there isn't enough to regreen the deserts.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Cancel culture at work

as soon as you hear that statement, you know you have ventured into crackpot country and be happy in not believing anything they state

 

[Karol]

as soon as you hear that statement, you know you have ventured into crackpot country and be happy in not believing anything they state

Wasn't it the church that cancelled the Earth revolving around the sun? The carbon emissions brigade is cancelling all scientific dissent with the same religous zeal. Problem is that it's common folk that will pay the price.