Tesco pulls honey off shelves amid purity concerns

[Penninetrader]

You can't just look at the number and say "Oh, that's very small so it won't matter" without considering the broader context. For example, you might look at a pile of compost containing two parts per billion (0.0000002%) of aminopyralid and say "Oh, that's a tiny amount! My tomatoes and potatoes will be fine growing in that." It will still kill them though, along with many other

You can't just look at the number and say "Oh, that's very small so it won't matter" without considering the broader context. For example, you might look at a pile of compost containing two parts per billion (0.0000002%) of aminopyralid and say "Oh, that's a tiny amount! My tomatoes and potatoes will be fine growing in that." It will still kill them though, along with many other vegetables.

James

First off, and this is not directed at yourself James, I note that here and elsewhere those who wish debate not take place are those on side of the gov narrative and constantly use any reasoning to end such debate. As for your point, small amounts of some elements would as you say make a dramatic difference, in the case of components of our atmosphere not so much. Historical percentages of co2 suggest we are dealing with an induced hysteria that is beneficial to certain people and groups. Every means to persuade is always based on a future projection, when previous projections are proved wrong we once again move the goalposts. Global warming turned into climate change when facts proved we were indeed cooling. The whole thing is an absolute nonsense and China+India with it's ever expanding fossil fuel use is splitting it's side's laughing at us whilst carrying wagon loads of our cash and industry to their banks

 

[Swarm]

All the worry about cows farting and then a volcano erupts.

 

[Karol]

You can't just look at the number and say "Oh, that's very small so it won't matter" without considering the broader context. For example, you might look at a pile of compost containing two parts per billion (0.0000002%) of aminopyralid and say "Oh, that's a tiny amount! My tomatoes and potatoes will be fine growing in that." It will still kill them though, along with many other vegetables.

James

What utter unrelated tosh!

When CO2 levels fall to 150ppm ALL plant life dies and the world dies with them.

Millions of years ago CO2 levels prior to the advent of calcerous animals was at 6000ppm. (Climatologists are presently predicting about a 1.0°C rise give or take per 100ppm of extra atmospheric CO2. What they can't explain is how the Earth could possibly have survived temperatures some 56°C higher than now all those millions of years ago).The evolution of these animals has seen CO2 levels fall to 300ppm trapped in trillions of tons of chalk and limestone deposits across the world. This starvation of CO2 has resulted in deserts expanding across Africa, Asia and the Americas as the plant life in arid climates being most sensitive to low levels of CO2 recedes.

Before spouting such drivel, you should take the time to listen to Ned Nikolov's podcast the link to which I provided in my previous post. Then you might just grasp the reality of the adiabatic processes that govern climate through their influence on cloud albedo.

And to be clear, I disagree with Ned Nikolov. Whilst Ned has scientifically proven that CO2 has no direct effect on climate I am persuaded that CO2 levels affect greening which helps retain atmospheric moisture thereby having an effect on albedo. In other words, CO2 is a net cooling gas and if we want to save the planet we need to reverse the effects of millions of years of calcerous animal carbon capture and release CO2 into the atmosphere and the easiest way to do that is to burn fossil fuels.

JBM calls me blinkered. But what he fails to appreciate is that this is a conclusion I've reached as trained scientist schooled in entropy, enthalpy, nuclear physics, molecular energy states, ideal gases and fluid mechanics, spectrophotometry, plant and animal biology etc etc etc and as a member of the UK Citizens Assembly on Climate Change after many hundreds of hours digesting the scientific evidence of CO2 and climate.

Simply repeating a false mantra doesn't change the facts.

 

[Wilco]

All the worry about cows farting and then a volcano erupts.

Burping more than farting. Horses/hindgut fermenters fart, cows/ruminants eructate.

Not that animals are a problem.

Interestingly apparently termites are big emitters.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/168866...arge quantities,hydrogen may also be produced.

 

[Erichalfbee]

All the worry about cows farting and then a volcano erupts.

I agree.....but cows eructate methane not fart it.

 

[Erichalfbee]

Interestingly apparently termites are big emitters.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1688668#:~:text=Termites may emit large quantities,hydrogen may also be produced.

Perfectly illustrates the futility of interfering with bovine digestion

 

[Wilco]

Perfectly illustrates the futility of interfering with bovine digestion

According to Google that looks to be about 10x human CO2 production and between a quarter and a third of human CH4, if agriculture is included.

That's just termites.

As I've mentioned here before, interestingly if you add human respiration and metabolism to the carbon emissions, it adds around 10% to human activity emissions. However it tends not to be included with the reasoning of 'that's just releasing carbon that was just captured by the food they eat so doesn’t count as net release', which begs the question of why it's included for livestock too.

Also interestingly, the size of the Amazon rainforest, that massive carbon sink which we are supposedly so dependent on, is a relatively recent phenomenon since the wiping out of the indigenous populations a few hundred years ago. So I have to wonder, those years ago, when the Amazon was not present and wildlife populations (thus emissions) were significantly higher than now, what checked carbon levels?

For those arguing 'lots of scientists believe x', that's as poor an argument as when used by anyone else who goes 'lots of people cleverer than me believe it thus it must be true' or 'so many believe it, it must be true'. That's a blind faith position. Argument should be based on the best available evidence, not what others believe (although all of us are taking our views from what others have told us about this so ultimately we're all believers in some form, even if we come to our own conclusions on whatbwe hear- for this reason, for most of the global population, anything badged as scientific is as much a faith position as any religion).

Hopefully we can agree that there is a correlation that, since the industrial revolution, carbon emissions from human activities have increased. In that time there has also been a change in global temperature. I'd argue that correlation and causation are different things and it's probably too early to tell on a geological timescale. However, I do think humans are excessive consumers and curbing the overexploitation of the environment would be beneficial for biodiversity as well as reducing human carbon emissions, regardless of the effect that has. Sustainability is a good thing whichever side of this debate one sits on IMO- perhaps with the exception of @Karol's perspective of burning more fossil fuels.

Will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years as we move to a solar minimum.

 

[Karol]

Perfectly illustrates the futility of interfering with bovine digestion

Absolutely nothing compared to the methane given off from ocean wide algal booms.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...gQFnoECBMQBQ&usg=AOvVaw3t2ep1kQQhUxbcwdp49uGe

How are the blooms created? Intensive industrial farming run off of fertilizers and pesticides. You know, the kind of farming that'll be required to replace beef farming to pacify the righteous veggie climate saving but ignorantly killing types.

 

[Karol]

According to Google that looks to be about 10x human CO2 production and between a quarter and a third of human CH4, if agriculture is included.

That's just termites.

As I've mentioned here before, interestingly if you add human respiration and metabolism to the carbon emissions, it adds around 10% to human activity emissions. However it tends not to be included with the reasoning of 'that's just releasing carbon that was just captured by the food they eat so doesn’t count as net release', which begs the question of why it's included for livestock too.

Also interestingly, the size of the Amazon rainforest, that massive carbon sink which we are supposedly so dependent on, is a relatively recent phenomenon since the wiping out of the indigenous populations a few hundred years ago. So I have to wonder, those years ago, when the Amazon was not present and wildlife populations (thus emissions) were significantly higher than now, what checked carbon levels?

For those arguing 'lots of scientists believe x', that's as poor an argument as when used by anyone else who goes 'lots of people cleverer than me believe it thus it must be true' or 'so many believe it, it must be true'. That's a blind faith position. Argument should be based on the best available evidence, not what others believe (although all of us are taking our views from what others have told us about this so ultimately we're all believers in some form, even if we come to our own conclusions on whatbwe hear- for this reason, for most of the global population, anything badged as scientific is as much a faith position as any religion).

Hopefully we can agree that there is a correlation that, since the industrial revolution, carbon emissions from human activities have increased. In that time there has also been a change in global temperature.

Sorry but we can't.

The historical CO2 record superimposing atmospheric CO2 data from Mauna Loa on top of ice core data spanning 800,000 years as presented by the emissions crowd is false.

It's false because the ice core data excludes up to 80% of the CO2 which dissolves into the ice (not gas bubble) fraction and which is completely ignored (or rather excused as carbonate dust contamination because the results are inconveniently high).

When ice cores are tested using the melt method, present CO2 levels are about 1/3 of the countless CO2 peaks over the last 800,000 years.

Humans are affecting climate but that's through exploitation of water and de-greening which has a massive impact on albedo, i.e. formation of clouds (above land).

I really do commend Ned Nikolov who eloquently explains the true science of climate. It's an hour and a half but it's an hour and a half well spent for those who want to cut through the ideological dogma.

I'd argue that correlation and causation are different things and it's probably too early to tell on a geological timescale. However, I do think humans are excessive consumers and curbing the overexploitation of the environment would be beneficial for biodiversity as well as reducing human carbon emissions, regardless of the effect that has. Sustainability is a good thing whichever side of this debate one sits on IMO- perhaps with the exception of @Karol's perspective of burning more fossil fuels.

Will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years as we move to a solar minimum.

Adiabatic contraction, lower and more cloud cover, more precipitation, more wind, less solar power and less wind power.

 

[The Poot]

First off, and this is not directed at yourself James, I note that here and elsewhere those who wish debate not take place are those on side of the gov narrative and constantly use any reasoning to end such debate. As for your point, small amounts of some elements would as you say make a dramatic difference, in the case of components of our atmosphere not so much. Historical percentages of co2 suggest we are dealing with an induced hysteria that is beneficial to certain people and groups. Every means to persuade is always based on a future projection, when previous projections are proved wrong we once again move the goalposts. Global warming turned into climate change when facts proved we were indeed cooling. The whole thing is an absolute nonsense and China+India with it's ever expanding fossil fuel use is splitting it's side's laughing at us whilst carrying wagon loads of our cash and industry to their banks

Re future projections, have a read of this lot…
https://realclimatescience.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts-2/#gsc.tab=0

There was a man named Mr Pugh, who believed it all and wanted to be the first man to kayak to the North Pole. Sadly there was too much ice in the way and he failed….



There is a second link to ice free forecasts on the site with reader comments from over a decade ago.

 

[roche]

What utter unrelated tosh!

When CO2 levels fall to 150ppm ALL plant life dies and the world dies with them.

Millions of years ago CO2 levels prior to the advent of calcerous animals was at 6000ppm. (Climatologists are presently predicting about a 1.0°C rise give or take per 100ppm of extra atmospheric CO2. What they can't explain is how the Earth could possibly have survived temperatures some 56°C higher than now all those millions of years ago).The evolution of these animals has seen CO2 levels fall to 300ppm trapped in trillions of tons of chalk and limestone deposits across the world. This starvation of CO2 has resulted in deserts expanding across Africa, Asia and the Americas as the plant life in arid climates being most sensitive to low levels of CO2 recedes.

Before spouting such drivel, you should take the time to listen to Ned Nikolov's podcast the link to which I provided in my previous post. Then you might just grasp the reality of the adiabatic processes that govern climate through their influence on cloud albedo.

And to be clear, I disagree with Ned Nikolov. Whilst Ned has scientifically proven that CO2 has no direct effect on climate I am persuaded that CO2 levels affect greening which helps retain atmospheric moisture thereby having an effect on albedo. In other words, CO2 is a net cooling gas and if we want to save the planet we need to reverse the effects of millions of years of calcerous animal carbon capture and release CO2 into the atmosphere and the easiest way to do that is to burn fossil fuels.

JBM calls me blinkered. But what he fails to appreciate is that this is a conclusion I've reached as trained scientist schooled in entropy, enthalpy, nuclear physics, molecular energy states, ideal gases and fluid mechanics, spectrophotometry, plant and animal biology etc etc etc and as a member of the UK Citizens Assembly on Climate Change after many hundreds of hours digesting the scientific evidence of CO2 and climate.

Simply repeating a false mantra doesn't change the facts.

And this ones for you, Karol:

I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral,[a]
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major-General's_Song#cite_note-10
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,[c]
I know the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,[d]
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus's uniform:[e]
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,[f]
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery –
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy –
You'll say a better Major-General has never sat a gee.[g]

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral.

 

[Karol]

And this ones for you, Karol:

I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral,[a]
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major-General's_Song#cite_note-10
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,[c]
I know the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,[d]
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus's uniform:[e]
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,[f]
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery –
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy –
You'll say a better Major-General has never sat a gee.[g]

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral.

I'd be more impressed if you presented a well reasoned scientific argument rather than make Wilco's point for him.

 

[Penninetrader]

I'd be more impressed if you presented a well reasoned scientific argument rather than make Wilco's point for him.

I think it an attempt to lighten the air and introduce sme humor into what is a very serious matter

 

[Karol]

I think it an attempt to lighten the air and introduce sme humor into what is a very serious matter

Lighten the air - Like it.

 

[Erichalfbee]

And this ones for you, Karol:

I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral,[a]
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major-General's_Song#cite_note-10
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral.

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;
I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,
In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;
I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,[c]
I know the croaking chorus from The Frogs of Aristophanes!
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,[d]
And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,
And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus's uniform:[e]
In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",
When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,[f]
When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,
And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,
When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery –
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy –
You'll say a better Major-General has never sat a gee.[g]

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;
But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I am the very model of a modern Major-Gineral.

David…. I am lost in admiration