Planting Trees for Carbon Offset (2023 Update)

In message , "dennis@home" writes

Lets see if this blows a hole in your argument Dennis

160 years worth of data, including ocean temperatures I'd shut up if I were you before you dig your hole even deeper

formatting link
" ...Now the Met Office has written to 188 countries for permission to publish material, dating back 160 years from more than 1,000 weather stations around the world, which it says proves climate change is caused by humans.

Its database is a main source of analysis for the UN's climate change science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which joins talks next week at the long-awaited Copenhagen summit. ..."

Reply to
geoff
Loading thread data ...

In message , "dennis@home" writes

Or the dennisosaur - it just bored the rest of life on earth to death

Reply to
geoff

Look I have tried to avoid calling you an idiot but you just can't listen can you.

That evidence does not support GW as the temps back from about 1980 are unreliable due to a lack of actual direct measurements and have been "adjusted" to fit what they believe was true.

You should have noticed by now that the majority of educated people in this group do not agree with you. However you still keep on with the same old story. I don't know why you bother.

Reply to
dennis

snip

Surprise, surprise, Dennis has cut the link without commenting on it and the chances are without even looking at it. That is the second time in the recent past that a denier has done that but the other seems to have retired from the fray.

Go right ahead. It is a privilege to be called an idiot by the likes of you or Dribble. Frankly I would wonder if I had somehow go something wrong if either of you ever agreed with anything I said.

You can repeat your lies as long as you like but as long as you fail to provide any evidence to back them up you are unlikely to convince anyone on here, let alone me.

I have to say I have been surprised at the attitude taken by at least a couple of contributors but if a GOM of science like David Bellamy can be taken in by the wholesale deceit put about by the leading deniers then I suppose anyone can.

Facts have a surprising habit of not changing without due cause. But just for the record I will reiterate what I currently believe.

1) The world has been warming up, with only the odd blip, for at at least the last 100 years and so far at least shows no sign of reversing the trend. 2) CO2 has had a significant part to play in that warming and it really is of no consequence how big a share of that is due to the activities of humankind. 3) A warmer world is very bad news indeed for a sizeable proportion of the world's population. 4) If the world continues to warm at some time in the not too distant future the equilibrium will break down and we will swap the current inter-glacial for an ice free hot world. 5) Nothing we do in this country will be enough to effect the outcome. If countries with large populations fail to act to cut their carbon output and, perhaps more crucially, stop breeding like rabbits, then the rest might just as well not bother.

Now will all those "educated people in this group" who Dennis claims disagree with me please stand up (metaphorically speaking) so I can see who they are.

I think I have already said that further up the thread. Can't you think of anything original to say.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

A whole 1000 weather stations including some that measure sea temps at the surface? You are grasping at straws.

Why don't you plot the temps and the CO2 concentrations on a graph and see which one rises first. Oh you can't because the data isn't there.

Reply to
dennis

I did comment on it are you deaf?

Reply to
dennis

Oh I am sorry. I thought that:

"That evidence does not support GW as the temps back from about 1980 are unreliable due to a lack of actual direct measurements and have been "adjusted" to fit what they believe was true."

Was you talking out of your arse again rather than carefully weighing up the evidence. Talking of evidence where pray is your evidence to support your ridiculous claims? The reason that you haven't managed to come up with any evidence is because there isn't any credible evidence out there to support the pack of lies you keep on regurgitating.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

No, grasping at straws is about the only think you have a talent for.

Seems to me you are losing the plot as well as your mind. Surely it is a given for the deniers that temperatures lag CO2 and conclusive proof that CO2 has absolutely nothing to contribute in the way of warming.

Reply to
Roger Chapman

snip

snip

snip

More than 24 hours have past but none of the "educated" closet deniers have stuck their heads above the parapet so we are left with a conundrum. Are Dennis' many supporters in this matter just another figment of his imagination or are they all too ashamed of the association to say they agree with anything Dennis has to say?

Reply to
Roger Chapman

I have forgotten what the question was/is!

For the record, I accept that human activity is contributing to climate change.

There are some related threads over on uk.business.agriculture

regards

Reply to
Tim Lamb

go into the webb and put in your request you will have several groups listed

url:

formatting link

Reply to
peter richards

whats the reason for wanting to do this?

Reply to
Jack B

Money.

It's been reported some time ago that Welsh farms are being purchased by "big business" for the sole purpose of planting monoculture forests for carbon offsetting. The objections is that it does no favours for the local economy nor for wildlife.

It also means that various companies can advertise on TV that their products are now carbon neutral when they have made zero changes to their processes apart from paying the carbon offset business lots of money.

Reply to
alan_m

Sounds like the usual eco scam. I have yet to hear of any so called 'green' technology or activity that actually benefits the environment, rather than someone else's bank account...

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

And prices out people who want to get into proper farming.

Reply to
Andrew

Drax power station in North Yorkshire burns 13 tonnes of imported wood chip every minute and supplies ~10% of the UK's electricity. Lets say that to meet 100% of the UK's electricity, at current demand rates, power stations like Drax would have to burn some 130 tonnes of wood chip every minute. How many whips (rooted tree cuttings, typically 12 to 18" tall) would have to be planted to absorb the CO2 produced by all those power stations, every minute of the day? And that's not taking into account at least the doubling in demand when we go to 100% electricity.

The whole thing's ludicrous, perpetuated and encouraged by the numbskulls in Parliament!

Reply to
Chris Hogg

'Twas ever thus....

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

You mean why should we plant trees? Well they take co2 and turn the carbon into wood, and release the oxygen. May be only a small gain, but its better than nothing. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

In message <u5kao9$aejl$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, Brian Gaff snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com writes

The post Brexit changes to agricultural support payments make this a way out for farms with succession issues and insufficient or poor quality land. I'll bet the buyers check out the development prospects before planting any trees.

Reply to
Tim Lamb

It is an ill appreciated issue that farmers have often got a Hobsons choice. Take the government coin and do what the subsidies say, or go bust.

The same happened with Drax. Tens of millions of assets that were at a stroke made worthless by the government, unless they switched to burning imported wood chip.

And people blame them for doing it.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.