Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Global warming

1568101154

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    It depends on the context doesnt it. We are in a non brittle environment so conservation & resting land will work fantastically well here.

    And i agree there’s places being farmed here in Ireland using cattle that the land can’t handle cattle, the ground can’t support them. if a farm needs 6 months worth of Silage and heavy use of chemical fertiliser then Cows probably aren’t the right animal to be farming in those conditions.

    We would all agree that the environment in Kerry, Mayo Donegal etc are very different from say Dublin Wexford Tipperary etc

    So it comes back to management, education, planning.

    Now in Brittle environments like in Africa, Middle East, Australia, texas etc the land needs animals to keep it healthy. Otherwise complete Biodiversity loss & ecosystem collapse.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    In an Irish context we are farming Cattle in places on Land that cannot support cattle, the ground simply isn’t strong enough.

    The environment doesn’t suit. If a farm need’s 6 - 8 month’s of silage to keep cattle wouldnt we all agree then that Cattle aren’t suited to that place?

    What will work really well in Ireland is conservation & resting land to restore biodiversity, habitat etc

    Thats because we have year round rain

    But in seasonal rainfall environment’s, over two third’s of the planet, That land has to have animals on it to keep it healthy. But they need to managed properly, Bunched & moving.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    People have to see this documentary.

    It explains everything.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,186 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    Linking to hour and a half documentaries by the same org that has actively lied rather than research is really missing the point. Reminded distinctly of people dumping conspiracy theory videos. They're free to submit research for peer review, no Organisation is gonna block it but the most likely reason they don't is they don't have adequate evidence of what they claim.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    How do you peer review something that’s complex and constantly changing?

    if the only thing you accept is academia then that’s sad.

    there’s many forms of knowledge, not just peer reviewed paper’s.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,186 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    You do realise peer reviewed studies were being released on COVID from every angle while the virus was in full flight? That's pretty complex and changing. So no, I don't think think an agricultural technique is immune to peer review and Organisations avoiding it tends to be the ones who have zero evidence to substantiate their claims, or have grossly exaggerated them.


    Now I'm expecting some quip or a snarky remark. 😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    absolutely perfect example, and look how much of a mess that was. Look at the amount of conflict information that was given at the start to what we ended up with.

    Peer reviews have been wrong before. There not a one solution that fits all either.

    A nutritionist & doctor will tell you drinking lemon juice everyday will be brilliant for your body. I accept that.

    But a dentist will tell you dont do that because it’ll ruin your teeth. I accept that also. Both a right.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    And we are following the science, the peer reviewed papers, all the experts.

    Go to the Grand Canyon and you’ll see as far as the eye can see land turning to desert. It’s under conservation. Resting the land. No animals, no soil disturbance. All understand conventional management the best we have. And has been for decades.

    That area is in absolutely shocking condition.


    We can use Yellowstone National park also as an example. They reintroduce wolves as a key species and the ecosystem has greatly improved.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,787 ✭✭✭Shoog


    Peer review is the only defense we have against wild claims, why ? Because if the wild claim is made through a peer reviewed paper then it is reproducible and if the claimed result is not reproduced the paper is rejected and the claim is demonstrably false.

    An unsupported statement has no such protections.

    So if a claim is made that 3.5tonnes of carbon can be sequestered in one hectare of pasture per year then this is a testable statement meaning I do not have to take anyone's word for it if it is shown in evidence presented in a peer review paper.

    Similarly claims about increase in biodiversity are testable statements with commonly available methodologies to test them.

    People who are confident in their claims are happy to support them with peer reviewed papers since they are the first step in been generally accepted as valid. I do not need to take anyone's word for something if it is systematically studied and presented in a reproducible format.

    Only people who know their claims are not verifiable shy away from peer review.

    So far any third party which has attempted to verify the claims of the Savory system has failed to reproduce those claims in any meaningful way. Some have shown the results to be the opposite of what was claimed. If there is some "magic" ingredient missing from these studies the only way to disprove them is to produce the evidence in a peer reviewed paper and show how they misapplied the methodology.

    Hand waving gets you no where - and that is all the Savory advocates have done so far.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,707 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    It sure does depend on context. From https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change

    (have you read it yet? 3rd time I've posted the link)

    In Southern Utah, a seriously dry part of the US with very brittle soil conditions:

    ""I think claiming that you're going to reverse climate change by running cattle across the dry lands of the earth doesn't make sense," Bramble told the crowd. "And I would caution you all not to leap on the Savory bandwagon, especially in these parts. This is very dry country. And you need to consider some evolutionary history. There were no large ungulates grazing in this region. The grasses did not coevolve with grazing."

    This was him addressing a meeting of farmers to discuss Savory's hypothesis.

    So, if you're in favor of adopting Savory's methods to Ireland, quantify what the impact on Ireland's CO2 emissions will be, would you?

    You can't, because "Holistic farming" hasn't ever been subject to rigorous analysis, much like holistic anything.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,037 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    To be fair, you seem to be waffling on and it does create the impression that you're regurgitating stuff you've heard somewhere (presumably your unproven cult).

    I've given you ample opportunities but I'm fed up asking you now: you're blinkered opinion is really not worth the effort!

    I'm unsubscribing from this thread!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,919 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    It’s mad that the oil companies, now fighting legal proceedings, are throwing all the people who, fully, bought into their climate denial propaganda under a bus.

    Their argument, now, is that they shouldn’t have to face any legal cases because, they say, that the ‘impact of fossil fuel use on the global climate has been open and obvious for decades’.

    Some turnaround but, of course, the climate deniers who believe Big Oil’s earlier, paid for, nonsense will still go on believing it.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,186 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    The scientific work during COVID-19 was frankly extraordinary. Bs artists spreading rumours was the greatest issue during it and they didn't tend to be peer reviewed.


    Peer reviewed studies have been wrong but they end up challenged. It's the best system we have. Meanwhile your anecdote about lemon juice is just irrelevant nonsense. Make scientific claims then follow the scientific process which includes peer review, bizarre to say this should be the one exception.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    See its all very subjective isn’t it, what some say will work others say it wont.

    Did Bramble explain how The desert in Utah is going to help fix itself? Or sequester carbon? Isn’t there soil In Utah? How did that get there? But that’s one example. And Utah is one of those environments that it would be without a doubt very challenging conditions to farm.

    But lets take an environment like texas or Arizona. They get Rain, yet land is still deteriorated.

    See it’s all about the context and planning.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,787 ✭✭✭Shoog


    Most have an ideological investment in it, to accept climate change as real is to accept that their belief in neo-liberal economics of infinite growth is wrong. All climate change deniers are also neo-liberal advocates.

    They will never give up on climate change denial just as they will never give up on their Chicago school economic fantasies.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,707 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Neither, because he's a scientist and was rebutting what the Savory institute was selling. He wasn't there to pitch anything (context is everything, after all). Later in the article he says he's improved his own land by not running cattle on it. Same is true in Texas, Arizona, Nevada.

    You really should read the article.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    Adios, i feel much the same about you. Good riddance



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    Savorys a scientist also. You believe one but not the other? Thats your opinion, your belief, that’s ok. People used to believe the earth was flat & slavery was acceptable.

    Bullshit, covid was a complete and utter **** show and everybody knew it. Not one bit of common sense came out of it after the initial first few weeks. You need a mask to go into a restaurant & get to your table. Then it was safe to take off the mask. Get real man.

    there’s no hope for people like you, no doubt a George Monbiot supporter also.

    Savory is right, and time will prove it.

    You wanna no what the world will be like when 80 - 90 % of it turns to desert? Look at the sahara. And no amount of windmills or solar or electric cars is going to fix that.

    If you need to read a peer reviewed paper to see how everything works then you havent an original thought in your head.

    Very sad to see the brainwashing taking place.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,707 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    So, the anti-vax agenda comes out. Sorry, you won't be hearing from me any more. Get help.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    I have read it and he missed a key part of it.

    “When there are too many cows in places with intermittent or little rain, where the vegetation is brittle and the soil fragile, the animals spell trouble. Overgrazing denudes the soil and produces erosion, which leads to a landscape where plants can't revive and grow”

    Now what I’m about to say is the key thing. Once the animals are taken away from where they’ve been grazing. After enough time passes that land starts to regenerate. Plants grow, habitat restores, biodiversity comes back.

    “Cattle grazing produced such a transformation in the environment of the American West that its introduction, in the late 19th century, has been compared to a geologic event. Cattle have been implicated in the eradication of native plants, the loss of biodiversity, the pollution of springs and streams, the erosion of stream banks, the exacerbation of floods that carry away soil, the deforestation of hardwoods, and, in the worst cases, a reduction of living soil to lifeless dust. Two centuries of grazing on the Colorado Plateau catalyzed the most severe vegetation changes in 5,400 years, one study concluded”

    That land wasnt mangaged holistically. It was different management.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,186 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    A scientist who won't use the peer review process, sounds more and more like a scam artist tbh. And every time you resort to aggression or abuse cause you can't refute anything.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    “In Savory's universe, ungrazed land, known as "rested" land, will always wither away. "It's just wrong," said Brewer. A substantial number of studies on desert grassland have found that with rest, grass cover "increases dramatically," while "intensive grazing delays this recovery."

    With rest they will recover no doubt, but after enough time and no grazing of animals on those lands, they turn to desert.

    There can be no doubt about that. Because if Mr Brewer is right land is rested like it has been for decades then we should find no desertification. Arizona should look like Ireland. Australia should look like Ireland.

    But there not, we find desertification is getting worse every year in these environments.

    Over resting land is Cancer for Biodiversity & Habitat in Seasonal Rainfall environment’s. Which make up over two third’s of the planet!! there can’t be any argument against that! They need animals managed properly to stay healthy.

    Its like taking a heart, brain or lungs away from a person.

    Post edited by thinkabouit on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    Ahaha 🤣 more insults

    Same with all yee types on here, when yee have nothing else to say or when something has been explained.

    Same in all the threads. Good riddance.

    Yee are the Permanently outraged or very unhappy people.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,787 ✭✭✭Shoog




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    Coming from the person who doesn’t want to fix all the world’s problem’s and wants to keep the trail of destruction going. You and your pals here are trying to be bully’s, like any bully when somebody fights back yee flee and throw insults and labels.

    Your an old dog so we cant teach you anything new.

    And my last response to the other poster has proven how dumbfounded your science & peer reviewed papers are.

    Because if Mr Brewer & his ilk are right & resting land over a long period of time restores biodiversity loss, then Australia, Mexico, the Middle East should all be green and lush & eutopia. It’s the complete opposite. No peer reviewed papers needed to show the evidence of that.

    Its all about the management & planning & process’s. We have no other option’s.

    Post edited by thinkabouit on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    A picture say’s a thousand words.

    I’m putting up this photo to illustrate the sheer size and scale of the problem.

    Now that’s some chunk of land and water & the potential to store carbon in it has to be absolutely enormous.




  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,178 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    No, we don't. It's another dump from a no doubt dodgy American "think tank".

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    See above. Gone very quiet all of a sudden here.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,178 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Peer review is worthless because things change but this disinformation will always be true.

    Pass.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 288 ✭✭Upstream


    Grasslands can sustain a high amount of biodiversity, but it depends on the management, and as you point out the harvesting practices matter too. I'm not advocating for the sort of green desert like the perennial ryegrass field you were looking at. I'm saying we need more farms that look like A and B, rather than C, while still maintaining as much production as possible.

    We need to move away from dependence on chemical inputs for fertility, prior to the advent chemical fertilizer, cows were used to restore fertility and restore soil carbon in a crop rotation.

    There are lots of ways to increase biodiversity apart from multispecies, native meadows, herbal leys all have their role.

    Prof Sheridan did mention in the video that the multispecies had an increase in invertebrates and earthworms in the trials, so it's reasonable to expect that the wildlife that feeds on these should become more abundant, but their trials have only been going on for ten years, so there's a limit to how much research they can do with the resources they have.



Advertisement