Off Topic The Environment

aberdeenhornet said:
Thank God for that!!!!!!
Click to expand...

You ignored every point I made then went into a feeble rant. Not agreeing with hydraulic fracking means I can't use any petrol based products? That's like saying if you don't agree with Adam Johnson you can't have sex anymore.

Keep your weird anti-green propaganda to yourself. As you've mentioned previously, due to your line of work, you're incredibly biased and you can't hold a decent debate, so I'm out.

Have fun <ok>
 
Toby said:
You ignored every point I made then went into a feeble rant. Not agreeing with hydraulic fracking means I can't use any petrol based products? That's like saying if you don't agree with Adam Johnson you can't have sex anymore.

Keep your weird anti-green propaganda to yourself. As you've mentioned previously, due to your line of work, you're incredibly biased and you can't hold a decent debate, so I'm out.

Have fun <ok>
Click to expand...
I didn't ignore any point you made. Your selective vision means you are incapable of debate. Of course I am biased, having studied renewable energy and energy in general at undergrad level I chose from a position of knowledge what is real, what is false and in my subsequent career have gained vast knowledge in what actually takes place, what works, what doesn't, whats wrong with the oil industry and whats right. I am far from anti green being anti green movement and anti green fraud is not anti green. I want a sustainable future with high quality of life for all which means managing our envirionment using all our skills and knowledge. That leads me to look for real sustainable solutions not pipe dreams. Feeble rant, well if stating facts from knowledge constitutes feeble rant then guilty your honor. Your analogies are frankly pathetic.
 
aberdeenhornet said:
I didn't ignore any point you made. Your selective vision means you are incapable of debate. Of course I am biased, having studied renewable energy and energy in general at undergrad level I chose from a position of knowledge what is real, what is false and in my subsequent career have gained vast knowledge in what actually takes place, what works, what doesn't, whats wrong with the oil industry and whats right. I am far from anti green being anti green movement and anti green fraud is not anti green. I want a sustainable future with high quality of life for all which means managing our envirionment using all our skills and knowledge. That leads me to look for real sustainable solutions not pipe dreams. Feeble rant, well if stating facts from knowledge constitutes feeble rant then guilty your honor. Your analogies are frankly pathetic.
Click to expand...
I would like to know what you mean by the green movement Aberdeen - can you be a bit more precise ? Do you mean the Green Party (with its 3% or so of voters) ? Or Greenpeace - little more than a pressure group without that much influence. Or do you mean a few tree huggers ? Or maybe the alternative energy firms who have a fraction of the economic resources that the fossil fuel lobby has. This is not much really to justify the conspiracy theories about the 'green movement' which you take almost to the point of McCarthyism. How is it possible for you to believe in a sustainable future yet you choose not to believe in the existence of global warming ie. you believe in the one or two so called 'studies' paid for by the oil industry as against the majority of scientific evidence. Is there anything which is more of a pipe dream than that we can continue to use the World's resources at the rate at which we are doing - continue to produce, consume etc. the same as before (but with other technology). Can you dispute the fact that if the whole World consumed at the same rate as the UK. Germany etc. that we would need the collective resources of 4 and a half planets ? The accepted aim is to reduce the Co2 footprint of western consumers to just over 2 tons per person per year - Britain currently has around 10 and Germany around 11. I would like to see more discussion about how these goals can be achieved - discussions which do not rely on technological developments. Because saying that we can continue to produce and consume, as before, or that we can continue to believe that 'growth' is always desirable, is like saying to a chain smoker with a cough that he should continue with his habit because future 'cures' will save him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toby
colognehornet said:
I would like to know what you mean by the green movement Aberdeen - can you be a bit more precise ? Do you mean the Green Party (with its 3% or so of voters) ? Or Greenpeace - little more than a pressure group without that much influence. Or do you mean a few tree huggers ? Or maybe the alternative energy firms who have a fraction of the economic resources that the fossil fuel lobby has. This is not much really to justify the conspiracy theories about the 'green movement' which you take almost to the point of McCarthyism. How is it possible for you to believe in a sustainable future yet you choose not to believe in the existence of global warming ie. you believe in the one or two so called 'studies' paid for by the oil industry as against the majority of scientific evidence. Is there anything which is more of a pipe dream than that we can continue to use the World's resources at the rate at which we are doing - continue to produce, consume etc. the same as before (but with other technology). Can you dispute the fact that if the whole World consumed at the same rate as the UK. Germany etc. that we would need the collective resources of 4 and a half planets ? The accepted aim is to reduce the Co2 footprint of western consumers to just over 2 tons per person per year - Britain currently has around 10 and Germany around 11. I would like to see more discussion about how these goals can be achieved - discussions which do not rely on technological developments. Because saying that we can continue to produce and consume, as before, or that we can continue to believe that 'growth' is always desirable, is like saying to a chain smoker with a cough that he should continue with his habit because future 'cures' will save him.
Click to expand...
The Green Movement as I refer to it consists of Davos driven organizations both political and commercial and yes includes Greenpeace, Al Gore, The various Green parties and the Wind companies and even the hydrocarbon companies believe it or not. Economic resources are not everything and its a mix of political and economic force, the majority of which you and I do not see directly. I agree we need to conserve and perform much more recycling which can only be achieved in parallel with high lic=ving standards for all with a high intesinty energy source which is ultimately nuclear. I do not accept that CO2 reduction is a good idea. I don't need studies to come to that conclusion I just go back myself to the basic biological science and draw my conclusions from applying first principles. Goal of sustainability is easy... it's three elements 1) Population reduction 2) Nuclear power 3) recycle... By the way I do not deny climate change though I would refer to it as weather as we have not got enough data to sat=y climate but I do deny that it is man made. I believe the forces of nature are much greater than our feeble race.
 
aberdeenhornet said:
. I do not accept that CO2 reduction is a good idea. I don't need studies to come to that conclusion I just go back myself to the basic biological science and draw my conclusions from applying first principles. Goal of sustainability is easy... it's three elements 1) Population reduction 2) Nuclear power 3) recycle... By the way I do not deny climate change though I would refer to it as weather as we have not got enough data to sat=y climate but I do deny that it is man made. I believe the forces of nature are much greater than our feeble race.
Click to expand...

I think there is pretty much universal agreement on the need to reduce CO2 emissions. I cant see much science going against that.

Population reduction.... of course (I have been an avid reader of post-apocalyptic lit. .. Earth Abides my all time favourite.) BUT is only likely to come out about through war or disease.. and likely to be impartial as to who it kills off. population control is needed but only really will come hand in hand with a more stable world where health and economics mean there is less need to have lots of children for survival

Nuclear mmm..... only again possible in a peaceful world where there is less likelihood of war, terrorism etc.... for those reasons only really possible in more developed and secure societies. Plus of course major environmental concerns with current nuclear energies.

recycle yes yes
 
Another tack.... any views on organic food?:

"A major study into the health benefits of organic milk and meat has sparked a row among nutritionists after it was claimed the results were overblown and "stretch credibility to the limit".

The wide-ranging research, carried out by an international group of scientists, suggests the two foods contain 50 per cent more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids than non-organic produce.

It also showed organic meat has slightly lower concentrations of two saturated fats which have been linked to an increased risk of heart disease.

The same team previously worked on a global study of organically produced crops which found they had up to 60 per cent higher levels of antioxidants than conventionally grown fruit and vegetables.

However, several expert nutritionists were scathing about the results, saying higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids are unlikely to represent any significant health benefit.

Tom Sanders, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics at King's College London, said: "In my opinion, the press release contains headline-grabbing speculative health claims that stretch credibility to the limit."

You must log in or register to see images
The review found organic milk contained 40 per cent conjugated linoleic acid, used as a weight loss supplement and by bodybuilders

He said although the study showed organic milk and meat showed higher levels of omega-3, meat and milk from ruminants were "poor sources of polyunsaturated fatty acid and contain large amounts of potentially harmful saturated and trans fats".

He added: "Nuts and vegetable oils, such as soybean and rapeseed oil, are much richer sources of alpha-linolenic acid and oily fish and eggs are more important sources of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids in the UK diet."

Ian Givens, professor of food chain nutrition at the University of Reading, said the increase in omega-3 was observed in milk fat, not whole milk, so switching would only represent a small change to health.

He added: "Differences in content such as fatty acids or iodine occur primarily because organic animals are fed more of a forage-based diet, such as grass, than their non-organic counterparts.

"You get the same kind of changes in food composition if non-organic animals are fed forage-rich diets too. It's the choice of feed, not the organic farming method, which makes the difference.

"Overall, this is very detailed and valuable work, but the differences between organic and conventionally farmed produce should be evaluated as part of the whole human diet.

"When they are, most differences are very small indeed."

The study, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, reviewed 196 papers on milk and 67 on meat and found clear differences between organic and conventional products.

Key findings were in their fatty acid composition, and the concentrations of certain essential minerals and antioxidants.

Margaret Rayman, professor of nutritional medicine at the University of Surrey, said the reduced level of iodine in organic milk should not be overlooked.

"This may have implications for public health as milk and dairy products are the main source of iodine in the UK diet and we have shown that iodine deficiency in pregnant women is linked to lower IQ in their children," she said.

"As a considerable proportion of UK pregnant women are iodine deficient, a switch to organic milk may exacerbate this deficiency unless consumers include other iodine sources in their diet."



conventional milk contained 74 per cent more of the essential mineral iodine and slightly more selenium.

Getting the right balance of iodine in the human diet is difficult, as the gap between deficiency and harmful excess is not wide, Prof Leifert said.

Both too little and too much iodine have been linked to thyroid problems. Unlike much of the rest of the world, table salt in the UK is not routinely fortified with iodine.

Cattle feeds also contain iodine, explaining the difference between organic and conventional meat.

Prof Leifert said: "Taken together, the three studies on crops, meat and milk suggest that a switch to organic fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy products would provide significantly higher amounts of dietary antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids." "
 
Irrespective of contradictory expert advise (as normal), I don't think it's hard to believe that Meat, Milk, Veggies and Fruit produced as nature intended are likely to be less harmful than those produced in factories! Trouble with experts is that they are all experts!...
 
wear_yellow said:
Irrespective of contradictory expert advise (as normal), I don't think it's hard to believe that Meat, Milk, Veggies and Fruit produced as nature intended are likely to be less harmful than those produced in factories! Trouble with experts is that they are all experts!...
Click to expand...

I 'worry' about the antibiotics and hormones they feed the animals I eat....
 
  • Like
Reactions: wear_yellow
I was watching an item on French TV about some of the large towns who have employed a flock of sheep to graze the local green spaces. A shepherd takes them from one space to another and rather than have petrol lawn mowers making noise and fumes, the sheep just get on with the job quietly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back