Brexit, for once some facts.

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
Also - don't fall for this idea that we're 'running out of resources'. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by that sentence - but if it is consider the idea that we're not.

In the last 50 years the population has increased by 100% (roughly) - but we actually have MORE resources available to us.

Why? Because we are a creative species when it comes to stuff like that - we find new ways to get at hidden things (whether geologically or at a molecular /sub-atomic level).

Resource availability is actually going up as the population goes up.

It is such a counter-intuitive fact that it is often completely dismissed by people.
You really believe this bull?
When it rains and you stand under a tree when the rain comes through all you have to do is stand under the next one?
What happens when you run out of trees? and there are more and more people standing under them?
You've been reading that crap from the Adam Smith Institute again haven't you?
The resources available are finite, we are simply using more all the time, and we have no idea of the consequences of doing so long term.
The only thing we do know is there are more people all the time
We need to economise on resources
 

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
This in the Daily Mail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7409193/Leak-fury-No10-Dominic-Cummings-quizzes-former-aide-Operation-Yellowhammer-document.html#comments
"
Former Philip Hammond aide is FROGMARCHED out of Downing Street by police after being accused of LEAKING Brexit secrets by Boris Johnson's top adviser Dominic Cummings
  • EXCLUSIVE: Sonia Khan was accused of helping Hammond stop No Deal
  • When she denied the allegation, Cummings demanded to see her phone
  • After the exchange, Cummings called police and Khan was frogmarched away

What is going on here?

"Miss Khan was recruited as a special adviser by Mr Hammond last September. She had worked for former international trade secretary Liam Fox and the Taxpayers' Alliance. "

Curious with the background if she's the leaker, and not the only one apparently
The Cummings Mafia are not running a very tight ship for all the bragging.

One reader comment was interesting
"
caroline3590, Stirling, United Kingdom, about a minute ago

Hang on people, this is just another leaked story to show how powerful Cummings has become and he is being presented as someone we should all be scared off. Think about it, this is also a leaked story, so there must be someone else who is leaking information, either that or it was orchestrated by Cummings. This woman obviously hasnt been leaking any information because if she had, she would have been arrested. She must have signed the official secrets act and in leaking secret documents, she would have been breaking that act. Breaking the official secrets act is a punishable offense that attracts imprisonment. She was not arrested and charged....therefore she did not leak secrets...this is just another scare story.


The interesting bit is "This is just another leaked story"
Bit of Cummings melodrama?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: oyster

daveboy

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 19, 2012
952
1,366
pontefract

OxygenJames

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 8, 2012
2,593
1,041
Dear oh dear!
a more complete lack of understanding would be hard to find than yours.
The effect is cumulative as the land does not return to Forestation, just farming for a profit
typical idiotic right wing short sighted greed
Who is to blame? it's more what is to blame.
Human greed and human stupidity, profit without an understanding of consequences, and this stupid "Go it alone" notion that nations have.
Brexit is a classic example of this stupidity, it serves only the instigators not the public
Or you can read this:

Cristiano Ronaldo is a Portuguese expert on forests who also plays football, so when he shared a picture online of a recent forest fire in the Amazon, it went viral. Perhaps he was in a rush that day to get out of the laboratory to football training, because it later transpired that the photograph was actually taken in 2013, not this year, and in southern Brazil, nowhere near the Amazon.

But at least his picture was only six years old. Emmanuel Macron, another forest ecologist who moonlights as president of France, claimed that ‘the Amazon rainforest — the lungs which produce 20 per cent of our planet’s oxygen — is on fire!’ alongside a picture that was 20 years old. A third bioscientist, who goes under the name of Madonna and sings, capped both their achievements by sharing a 30-year-old picture.

Now imagine if some celebrity — Donald Trump, say, or Nigel Lawson — had shared a picture of a pristine tropical forest with the caption ‘Amazon rainforest’s doing fine!’ and it had turned out to be decades old or from the wrong area. The BBC’s ‘fact-checkers’ would have been all over it, seizing the opportunity to mock, censor and ostracise.

In fact, ‘Amazon rainforest’s doing fine’ is a lot closer to the truth than ‘Amazon rainforest — the lungs which produce 20 per cent of our planet’s oxygen — is on fire!’. The forest is not on fire. The vast majority of this year’s fires are on farmland or already cleared areas, and the claim that the Amazon forest produces 20 per cent of the oxygen in the air is either nonsensical or wrong depending on how you interpret it (in any case, lungs don’t produce oxygen). The Amazon, like every ecosystem, consumes about as much oxygen through respiration as it produces through photosynthesis so there is no net contribution; and even on a gross basis, the Amazon comprises less than 6 per cent of oxygen production, most of which happens in the ocean.

But it is the outdated nature of the pictures shared by celebs that is most revealing, because the number of fires in Brazil this year is more than last year, but about the same as in 2016 and less than in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2012. For most of those years, Brazil’s president was a socialist, not a right-wing populist, so in BBC-world those fires did not count. More significantly, the rate of deforestation in the Amazon basin is down by 70 per cent since 2004.

It is probably true that President Jair Bolsonaro’s rhetoric has encouraged those who want to resume logging and clearing forest and contributed to this year’s uptick in fires in the country. But was it really necessary to claim global catastrophe to make this point, and was it counterproductive? ‘Macron’s tweet had the same impact on Bolsonaro’s base as Hillary calling Trump’s base deplorable,’ says one Brazilian commentator.

I sometimes wonder if the line wrongly attributed to Mark Twain, ‘a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on’, is now taken as an instruction by environmental pressure groups. They operate in a viciously competitive market for media attention and donations, and those who scream loudest do best, even if it later turns out they were telling fibs.
Around the world, wild fires are generally declining, according to Nasa. Deforestation, too, is happening less and less. The United Nations’ ‘state of the world’s forests’report concluded last year that ‘the net loss of forest area continues to slow, from 0.18 per cent [a year] in the 1990s to 0.08 per cent over the last five-year period’.

A study in Nature last year by scientists from the University of Maryland concluded that even this is too pessimistic: ‘We show that — contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally — tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1 per cent relative to the 1982 level).’
This net increase is driven by rapid reforestation in cool, rich countries outweighing slower net deforestation in warm, poor countries. But more and more nations are now reaching the sort of income levels at which they stop deforesting and start reforesting. Bangladesh, for example, has been increasing its forest cover for several years. Costa Rica has doubled its tree cover in 40 years. Brazil is poised to join the reforesters soon.

Possibly the biggest driver of this encouraging trend is the rising productivity of agriculture. The more yields increase, the less land we need to steal from nature to feed ourselves. Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University has calculated that the world needs only 35 per cent as much land to produce a given quantity of food as 50 years ago. That has spared wild land on a massive scale.

Likewise, getting people on to fossil fuels and away from burning wood for fuel spares trees. It is in the poorest countries, mainly in Africa, that men and women still gather firewood for cooking and bushmeat for food, instead of using electricity or gas and farmed meat.

The trouble with the apocalyptic rhetoric is that it can seem to justify drastic but dangerous solutions. The obsession with climate change has slowed the decline of deforestation. An estimated 700,000 hectares of forest has been felled in South-East Asia to grow palm oil to add to supposedly green ‘bio-diesel’ fuel in Europe, while the world is feeding 5 per cent of its grain crop to motor cars rather than people, which means 5 per cent of cultivated land that could be released for forest. Britain imports timber from wild forests in the Americas to burn for electricity at Drax in North Yorkshire, depriving beetles and woodpeckers of their lunch.

The temptation to moralise on social media is so strong among footballers, actors and politicians alike that it is actually doing harm. Get the economic incentives right and the world will save its forests. Preach and preen and prevaricate, and you’ll probably end up inadvertently depriving more toucans and tapirs of their rainforest habitat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zlatan and gray198

OxygenJames

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 8, 2012
2,593
1,041
You really believe this bull?
When it rains and you stand under a tree when the rain comes through all you have to do is stand under the next one?
What happens when you run out of trees? and there are more and more people standing under them?
You've been reading that crap from the Adam Smith Institute again haven't you?
The resources available are finite, we are simply using more all the time, and we have no idea of the consequences of doing so long term.
The only thing we do know is there are more people all the time
We need to economise on resources
OG demonstrating beautifully that most people dismiss this idea out of hand.
 

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,290
Notice lots of the luvvies are up in arms with Boris. The one caught with his pants down and his member in a prostitutes mouth is morally outraged. Things must be bad...
Linekar is spouting again.
 

OxygenJames

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 8, 2012
2,593
1,041
You really believe this bull?
When it rains and you stand under a tree when the rain comes through all you have to do is stand under the next one?
What happens when you run out of trees? and there are more and more people standing under them?
You've been reading that crap from the Adam Smith Institute again haven't you?
The resources available are finite, we are simply using more all the time, and we have no idea of the consequences of doing so long term.
The only thing we do know is there are more people all the time
We need to economise on resources
Plus - one obvious fact you've got wrong - the world in the last 20 years has got MORE green - as in vegetation coverage has gone UP over the last 20 years. Why? More CO2. Plants love CO2 - they're thriving.
 

OxygenJames

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 8, 2012
2,593
1,041
Notice lots of the luvvies are up in arms with Boris. The one caught with his pants down and his member in a prostitutes mouth is morally outraged. Things must be bad...
Linekar is spouting again.
Grant? Hughie? Ha. Hughie Grant (as we knew him then) - was in my class at school. Latymer Upper in Hammersmith. Not that I hung out with him much as he was in the acting/I'm going to Oxford set (and I wasn't).

But a change of name (to 'Hugh') - and a Twitter account and look at the transformation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fingers

OxygenJames

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 8, 2012
2,593
1,041
Plus - one obvious fact you've got wrong - the world in the last 20 years has got MORE green - as in vegetation coverage has gone UP over the last 20 years. Why? More CO2. Plants love CO2 - they're thriving.
Plus this fact: This net increase (of tree coverage) is driven by rapid reforestation in cool, rich countries outweighing slower net deforestation in warm, poor countries. But more and more nations are now reaching the sort of income levels at which they stop deforesting and start reforesting. Bangladesh, for example, has been increasing its forest cover for several years. Costa Rica has doubled its tree cover in 40 years. Brazil is poised to join the reforesters soon
 

OxygenJames

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 8, 2012
2,593
1,041
Plus this fact: This net increase (of tree coverage) is driven by rapid reforestation in cool, rich countries outweighing slower net deforestation in warm, poor countries. But more and more nations are now reaching the sort of income levels at which they stop deforesting and start reforesting. Bangladesh, for example, has been increasing its forest cover for several years. Costa Rica has doubled its tree cover in 40 years. Brazil is poised to join the reforesters soon
But when did OG let facts get in the way of his deluded opinions?
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Zlatan and Fingers

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,216
30,617
Yes things do change. 2 weeks ago the EU said they would not re-negotiate, yesterday they said they want Boris to come up with some "concrete proposals"
Nonsense, there's no change. The EU were asking Theresa May to come up with concrete proposals and they also said the same to each of our negotiators.

That's long been the EU position. They've consistently said they won't materially change the deal but will look at alternatives on the sticking points like the Backstop. They just want us to come up with ideas to deal with minor points, but the deal stands as it is.
.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: 50Hertz

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
20,387
16,884
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
Looking at that table.. Presumably the order matters. Assume that JC were defeated ,as your table suggests, then the figures for another GNU PM could be much higher..the Labour party would be able to support a compromise no deal PM of say the K Clarke colour. Were that to happen, only 20 tories seems way off.
we don't know what will happen but there will be twists and turns for sure. I imagine that if MPs fail to stop no deal brexit next week then a number of tory MPs voting to stop no deal would vote to stop Bojo when they get back in October. That number can reach 20.
The likelihood that JC or Ken Clarke could cobble together a national unity government is small, all the table says is we'll get to a stalemate, Bojo will still be in No10 but he can't do anything other than calling for a new election.
It would be then for the EU to declare that they would support an extension of A50.
 

jonathan.agnew

Esteemed Pedelecer
Dec 27, 2018
2,400
3,381
Plus - one obvious fact you've got wrong - the world in the last 20 years has got MORE green - as in vegetation coverage has gone UP over the last 20 years. Why? More CO2. Plants love CO2 - they're thriving.
It's not about forests per se. It's about biodiversity, a key component of the ecology us primates take for granted and abuse so much. And that we are part off and rely on for survival. I realize brexiters have great difficulty extending their consciousness beyond gratifying narrow self obsessed interests. And recognizing that existence is interdependent. But surely you cant be so limited that this obvious truth escapes you?
 

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
Yes things do change. 2 weeks ago the EU said they would not re-negotiate, yesterday they said they want Boris to come up with some "concrete proposals"
They have been saying that all along, haven't they, they are still talking about the Irish backstop not the May's Deal.
So what do you see as changed?
Remember WE asked for the backstop not the EU
 

Advertisers