Anyone still like Labour?

[Johnsond]

12 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

know why they were put in place

Then why ask 🤷‍♂️

So no answers then regards the genuine questions about cause and solutions,just bs waffle as usual. 

[GarethM]

14 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

There are no outstanding questions regarding biodiversity collapse: every study has verified every earlier study yet you dismiss the evidence as bs without presenting any evidence to the contrary.

Because the simple arguement is I care about here, I don't want studies from elsewhere where I have ZERO influence.

 

We as a country have done pretty much everything the environment types have asked, demanded and more, yet they still claim collapse even though in the 50/60s we harmed the environment a plenty and it was better for wildlife.

 

So what more do you want and at what point do you go, oh f it's not improved by your own metrics!.

 

Simple analogy I can stop my bath from overflowing by turning the tap off, should I be coming round yours and sit watching your bath fill ?.

[Johnsond]

16 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

you turn straight away to heaping personal abuse upon anyone who comes back to discuss it with you.

Rubbish

Pointing out that you were making mistaken assumptions and then asking why I thought the removal of the regulations were a bad idea 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️ffs it was an indeed a stupid question therefore not heaping  abuse. 

[Yournamehere]

6 minutes ago, Johnsond said:

Then why ask 🤷‍♂️

So no answers then regards the genuine questions about cause and solutions,just bs waffle as usual. 

I didn't

[Yournamehere]

2 minutes ago, Johnsond said:

Rubbish

Pointing out that you were making mistaken assumptions and then asking why I thought the removal of the regulations were a bad idea 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️ffs it was an indeed a stupid question therefore not heaping  abuse. 

Er that was the point of the discussion: I read your post; I made an assumption; I asked you to clarify.

I agree with you that it seems to be a bad idea to remove this protection; but then I'm not a player on the world economic stage.

[Johnsond]

2 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

I made an assumption

Mistaken as often Is the case, credit to you for admitting it mind. Anyway 3 and 5 yr old grandchildren are here now, dry day bit of space and a pw50, far more entertaining and quite frankly I can get a straighter conversation out of them both so I’ll be off now. 
Give you a chance to get those biodiversity questions researched. 
 

[Yournamehere]

12 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Because the simple arguement is I care about here, I don't want studies from elsewhere where I have ZERO influence.

 

We as a country have done pretty much everything the environment types have asked, demanded and more, yet they still claim collapse even though in the 50/60s we harmed the environment a plenty and it was better for wildlife.

 

So what more do you want and at what point do you go, oh f it's not improved by your own metrics!.

 

Simple analogy I can stop my bath from overflowing by turning the tap off, should I be coming round yours and sit watching your bath fill ?.

I don't know what the answer is, there are many answers; it's a complicated dynamic whereby an action in one area will affect many other areas to varying degrees: that is why a single local solution aimed at one single aspect will have very little broadscale effect overall. It's complicated, it can't be reduced to a soundbite.

When you say 'studies from elsewhere'... do you mean Cornwall (say) or Tibet (again for the sake of argument)? How local an area do you concern yourself with? I was thinking purely in terms of the UK when I spoke of the UK bird pop decline.

[Yournamehere]

2 minutes ago, Johnsond said:

Mistaken as often Is the case, credit to you for admitting it mind. Anyway 3 and 5 yr old grandchildren are here now, dry day bit of space and a pw50, far more entertaining and quite frankly I can get a straighter conversation out of them both so I’ll be off now. 
Give you a chance to get those biodiversity questions researched. 
 

Yes I know it was mistaken, that is why I asked for clarification; that was the whole point of my posting.

But yes, grass to cut, must get on.

[GarethM]

5 minutes ago, Yournamehere said:

I don't know what the answer is, there are many answers; it's a complicated dynamic whereby an action in one area will affect many other areas to varying degrees: that is why a single local solution aimed at one single aspect will have very little broadscale effect overall. It's complicated, it can't be reduced to a soundbite.

When you say 'studies from elsewhere'... do you mean Cornwall (say) or Tibet (again for the sake of argument)? How local an area do you concern yourself with? I was thinking purely in terms of the UK when I spoke of the UK bird pop decline.

At a minimum only concerning the UK.

 

Regardless of the cause & effect arguments about a butterfly flapping it's wings elsewhere in the world.

 

Preferably on my doorstep, we have done everything and much more and they still shout decline which even by your own admission was better in the 50/60s etc.

 

You have to have a pragmatic solution and a common sense argument, as whatever they're telling us to do obviously isn't working and doubling down hasn't made it better either.

 

For example, coal is dirty, so we scrubbed the exhaust, then it was better to use gas, so we use gas, technically we could have also made coaking coal but that's another discussion.

 

You get the idea, just going off to the stone ages with you is not a solution as you need to make any change simple, cheaper and better.

 

SD TV Vs HD not Edison lightbulb Vs sitting waiting for the the plague men to pick up your infected corpse.

[Youngstu]

53 minutes ago, GarethM said:

At a minimum only concerning the UK.

 

Regardless of the cause & effect arguments about a butterfly flapping it's wings elsewhere in the world.

 

Preferably on my doorstep, we have done everything and much more and they still shout decline which even by your own admission was better in the 50/60s etc.

 

You have to have a pragmatic solution and a common sense argument, as whatever they're telling us to do obviously isn't working and doubling down hasn't made it better either.

 

For example, coal is dirty, so we scrubbed the exhaust, then it was better to use gas, so we use gas, technically we could have also made coaking coal but that's another discussion.

 

You get the idea, just going off to the stone ages with you is not a solution as you need to make any change simple, cheaper and better.

 

SD TV Vs HD not Edison lightbulb Vs sitting waiting for the the plague men to pick up your infected corpse.

As others have previously said, you can come across as intelligent, knowledgeable and educated in many of the areas you discuss, as such it's hard to know if you really hold these views or are just taking an opposing position with those whose ideologies you disagree with. 

I'm sure we can all recognise that in many ways things have improved pollution wise and in terms of ecosystem damage. However those minor changes to reduce impact can't necessarily make up for the accumulation of damage over the last decades or centuries. The sheer amount of damage to our ecosystems is enormous, in terms of (to name a few) soil loss, pollutant build up, nitrate levels, total loss of habitat, loss of species diversity, reduced water holding capacity, species loss and food chain impacts, etc etc. 

 

Some of these are due to agricultural practices, others due to development, others to climate change and they are all more than just a local issue. It is a problem locally, nationally and internationally, but the UK is widely recognised as one of the most Nature depleted countries due to the sheer amount of time that we have been developed and industrialised and the long term impact of these practices. (which for those of us lucky enough to spend much of our lives in rural and relatively unspoilt areas may find hard to believe). 

 

Do you really deny these things and feel that those who publicise them and publish research are falling for a big lie with a political background? 

Edited Friday at 11:27 by Youngstu
Typo