Youngstu

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?

There is plenty of information from some of the conservation writers acknowledging that some of the few 'islands' of safety for certain populations are on those moorland shooting estates, but the additional negative consequences of management for singular target species are far from insignificant. In reality, the importance of these islands of protection for species that were once widespread is due to the extent of modern farming practises, particularly the loss of historic hay meadows in favour of high production arable and silage production that led to a loss of plant species on the land being farmed as well as the impact on hedgerow species and the wider ecosystems. Figures I read recently stated that a greater mass of pheasants are released into the British countryside than the entire mass of wild birds, with very little in the way of control, record keeping or biosecurity. The consequence of this alone (in terms of insect and wild bird populations, as well as general biodiversity), for the enjoyment of a few who like dressing up for a bit of fun is undoubtedly highly significant for the areas where it has become prevalent in recent years.

So do you know or assume that your local experience is replicated on a national level? Undoubtedly some things have improved such as heavy metals, to a degree particulate pollution and some of the food chain level poisoning that greatly impacted for example birds of prey and other top predators, that and legislation preventing persecution of specific species. But from a national perspective, the evidence appears to show increasing numbers of species declining significantly due to loss of prey, habitat, migration etc. Do you have evidence beyond your local experience that the scientists have it wrong?

Out of interest, what evidence do you have for the biodiversity collapse being "non existent"?

Adolescence is an amazing piece of TV and we'll worth a watch if you have kids, or don't. We watched it with our teenage boys and my eldest thought it was one of the best things he'd seen, in terms of how it was made, the acting and the subject matter which is a mystery to many of us and chilling. If you have teens it's worth watching with them for the conversations if nothing else. For any that haven't seen about it, it's worth knowing that each of the 4 episodes was filmed in a single shot. The videos on how it was done are pretty good too.

What a strange response! Fortunately Dave my comment didn't imply that I was having any visions of your cock I'm glad to say, but if that's what you want to think you carry on. I can only assume that you're so lacking in self awareness that you simply don't realise the amount of your posts that can come across as boastful. You may well not be like it in the real world, but on here it doesn't seem to matter the subject, you've always done more than the person whose opinion you disagree with. Whether it's kit, cars, hours worked, distance driven, countries visited, nationalities worked with, years spent doing whatever, dirtiness of truck, tax paid, engine size, number of guns etc etc, you're forever claiming to have a greater entitlement to voice your opinion on whatever subject than the next person. It all pretty tedious really.

I guess my confusion could be explained by you going on about the need for 3.5 tonne towing capacity and pickups then saying your next vehicle was a single cabbed one with a big engine was a slightly confusing description and looked very much like you were waving your nob around about getting a gas guzzling American style truck to tow your sawmill to see if the environmental lot got upset. Top Posters In This Topic Johnsond 30 posts Mark J 11 posts Steven P 11 posts GarethM 8 posts Popular Days hmmmm!

Then if you already have a decent pick up, and you're getting a bigger single cab one, why go on endlessly about the new pick up that you wanted, that you're now not going to get because you won't get the tax breaks?

That sounds great Dave, you'll have sorted the work vehicle, for the milling etc, getting you all of the much needed tax breaks, and then you can get a more fuel efficient and economic car/SUV for all of the long distance communting. Sounds like a win win for you, (your pocket?), and the environment. With the added bonus for you that you can feel that you've got one over on the government and the mindless greenies by avoiding tax and getting a truck with a massive engine. Congratulations!

And it looks like a load of the sanctions against Russia are being lifted by the USA. 🙄

Is there someone here whose used to being the man in charge, and struggles when others don't tow the line?

I don't have an issue with Space X doing it, it seems like they're best placed to do the job at the minute, but giving Elon credit for being such a nice fellow is a bit misguided. If the lovely Elon had stuck to his businesses as opposed to trying to gain an increasing foothold in international politics and influencing world events to his own benefit I don't think many would have such issues with what he does. He showed what a bellend he was at the time of the kids trapped in a cave, but atthat point nobody was particularly worried about his influence, things are a bit different now.

Is it maybe something to do with the fact that Space X are working with NASA (for considerable financial reward) and have the necessary equipment to do the job as opposed to it actually being down to Musk being a jolly nice bloke of fine character? It's businesss at the end of the day, he used his money to fund the development of it and it's working and I'm sure either turning a tidy profit or heading in that direction with NASA contracts etc. But having so much money, there are a lot of other things he could do with it, that could help a hell of a lot more people out of the difficult situations they're in.

I think it's just lovely how much of a generous, giving and altruistic person Elon is to send one of his own rockets up to rescue those poor astronauts for absolutely no personal reward whatsoever. Without people like him who knows where the world would be now. He's so great that maybe they should bend the rules so he can be president next time, he only wants what's best for the world and everyone on it, that's for sure.

Do you have a link to where you got this from? As I've seen with others I'm thinking this could be a good option for processing hazel etc for putting in the charcoal kiln.