Jump to content

COP26 Glasgow 31st OCT to 12th NOV


wastecoatwilly

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, renton said:

All models are subject to the law of Garbage In, Garbage Out and all models are only as good as their underlying methodologies. 

For example, I can model the bending of a plate under combined mechanical, thermal and electrostatic loads or the flow of a fluid through a micro channel to an astonishing degree of accuracy when compared to really physical constructs.

The SEIR models for pandemics are not the same as the advanced climate change models used today. The latter solves numerically physics based equations, the former requires the tweaking of various parameters under a number of more wooly assumptions about contacts and distances and the basic parameters of the virus.

Just because there is a perception of inaccuracy about the SEIR modelling of Covid, doesn't mean the same scepticism should should aimed at the far more advanced, involved and ultimately more dependent on known physical phenomena climate change models.

 https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work

^^ hasn't seen jurassic park

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way things are going on these threads, any day now we'll get some intellectual midget saying that gravity has not been proved to their personal satisfaction and demanding equal respect for their view that we are held on the surface of the planet only because angels are sitting on our shoulders flapping their wings keeping us here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simplistic pish of the worst kind.

Here is an honest question and answers article regards the whole issue of rotational burning. Covers all the pros and cons.


https://www.gwct.org.uk/policy/briefings/driven-grouse-shooting/heather-burning/




Thanks, but I don’t need to read that. Muirburn is a highly destructive practise that is starving the people of this country of diverse and wild landscapes, brimming with biodiversity. Any pro-muriburner trying to tell you that it’s done for “conservation of curlews” and “preventing wildfires” is lying. It’s done for grouse shooting and that alone. Anything else is pure coincidence. If grouse shooting was banned tomorrow you can bet your bottom dollar that not a single estate would spend time and resources on burning hills.
Link to comment
Share on other sites







Thanks, but I don’t need to read that. Muirburn is a highly destructive practise that is starving the people of this country of diverse and wild landscapes, brimming with biodiversity. Any pro-muriburner trying to tell you that it’s done for “conservation of curlews” and “preventing wildfires” is lying. It’s done for grouse shooting and that alone. Anything else is pure coincidence. If grouse shooting was banned tomorrow you can bet your bottom dollar that not a single estate would spend time and resources on burning hills.


23 out of 26 estates in Scotland practice muirburning.

Only 10 of those had grouse shooting as the main land use.

I don't doubt that in some cases it isn't altruistic - but controlled burning - and that's not just muirs - is good for biodiversity.

SNH and Natural England burn heather and gorse and approve its use on many moorland SSSIs; the RSPB burns on a number of its upland reserves; the national park authorities recognise the value of muirburn and use it on Exmoor - I could go on.

The biggest issue of muirburn isn't the practice itself but when it is abused and not properly managed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I don't doubt that in some cases it isn't altruistic - but controlled burning - and that's not just muirs - is good for biodiversity.


I understand that wildfires are a natural process and as you say, they can benefit biodiversity. The problem is the scale on which it is done and the reasons for doing so. Although I don’t particularly agree with the RSPB or any other conservation body carrying out muirburn, at least it’s being done in the name of conservation alone - and on what I presume will be a small scale. The shooting estates are of course doing this on a massive scale - and they aren’t doing it for conservation, although they will claim that they are because it’s one of the only excuses they have left that they hope the public will buy. The fact that other ground nesting birds benefit from grouse moor management is pure coincidence. And even then, with all of that management ravaging our hillsides, species like the curlew - which the estates claim will die out without management - are still in decline. Their methods are clearly not working. While burning on a very small scale might benefit certain species of animals and plants, on a whole it is absolutely devastating - and it’s part of the reason why the UK has one of the worst records for biodiversity in the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...