Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 11:11:35 GMT
Campaign status: Number of signed-up members: Nil Number of letters sent to MPs: Nil Number of people who hate CaRT and the EA on general principle: Unknown Likelihood of grumbling into beer continuing for ages yet: Extremely High. Well I have actually seen some CRT dredging in the last year. So sometimes they do listen to boaters. I'm more concerned about what has appeared to be a reduction of boats navigating the system over the last few years. It's like a domino effect. The less the navigation is used, the less CRT will bother to maintain the infrastructure. Use it or lose it!
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Mar 2, 2020 13:18:41 GMT
I don't understand why you think a single months freak rain is definitive of the weather pattern when an annual rainfall total 250 years ago isn't. your argumentative stance on this suggests you are a shallow thinker . Climate has always changed, we have been going through one of the longest quiet periods in climate for 10,000 years, did you think it would last for ever ? a heavy rain shower can be a freak.
a month's record rainfall is not a freak - it's definitive of a changing weather pattern.
let's get this clear - do you believe that mankind is not responsible for the changing climate?
are you the 20 denier category, or the snowflake 10 denier variety?
Yo see this is where we agree its a fact that CO2 is at its highest level in 600,000 years, it is a greenhouse gas and the planet is warming up, warm air holds more water than cold air so when it rains its for longer and heavier than before! The issue for me is the slightest amount of rain nowadays triggers flooding like last summer, its because no dredging on our rivers is happening at all, this is a navigable river that is rapidly silting up, and restricting commercial traffic what it was designed for
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 13:31:04 GMT
a heavy rain shower can be a freak.
a month's record rainfall is not a freak - it's definitive of a changing weather pattern.
let's get this clear - do you believe that mankind is not responsible for the changing climate?
are you the 20 denier category, or the snowflake 10 denier variety?
Yo see this is where we agree its a fact that CO2 is at its highest level in 600,000 years, it is a greenhouse gas and the planet is warming up, warm air holds more water than cold air so when it rains its for longer and heavier than before! The issue for me is the slightest amount of rain nowadays triggers flooding like last summer, its because no dredging on our rivers is happening at all, this is a navigable river that is rapidly silting up, and restricting commercial traffic what it was designed forΒ But do you believe climate change is also partially being affected by humans? Or do you think that we can continue to pollute our atmosphere without any consequences to the climate? Of course we need to keep dredging, that's a no brainer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 14:33:13 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 14:56:13 GMT
Boaters are encouraged to share their knowledge and concerns on the subject of dredging with CaRT via a link on the webpage below. I suggest that subjecting them to a diatribe of expletive, a barrage of anecdote, or indeed to suggest that the prime motivation for dredging is because of a desire for the resumption of commercial traffic on the Trent and Humber, may not be entirely helpful. www.rboa.org.uk/1418-2/Also note that, according to the report on where the budget for flood defence is currently spent, Yorkshire and the north-east is presently the third-largest recipient (refer to page 1 of this thread).
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 2, 2020 15:32:05 GMT
I don't understand why you think a single months freak rain is definitive of the weather pattern when an annual rainfall total 250 years ago isn't. your argumentative stance on this suggests you are a shallow thinker . Climate has always changed, we have been going through one of the longest quiet periods in climate for 10,000 years, did you think it would last for ever ? a heavy rain shower can be a freak.
a month's record rainfall is not a freak - it's definitive of a changing weather pattern.
let's get this clear - do you believe that mankind is not responsible for the changing climate?
are you the 20 denier category, or the snowflake 10 denier variety?
you really do have trouble with joined up thinking don't you "a heavy rain shower can be a freak. a months rainfall is not a freak " ......... but annual rainfall is ? Let's get this clear - do you believe that mankind is totally responsible for the changing climate ? You really are not able to look at things objectively are you
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 2, 2020 15:40:07 GMT
a heavy rain shower can be a freak.
a month's record rainfall is not a freak - it's definitive of a changing weather pattern.
let's get this clear - do you believe that mankind is not responsible for the changing climate?
are you the 20 denier category, or the snowflake 10 denier variety?
you really do have trouble with joined up thinking don't you "a heavy rain shower can be a freak. a months rainfall is not a freak " ......... but annual rainfall is ? Let's get this clear - do you believe that mankind is totally responsible for the changing climate ?
You really are not able to look at things objectively are you any mention of totality in this regard always smacks of denial. ....... do you believe that, because it has not been proven that mankind is totally responsible for climate change, then we should abrogate any responsibility and ignore the issue?
hmm .......... definitely a 10 denier snowflake.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 2, 2020 16:09:43 GMT
I would say regarding the size of the planet, buzzing round the Sun at 170,000 miles per hour, and turning round its own core at 1,000 miles per hour, that humans are really quite small and the little bit of emissions they are making really doesn't even amount to a small hill of beans. So the glaciers are melting? So what? They're not supposed to be there in the first place! How many times does this need to be said? The Poles are supposed to be ice-free when things are normal. It's still cold in Winter (minus 13 C this morning) and still hot in Summer. I bet you 50p people will be going round in short-sleeved shirts in London in August. Prove me wrong!!
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 2, 2020 16:46:41 GMT
you really do have trouble with joined up thinking don't you "a heavy rain shower can be a freak. a months rainfall is not a freak " ......... but annual rainfall is ? Let's get this clear - do you believe that mankind is totally responsible for the changing climate ?
You really are not able to look at things objectively are you any mention of totality in this regard always smacks of denial. ....... do you believe that, because it has not been proven that mankind is totally responsible for climate change, then we should abrogate any responsibility and ignore the issue?
hmm .......... definitely a 10 denier snowflake. Your argument about climate change using recent rain fall is completely flawed, if you are unable to see the glaring inconsistencies then that smacks of fanaticism. eco freaks are demanding that we totally change the whole basis of civilisation overnight without any research into how this change itself will impact on the world. A lot of the changes are round transport where the removal of IC engines from use is the be all and end all without any consideration of the amount of extra pollution that is caused in the manufacture of sufficient vehicles with present technology for early replacement well before their normal lifespan, compared with a sensible phasing in period. There are arguments (backed up by quite convincing evidence) that a proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not human produced but due to the warming of the oceans and the thawing of permafrost. One of the suggestion from this source suggested that the "Humans are to blame group" have got cause and effect reversed and the CO2 level is going up because of the warming and not because of anything else. The main sensible question however is what proportion of the CO2 and methane is due to this remembering that methane is about 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, however just to discuss this possibility which could well point to different actions is not possible while anyone who questions the data that actions are being based on is screamed down as a "denier". There is demand that food production must become "carbon neutral" within a short time frame but no thought seem to being given as to how this is compatible with highe demand for food from a growing population while at the same time reducing the amount of land under agriculture by 25% to allow that to be used for carbon storage. These people are like you, unable to do joined up thinking. This is driving politicians to jump through their hoops, after all there has been very little indication that they are capable of joined up thinking either. On top of this, there has been no thought given to methods of reducing the enormous increase in greenhouse gasses expected due to the increased temperatures. There is a small group in Russia doing their best to show a way to prevent (or at least greatly slow) the loss of the permafrost. They have proved the method on a small scale but are ignored when it comes to the massive work needed for it to be completed on a grand scale. Why is this ? because of idiots that can't think for themselves and will not consider anything that doesn't fit in with their "facts" . They are not bloody facts they are working theories and as such are guaranteed to flawed I will repeat that for the heard of thinking THEY ARE NOT FACTS For any sensible discussion about a scientific subject, however emotive you need to consider and allow full discussion of every theory. Cherry picking of "evidence" to suit a particular theory whilst ignoring anything that doesn't fit should always be challenged.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 2, 2020 17:15:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Mar 2, 2020 17:50:14 GMT
any mention of totality in this regard always smacks of denial. ....... do you believe that, because it has not been proven that mankind is totally responsible for climate change, then we should abrogate any responsibility and ignore the issue?
hmm .......... definitely a 10 denier snowflake. Your argument about climate change using recent rain fall is completely flawed, if you are unable to see the glaring inconsistencies then that smacks of fanaticism. So you don't think the extreme rainfall in February (perhaps to be followed by extremely high temperatures next summer, as we have seen in recent years) represents climate change? eco freaks are demanding that we totally change the whole basis of civilisation overnight without any research into how this change itself will impact on the world. A lot of the changes are round transport where the removal of IC engines from use is the be all and end all without any consideration of the amount of extra pollution that is caused in the manufacture of sufficient vehicles with present technology for early replacement well before their normal lifespan, compared with a sensible phasing in period. Are you making a point? This statement is inconclusive and muddled. Are you saying that new electric vehicles will be replaced before their normal lifespan? Are you saying that building, and operating during their expected lifespan, 1 million new electric vehicles has a larger footprint than doing the same with conventional IC vehicles? Are you saying that existing IC vehicles are being replaced before their normal lifespan - hasn't that always been the case with the current selfish consumable/disposable society? I am not aware of any statistics showing that the introduction of electric vehicles has changed the habits of the throw-away society.There are arguments (backed up by quite convincing evidence) that a proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not human produced but due to the warming of the oceans and the thawing of permafrost. Are you saying that mankind has not contributed to the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Has it occurred to you that the warming of the oceans and the thawing of the permafrost is the direct result of that greenhouse gas? It might appear you are the one not recognising cause and effect.One of the suggestion from this source suggested that the "Humans are to blame group" have got cause and effect reversed and the CO2 level is going up because of the warming and not because of anything else. And you choose to believe a possible loophole? Why? Because it gives you an excuse to bury your head in the sand?The main sensible question however is what proportion of the CO2 and methane is due to this remembering that methane is about 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, however just to discuss this possibility which could well point to different actions is not possible while anyone who questions the data that actions are being based on is screamed down as a "denier". Your question and statement are superfluous. All climate change campaigners are fully aware that the production of, for example, beef cattle is a very significant source of greenhouse gas. Why do suggest otherwise?There is demand that food production must become "carbon neutral" within a short time frame but no thought seem to being given as to how this is compatible with highe demand for food from a growing population while at the same time reducing the amount of land under agriculture by 25% to allow that to be used for carbon storage. Are you unaware that the reduction of the human population is well understood by many leading campaigners (and by myself - see previous threads) is the most significant measure that should be taken to control and hopefully reverse the deteriorating situation?
These people are like you, unable to do joined up thinking. What people? All the climate change campaigners? That is a nonsense statement based on invalid preconceptions about those people. It suggests that only you know the facts, the causes and the effects. Where on earth did you get that superior and deaf-blind attitude?
This is driving politicians to jump through their hoops, after all there has been very little indication that they are capable of joined up thinking either. On top of this, there has been no thought given to methods of reducing the enormous increase in greenhouse gasses expected due to the increased temperatures. There is a small group in Russia doing their best to show a way to prevent (or at least greatly slow) the loss of the permafrost. They have proved the method on a small scale but are ignored when it comes to the massive work needed for it to be completed on a grand scale. Why is this ? because of idiots that can't think for themselves and will not consider anything that doesn't fit in with their "facts" . Perhaps because removing the cause is more efficaceous than playing around with possible mitigation measures.
They are not bloody facts they are working theories and as such are guaranteed to flawed I will repeat that for the heard of thinking THEY ARE NOT FACTS What are not facts? Are you in favour of doing nothing until the 'facts' have been established beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. until the situation has become irreversible)?
For any sensible discussion about a scientific subject, however emotive you need to consider and allow full discussion of every theory. Cherry picking of "evidence" to suit a particular theory whilst ignoring anything that doesn't fit should always be challenged. For God's sake - who is doing the cherry picking? Try looking in the mirror.If you have grandchildren I hope you are ready to apologise to them for standing aside while watching the planet they live on, and which represents their future, being transformed into a relative wasteland of extreme climates and growing extinctions of wildlife.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 2, 2020 17:53:27 GMT
the lesson to be learned is that it is usually a waste of time fighting nature.
the only sustainable solutions are those that work WITH nature.
intelligent civil engineers know this. A great many of England's rivers have, at some time in their past, been subject to extensive improvements in order to make them navigable for increasingly larger and deeper draughted vessels, . . the Thames, the Severn, the Mersey, the Weaver, the Trent, the (Yorkshire) Ouse, the Don, the Nene, and the Great Ouse, to name but a few of them. Prior to the improvements, when they were still exactly as 'nature' had made them, navigation was all but impossible for anything but shallow flat bottomed boats of very limited carrying capacity. A beneficial side-effect of these rivers being improved for navigation, was the improvement in their ability to contribute hugely to draining the land through which they ran. How would you classify and describe the extensive dredging which was essential to all these past improvements, and the works carried out on modifying the river channel's cross-sectional areas as and where necessary, . . working with 'nature', or 'fighting' it ? Bodger just might lend a little credibility to his borrowed arguments were he to answer the above question - posted yesterday on page 17 - instead of trying to divert attention from the nominated subject of this thread and onto climate change instead ! The question of climate change is something of an irrelevance, . . the human race can't do anything which will have an immediate and noticeable effect on it. Dredging out shoaling areas of rivers, on the other hand, is something over which we have total and immediate control, and it's beneficial effects can be enjoyed shortly after the next Atlantic storm front arrives over our shores.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 2, 2020 18:02:24 GMT
Your argument about climate change using recent rain fall is completely flawed, if you are unable to see the glaring inconsistencies then that smacks of fanaticism. So you don't think the extreme rainfall in February (perhaps to be followed by extremely high temperatures next summer, as we have seen in recent years) represents climate change? eco freaks are demanding that we totally change the whole basis of civilisation overnight without any research into how this change itself will impact on the world. A lot of the changes are round transport where the removal of IC engines from use is the be all and end all without any consideration of the amount of extra pollution that is caused in the manufacture of sufficient vehicles with present technology for early replacement well before their normal lifespan, compared with a sensible phasing in period. Are you making a point? This statement is inconclusive and muddled. Are you saying that new electric vehicles will be replaced before their normal lifespan? Are you saying that building, and operating during their expected lifespan, 1 million new electric vehicles has a larger footprint than doing the same with conventional IC vehicles? Are you saying that existing IC vehicles are being replaced before their normal lifespan - hasn't that always been the case with the current selfish consumable/disposable society? I am not aware of any statistics showing that the introduction of electric vehicles has changed the habits of the throw-away society.There are arguments (backed up by quite convincing evidence) that a proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not human produced but due to the warming of the oceans and the thawing of permafrost. Are you saying that mankind has not contributed to the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Has it occurred to you that the warming of the oceans and the thawing of the permafrost is the direct result of that greenhouse gas? It might appear you are the one not recognising cause and effect.One of the suggestion from this source suggested that the "Humans are to blame group" have got cause and effect reversed and the CO2 level is going up because of the warming and not because of anything else. And you choose to believe a possible loophole? Why? Because it gives you an excuse to bury your head in the sand?The main sensible question however is what proportion of the CO2 and methane is due to this remembering that methane is about 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, however just to discuss this possibility which could well point to different actions is not possible while anyone who questions the data that actions are being based on is screamed down as a "denier". Your question and statement are superfluous. All climate change campaigners are fully aware that the production of, for example, beef cattle is a very significant source of greenhouse gas. Why do suggest otherwise?There is demand that food production must become "carbon neutral" within a short time frame but no thought seem to being given as to how this is compatible with highe demand for food from a growing population while at the same time reducing the amount of land under agriculture by 25% to allow that to be used for carbon storage. Are you unaware that the reduction of the human population is well understood by many leading campaigners (and by myself - see previous threads) is the most significant measure that should be taken to control and hopefully reverse the deteriorating situation?
These people are like you, unable to do joined up thinking. What people? All the climate change campaigners? That is a nonsense statement based on invalid preconceptions about those people. It suggests that only you know the facts, the causes and the effects. Where on earth did you get that superior and deaf-blind attitude?
This is driving politicians to jump through their hoops, after all there has been very little indication that they are capable of joined up thinking either. On top of this, there has been no thought given to methods of reducing the enormous increase in greenhouse gasses expected due to the increased temperatures. There is a small group in Russia doing their best to show a way to prevent (or at least greatly slow) the loss of the permafrost. They have proved the method on a small scale but are ignored when it comes to the massive work needed for it to be completed on a grand scale. Why is this ? because of idiots that can't think for themselves and will not consider anything that doesn't fit in with their "facts" . Perhaps because removing the cause is more efficaceous than playing around with possible mitigation measures.
They are not bloody facts they are working theories and as such are guaranteed to flawed I will repeat that for the heard of thinking THEY ARE NOT FACTS What are not facts? Are you in favour of doing nothing until the 'facts' have been established beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. until the situation has become irreversible)?
For any sensible discussion about a scientific subject, however emotive you need to consider and allow full discussion of every theory. Cherry picking of "evidence" to suit a particular theory whilst ignoring anything that doesn't fit should always be challenged. For God's sake - who is doing the cherry picking? Try looking in the mirror.If you have grandchildren I hope you are ready to apologise to them for standing aside while watching the planet they live on, and which represents their future, being transformed into a relative wasteland of extreme climates and growing extinctions of wildlife. What shall we deal with first? President Erdogan says 'MILLIONS' of migrants will head to Europe and the continent must share the migrant 'burden' after opening Turkey's borders, as Greeks say they fear 'invasion' "Maybe Lineker and cry me a river Allen will go out there and offer to house them at their place." "Send them to George Cloony's home. He and his wife have plenty of room." www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8064715/Greeks-fear-influx-migrants-thousands-clashed-police.html#reader-comments
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 2, 2020 19:09:25 GMT
Your argument about climate change using recent rain fall is completely flawed, if you are unable to see the glaring inconsistencies then that smacks of fanaticism. So you don't think the extreme rainfall in February (perhaps to be followed by extremely high temperatures next summer, as we have seen in recent years) represents climate change? eco freaks are demanding that we totally change the whole basis of civilisation overnight without any research into how this change itself will impact on the world. A lot of the changes are round transport where the removal of IC engines from use is the be all and end all without any consideration of the amount of extra pollution that is caused in the manufacture of sufficient vehicles with present technology for early replacement well before their normal lifespan, compared with a sensible phasing in period. Are you making a point? This statement is inconclusive and muddled. Are you saying that new electric vehicles will be replaced before their normal lifespan? Are you saying that building, and operating during their expected lifespan, 1 million new electric vehicles has a larger footprint than doing the same with conventional IC vehicles? Are you saying that existing IC vehicles are being replaced before their normal lifespan - hasn't that always been the case with the current selfish consumable/disposable society? I am not aware of any statistics showing that the introduction of electric vehicles has changed the habits of the throw-away society.There are arguments (backed up by quite convincing evidence) that a proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is not human produced but due to the warming of the oceans and the thawing of permafrost. Are you saying that mankind has not contributed to the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Has it occurred to you that the warming of the oceans and the thawing of the permafrost is the direct result of that greenhouse gas? It might appear you are the one not recognising cause and effect.One of the suggestion from this source suggested that the "Humans are to blame group" have got cause and effect reversed and the CO2 level is going up because of the warming and not because of anything else. And you choose to believe a possible loophole? Why? Because it gives you an excuse to bury your head in the sand?The main sensible question however is what proportion of the CO2 and methane is due to this remembering that methane is about 20 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, however just to discuss this possibility which could well point to different actions is not possible while anyone who questions the data that actions are being based on is screamed down as a "denier". Your question and statement are superfluous. All climate change campaigners are fully aware that the production of, for example, beef cattle is a very significant source of greenhouse gas. Why do suggest otherwise?There is demand that food production must become "carbon neutral" within a short time frame but no thought seem to being given as to how this is compatible with highe demand for food from a growing population while at the same time reducing the amount of land under agriculture by 25% to allow that to be used for carbon storage. Are you unaware that the reduction of the human population is well understood by many leading campaigners (and by myself - see previous threads) is the most significant measure that should be taken to control and hopefully reverse the deteriorating situation?
These people are like you, unable to do joined up thinking. What people? All the climate change campaigners? That is a nonsense statement based on invalid preconceptions about those people. It suggests that only you know the facts, the causes and the effects. Where on earth did you get that superior and deaf-blind attitude?
This is driving politicians to jump through their hoops, after all there has been very little indication that they are capable of joined up thinking either. On top of this, there has been no thought given to methods of reducing the enormous increase in greenhouse gasses expected due to the increased temperatures. There is a small group in Russia doing their best to show a way to prevent (or at least greatly slow) the loss of the permafrost. They have proved the method on a small scale but are ignored when it comes to the massive work needed for it to be completed on a grand scale. Why is this ? because of idiots that can't think for themselves and will not consider anything that doesn't fit in with their "facts" . Perhaps because removing the cause is more efficaceous than playing around with possible mitigation measures.
They are not bloody facts they are working theories and as such are guaranteed to flawed I will repeat that for the heard of thinking THEY ARE NOT FACTS What are not facts? Are you in favour of doing nothing until the 'facts' have been established beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. until the situation has become irreversible)?
For any sensible discussion about a scientific subject, however emotive you need to consider and allow full discussion of every theory. Cherry picking of "evidence" to suit a particular theory whilst ignoring anything that doesn't fit should always be challenged. For God's sake - who is doing the cherry picking? Try looking in the mirror.If you have grandchildren I hope you are ready to apologise to them for standing aside while watching the planet they live on, and which represents their future, being transformed into a relative wasteland of extreme climates and growing extinctions of wildlife. you still don't get it do you ...... an extraordinary wet month is not proof of anything except an extraordinary wet month
as regards your other ridiculous insertions into my post ...... read what is written and not what your fevered imagination thinks it says. You obviously believe in "group think" and are unable to comprehend that other people may hold views that do not accord with your ideas. I do hope you are not religious because your attitude is exactly that of a religious fanatic
typical of your inane comments is the one "perhaps because removing the cause is more efficaceous (sic) than playing around with possible mitigation methods" you think banning ic engines will reverse the temperature increase, whatever caused it ? If you accept the idea that greenhouse gasses cause warming then when you consider there is the equivalent of 700 gigatons of C02 that will be released by permafrost melting ........ maybe mitigation might be sensible ?
A
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 19:17:15 GMT
|
|