Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Off-Topic
General Chat
Saving the planet
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oldvatr" data-source="post: 2228596" data-attributes="member: 196898"><p>I do not comment as you requested since I do not think it will add anything useful to the discussion. Certainly when I look back to my own experience in the 50's and 60's I remember that storms were more violent and damaging, the winters were more severe with truckers lighting fires under their petrol tanks just to unfreeze the diesel, and summers being drier,longer, and with more thunderstorms to end the day with.</p><p></p><p>I agree that the climate is not the same now, and seems remarkably mild and temperate compared to then. What I do see is that mankind has taken their eye off the ball by building towns and housing on floodplain and overspill areas, have stopped using weirs and sluices, and added field drainage and removed trees and hedgerows that increases the volume of water buildup. Also in towns more water is piped into sewers and storm drains without sumps, and so we are making flooding more likely than the old fashioned ways where the bailiffs managed the water table more effectively. For instance where I live we had severe flooding a few years ago because the river had silted up after they scrapped the dredgers, and they demolished the old pumphouse network that kept the water table low, and they stopped cutting overhanging trees and vegetation so the culverts and dykes blocked up and stopped draining properly. Since then some action was taken and there was no sign of flooding at all these last few years.</p><p></p><p>Now we give every little low depression a name, and the Met Office says its a storm because that is fashionable but does not necessarily mean it is justified. I remember the house shaking, chimney pots coming down in the street and slates and tiles coming adrift. This year the wind hardly made a noise down the chimney and my plastic garden furniture remained untouched. I remember prople losing garden sheds and garden walls in some storms.</p><p></p><p>I have seen a lot of dubious science being used to justify the current panic, and I do not believe everything I read, Especially if it goes against basic science tenets. We do need to change things, and waste less and use resources more intelligently. But we are being driven down a path of no return in the next 10 years, and we need to be making decisions that are not going to be regretted in 11 years time. Even a simple solution like banning petrol and diesel engined vehicles is nonsense at the moment since we do not have the electrical grid and infrastructure to support it, and then if we remove gas and nuclear generating ststions as is being mooted by Greta & Co, then do we replace with biomass stations instead? They are less efficient, and still belch CO2 and NOX and particulates into the air, so apart from being renewable, it is not the solutuion to save the planet.</p><p></p><p>It has been estimated that to replace the trees that are being logged out / burnt/ deforested then every citizen in the UK will need to plant 160 trees just to stand still. To make any inroads into the MT of CO2 that we have released since the 1850's then that is a major undertaking on top. Words are cheap, but actions to back them up will be shown to be sadly inadequate, Bur we will have killed off the livestock farms to plant biomass and the landowners will get rich doing so. All because of some doubtful science.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oldvatr, post: 2228596, member: 196898"] I do not comment as you requested since I do not think it will add anything useful to the discussion. Certainly when I look back to my own experience in the 50's and 60's I remember that storms were more violent and damaging, the winters were more severe with truckers lighting fires under their petrol tanks just to unfreeze the diesel, and summers being drier,longer, and with more thunderstorms to end the day with. I agree that the climate is not the same now, and seems remarkably mild and temperate compared to then. What I do see is that mankind has taken their eye off the ball by building towns and housing on floodplain and overspill areas, have stopped using weirs and sluices, and added field drainage and removed trees and hedgerows that increases the volume of water buildup. Also in towns more water is piped into sewers and storm drains without sumps, and so we are making flooding more likely than the old fashioned ways where the bailiffs managed the water table more effectively. For instance where I live we had severe flooding a few years ago because the river had silted up after they scrapped the dredgers, and they demolished the old pumphouse network that kept the water table low, and they stopped cutting overhanging trees and vegetation so the culverts and dykes blocked up and stopped draining properly. Since then some action was taken and there was no sign of flooding at all these last few years. Now we give every little low depression a name, and the Met Office says its a storm because that is fashionable but does not necessarily mean it is justified. I remember the house shaking, chimney pots coming down in the street and slates and tiles coming adrift. This year the wind hardly made a noise down the chimney and my plastic garden furniture remained untouched. I remember prople losing garden sheds and garden walls in some storms. I have seen a lot of dubious science being used to justify the current panic, and I do not believe everything I read, Especially if it goes against basic science tenets. We do need to change things, and waste less and use resources more intelligently. But we are being driven down a path of no return in the next 10 years, and we need to be making decisions that are not going to be regretted in 11 years time. Even a simple solution like banning petrol and diesel engined vehicles is nonsense at the moment since we do not have the electrical grid and infrastructure to support it, and then if we remove gas and nuclear generating ststions as is being mooted by Greta & Co, then do we replace with biomass stations instead? They are less efficient, and still belch CO2 and NOX and particulates into the air, so apart from being renewable, it is not the solutuion to save the planet. It has been estimated that to replace the trees that are being logged out / burnt/ deforested then every citizen in the UK will need to plant 160 trees just to stand still. To make any inroads into the MT of CO2 that we have released since the 1850's then that is a major undertaking on top. Words are cheap, but actions to back them up will be shown to be sadly inadequate, Bur we will have killed off the livestock farms to plant biomass and the landowners will get rich doing so. All because of some doubtful science. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Off-Topic
General Chat
Saving the planet
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…