Extreme weather?

[observer]

Getting back to the immediate and the "floods";   seems everyone has identified the obvious - "don't build in the flood plain", but I've yet to hear it from a politician. Neither have they come up with pragmatic solutions to extreme weather events in the future, such as the way we build, how we enhance natural drainage by planting trees in upland areas, or create more reservoirs thus saving all this water for periods of dry weather; all of which will need to be incorporated into planning legislation and infrastructure programmes.

[Davy51]

Well Obs ,over the years we 've had an explosion of water use but we don't seem to have seen any more reservoirs built ,but what better way to prevent flooding than  to catch the water at strategic places & store it for times of drought.

[observer]

The other aspect to this crisis, will be the effect on insurance premiums. Will they increase the premiums according to risk levels, or will they increase them for all of us?

[Bazj]

I wouldn't have any dog in a house with babies..... ever.

 

Don't know about banning smoking in cars with kids; I think there is more evidence that having a dog in a house with a baby is far more dangerous and far more fatal... Maybe dogs and baies in the same house should be made illegal

[Bazj]

oops...posted that in the wrong bit and it won't allow me to edit or remove!!

 

[Davy51]

You would think the insurance companies would be pushing the government to prevent weather related claims by working along with it to find long term solutions to areas of regular flooding .Joint efforts  could save  £ millions & stop a lot of misery to house occupants.

[Robbo]

.. Maybe dogs and baies in the same house should be made illegal

especially if it's flooded.

[Dizzy]

:lol:  No point in me deleting your accidental post for you now Baz

[Dizzy]

Re all the flooding... one possitive is that it's creating a lot of work and jobs for people like builders, electricians, plasteres............ etc etc etc,  so there are some people happy about it

[observer]

IF the Government embark on a massive infrastructure building programme,  to ensure we start using rainfall to our advantage, it'll create even more jobs.

[Dizzy]

Maybe but then again all the cheaper foreign 'workforce' would probably be employed to built it ha ha.....  thought I'd say it before you did   

So back to where you were and no more mention of that eh

[observer]

It may be the case, that having provided work for all OUR youngsters, we would have to import some labour, providing it was on a temporary basis !  No problem with temporary visas for specific skills.  As for as infrastructure is concerned, we need some imagination and planning. Remember the last draught in the S/East, when the reservoirs were dry; and we talked about a network of canals or pipelines to transfer water throughout the Country? Also the need to store it with more reservoirs, providing recreation and nature conservation. A system of land excavation and land form would help us to manage our rainfall. Hydro-electric and tidal power schemes would contribute to our energy supply, whilst providing flood barriers across our estuaries. Not cheap of course, but maybe we could borrow from the same source as the Chinese ! But with full employment, all paying tax and spending in the high streets, we may get out of our current hole.

[Lt Kije]

Hydro???? In England, not that many places you could put hydro, and those places are not near that many population centres where the power is needed.

[Evil Sid]

But power is "brought over" from europe via power lines, so where the hydro generators are situated would not really make that much of a difference should it?

 

After all we get the power form the wind farms off the coast and they must be a fair distance from population centres, unless you count fish as population.

 

Building a dam is costly but after that the water is "free" and it provides a measure of flood control for the lower lying areas.

[observer]

Think his line of work, gives him an "interest" Sid !  Instead of the usual "British" habit of endless talking about doing something; perhaps time for some short cuts to the planning process are required to actually make a start.  A comprehensive flood avoidance and water management plan, will involve some losers, as some areas will need to be sacrificed for storage/catchment etc; so some really hard decisions, IF they ever get round to doing something.

[Sha]

Well! despite the weather this thread has been warming up!

 

Firstly Kije, you seem to have been somewhat irked by my last post. That was not my intention I merely disagreed with your viewpoint. There have been a variety of viewpoints expressed in this thread and very intelligently so, which is what forms the basis of a good debate - if we all agreed what would be the point of a debate in the first place? 

 

Perhaps it was the suggestion I made that perhaps you were linked to the nuclear industry and thus have a biased view? Ob's subsequent post leads me to think my guess might be correct - if this is so why don't you just be open about it and explain your stance with facts. You obviously believe nuclear is the way forward I don't.

I believe it is dangerous, results in waste which is dangerous and remains dangerous for future generations. I think the push for world nuclear power is nothing more than a push for power full stop - it's a battle for world dominance. I also believe that the 'global warming' issue is being used to scare people who would otherwise rebel against nuclear to accept it - and that all the 'think about the futures of your children and grandchildren' is entirely misleading - I doubt those affected by Chernobyl and Fukushima would be taken in by such! 

 

Another point, the recent wars are linked to the world nuclear quest. Iraq, Korea and Syria are countries named as 'possibly needing to be dealt with' in govt documents dated from before any obvious conflict began.

 

Like I said in my original post Kije, I believe that you actually believe that nuclear will bring a 'brighter cleaner future' so my criticism of the nuclear industry is not a criticism of you personally. I would just be interested to know WHY you hold that view.

[Lt Kije]

Not irked at all Sha, I just disagreed with you. Just because I am the only one who has a counter view does not make me wrong, Yes governments have been known to get it wrong, but it is a fact that more and more scientists are coming to believe in mans involvement in global warming, if we do nothing, we will leave it to late to do anything, so in the balance of probabilities we should try to do something, while we still can. As I have said before when I leave this planet I would like their to be as many species on it as when I arrived, so that my Children and my children's children can enjoy seeing them in the wild and not just in the pages of a book. Perhaps you should open your mind a little, most western governments have woken up to it and even the Chinese are waking up to it, if your right and it's a conspiracy, it's one hell of a one as it's managed to bring World governments together in a way they have never done before, all to get one over on their respective populations,. Well really

[Sha]

And now I must reply to Asperity!

You suggest Asp that I "really need to do some research" you doubt my research skills?

Actually Asp my research skills are of a very good standard.

 

Re global warming and your 'suggested reading' - may I suggest that you do not confine your reading to just the actual texts but extend your research to the authors in question.

Richard North and Christopher Booker - altogether a sorry pair, well noted for their biased views and the petty reasons for their bias. North rejected by the Conservatives now has links to UKIP. How they qualify their 'expertise' is hard to see but it appears they have been greatly influenced by Robert Zubrin author of Merchant's of Despair.

 

Robert Zubrin - BA Mathematics, MS Nuclear Engineering, MS Aeronautics & Astronautics, PHD Nuclear Engineering. Member of the Mars Society. A very well educated and obviously intelligent man and a man with great ambition and a mission! - which is to progress his Mars project and having been refused funding from the oil industry linked US Govt is relying on private sources of funding - not much doubt where he hopes to get the £££s from. So it appears he has a very biased standpoint and stands to gain from publishing his views.

 Racheal Carson author of Silent Spring - Marine Biologist. 

Carson first wrote Silent Spring as an article for a science journal, who noting the controversy of the content refused to publish it.  Determined to get her point across she took the only route possible and published it as a book. Granted she must have made some £££s as it proved a best seller but she was not to know it would turn out to be so successful and her original motive was not driven by material concerns. 

 

Now something to consider about the facts;

As has already been pointed out by another (well informed) poster DDT was not banned for mosquito control. The use of DDT  in agriculture for pest control actually led to pests building immunity to insecticide and thus the need for ever increasing doses. DDT did not kill just pests it wiped out beneficial insects and insects that preyed on pests and it upset the natural balance of nature so badly that even today and for years in the future we will be paying to attempt to remedy the damage. Also DDT is harmful to mammals and humans.

 

Re BSE. Asp you say the dangers from this were 'stupendously overhyped'.

One of the main scientists expressing concern over feeding cows with sheep carcases infected with scrapie and the transmission of the prion to humans ie CJD was Dr Richard Lacey of the WHO.  The reason Dr Lacey is recognised as a world authority on this subject is because he is not only qualified in medicine he also has a PhD in Clinical Microbiology - quite an unusual combination of qualifications, due to a career change earlier in life, which means he has a far deeper understanding of both the cause and effects of CJD. He was almost ruined by the establishment for going public with his concerns but luckily for humankind he stuck to his guns and eventually they had to admit he was in fact right.

As for you saying the concerns were 'stupendously overhyped' quite a number of people have already died of CJD, these being largely people who were infected by blood products. The incubation period for CJD contracted from food is believed to be 20 to 30 years so it hasn't really started yet!  Also, the symptoms resemble dementia so there is the possibility that there are unrecorded cases.

As with the outbreak of this disease the full facts are probably being kept from the general public - sometimes I wonder if allowing massive immigration and ploughing money into training doctors to recognise dementia symptoms and opening dementia units all over the country are linked with a fear that the full effects of CJD are still to come. (Dementia after all is NOT a natural part of the aging process and is believed to be linked to environment issues - using aluminium pans etc so should be expected to be declining) 

 

And from that last paragraph you can see that my confidence in the 'establishment' is pure zilch - due to the continual lies, deceit and corruption of politicians and govt bodies it's not hard to see why there is no trust and why 'scare stories' start - and sadly they often turn out to be true.                   

[Sha]

Well Kije, I'm glad you were not irked by my post as I  had made an effort to be polite knowing that I was disagreeing with your deeply held beliefs. However I was somewhat irked by your post. How arrogant of you to suggest I need to 'open my mind a little'. So as you are not inclined to reciprocate politeness in replying to me I shall cease the walking on eggshells stance.

 

Quite frankly I think your posts are merely biased bluster. You suggest I 'open my mind' might I suggest that you try and focus yours! You don't even seem able to read and digest what other people have written. Earlier on you were blathering on about the forum not being representative of the population as a whole - who suggested it was? I had begun my early post with 'of all those posting on this topic' so I wasn't even suggesting a representation of members of the forum let alone the countries or world's population!

 

You say "just because I am the only one who has a counter view does not make me wrong". No it doesn't - but it doesn't make you right either and if you read the other's posts properly you would see that the posters on here are individuals with individual views and that a variety of information has been put forward. Your own input being merely a repetition of what you regard as 'established fact' from scientists, Govt bodies and even the Met office - good grief!

 

In your last post you state; "but it is a fact that more and more scientists are coming to believe in man's involvement in global warming". Can you actually qualify that so called fact? because various other sources say that more and more scientists are signing petitions to dispute that assertion. Also what scientists are we talking about? govt employed or individuals? what field of science are they qualified in? etc.  Personally I'd value the opinion of one honest scientist as opposed to hundreds of funding chasing lackeys, and regarding global warming, I doubt that there is a scientist alive that can actually prove their theory either one way or the other.

 

You concede; "Yes governments have been known to get it wrong"  Well that's a bit of an understatement isn't it!!! - and what about the downright lies, deceit and corruption? Are you oblivious to what has been going on in the world?

 

You say, "most western governments have woken up to it and even the Chinese are waking up to it, if your right and it's a conspiracy it's one hell of a one as it's managed to bring World governments together in a way they have never done before, all to get one over on their respective populations. Well really!"

 

Most western govts and the US stand to gain a great deal if nuclear takes the place of oil as a power source. They won't have to buy it from the eastern nations, the east will lose a source of income and thus the west will become richer and more powerful. The Chinese (and India/Pakistan) who incidentally are sitting on the world's greatest sources of Thorium will be only too pleased for the great change in their fortunes.(but in your field of work you'd know that wouldn't you)

 

As for it managing to "bring World governments together" it will bring some together but also cause some dangerous divisions. Do you really expect the Arabs, the Africans, the Russians etc to just sit back and take being knocked back in the pecking order? There will be war and war and war.....

 

As for it being "all to get one over on their respective populations" where do you get that from?

The object seems to be to get the wealth and power of the world into the hands of a very few,- governments and their self seeking ministers are merely the well rewarded lackeys. We the people (of all nations) and our lives, mean nothing to any of them.

 

Lastly, why are you so evasive? you never actually answer questions put to you. Why don't you just come out of the closet so to speak, admit your bias and rationally explain your viewpoint?

,If you can't do that then at least refrain from the emotional blackmail.."children's children" line. You are not the only person who would genuinely want safe, happy and healthy lives for future generations I believe everyone on this forum and most people on the planet want that, but differ in their ideas of how to best achieve it.                

[Evil Sid]

Basically it comes down to two questions which can be answered quite easily.

 

1) Is the climate of the earth changing?

 

   Yes, every minute of every day the climate changes in some way and has done since the Creation (be it biblical or natural, no views either way due to insufficient proof )

 

2) Is mankind responsible for the change in the climate?

 

    Yes,No,Maybe. Due to the length of time between extremes of climate change it is not easy to point to any one incident and say or certain that is the reason and it was caused by mankind.

 

A lot of effort has gone into reducing the CO2 emmissions of cars, catalytic converters, more efficient engines, electric cars and such. It has got so that the avergae family car now produces less CO2 than the average family does by breathing (assuming a family of four having one car the family produces twice as much CO2 than the car)

Electronic equipment such as TV's are more energy efficient using less than they did even five years ago. There is no saving there though as most families now have more than one TV per household so any saving is nullified by numbers.

 

As usual it comes down to selfishness in a way. we all want to be comfortable and we all want to survive, no doubt the dinosaurs and others of the like wanted the same but one of the main consequences of life is that nobody gets out of it alive.

On the whole no matter what happens in the future the earth will survive, whether mankind will be around in a few billion years to see that will be another matter.

[Lt Kije]

Sha, I am in my way to work and will come back to properly later.

 

America does not need to buy oil from the East as you say, it has it's own, it is very much in Americas intrest to keep oil, I think you have forgot that oil is traded in $, which forces Country's to buy $, this enables America to have a very large defence budget amounts other things, in fact when Iraq declared in was going to start selling oil in euros it was invaded 8 months later. And guess what the very first thing America did on reaching the capital?, you've got it the changed it back to the $.

 

I hope in this short reply I have damaged your theory sufficiently for you to have a rethink. It is not in Americas interest for Country's to stop buying oil, far from it. Have alook at the other advantages America gains from oil being traded in $.

 

More importantly, I apologise that my last post irked you

[observer]

With 7 billion of us on this tiny planet, all wanting "a better life"; resources of all kinds will be consumed at ever increasing rates, and competition for such resources will inevitably lead to conflict - it's our nature.  Who are we to dictate how third world countries should behave?  They want what we've got/had, and if that means industrialisation and pollution, I'm afraid it will happen. So our attempts to reduce pollution, are a bit like a guy in a smoker's hut, giving up smoking. imo it doesn't really matter if there is any substance in "man made" climate change theory, as it's already happening, and the idea that we can reverse it, is rather arrogant, and even if possible, would take centuries. We are where we are, and our responsibility is to adapt to the changes, as our species has done throughout it's existence. The secret is, to create added value from the changes we make, turning the disadvantage of increases in rainfall to our advantage, by some imaginative and ambitious infrastructure programmes.

[Evil Sid]

Or build an ark

[observer]

They would have to go out to consultation first Sid!

[algy]

With 7 billion of us on this tiny planet, all wanting "a better life"; resources of all kinds will be consumed at ever increasing rates, and competition for such resources will inevitably lead to conflict - it's our nature.  Who are we to dictate how third world countries should behave?  They want what we've got/had, and if that means industrialisation and pollution, I'm afraid it will happen. So our attempts to reduce pollution, are a bit like a guy in a smoker's hut, giving up smoking. imo it doesn't really matter if there is any substance in "man made" climate change theory, as it's already happening, and the idea that we can reverse it, is rather arrogant, and even if possible, would take centuries. We are where we are, and our responsibility is to adapt to the changes, as our species has done throughout it's existence. The secret is, to create added value from the changes we make, turning the disadvantage of increases in rainfall to our advantage, by some imaginative and ambitious infrastructure programmes.

I see three major setbacks to what you propose obs: it is - fair, sensible and logical, and those three factors go against the principles of all world leaders!.