Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Science based economy


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 211 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 16:25:33 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jul 2012 16:30:42 BDT
Lessfatman says:
I tried to make a point that there are more than one different processes going on there.

First one is the increase of the amount of sea water which seems to be well documented and amounts to the estimated 0.5 to 3 mm per year globally. The most important reason behind it is global rewarming. Water dilates as it warms up. The increase in volume shows up in meticulous studies that you can look up from the link I posted above. Contrary to what you said, I have no reason to believe that the researchers are lining their pockets with black money or publishing their results to get famous. Cheap.

The second one is the vertical movement of the tectonic plates. The effect of this can clearly be seen in the Scandinavian countries where the earth is rising. This is nothing new, I was told about it when I was in school nearly five decades ago. In other regions, as in the south of England, the tectonic plate is sinking. To a casual observer this looks as if water is rising but it is doing so only relative to the plate.

Still another thing is the climatic change that according to some scientists causes violent storms, such as we have been witnessing in Europe during the last decade. I have no opinion about whether there is a causal relationship there, I just do not know enough.

I do not think that overpopulation is causing changes in the volume of sea water.
It is still another issue that should be tackled. It seems that you are completely ignorant about the subject but it is not my problem. The figures are scary and their practical consequences do not go away even if I look elsewhere.

I am working on my ignorance, I suggest you do the same.
A good starting point would be your reading skills, they are hampered by your selective blindness.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 16:29:56 BDT
Lessfatman says:
Simon, if Balaam's Donkey would be posting on this forum, he'd look like Albert Einstein next to you.
It is very considerate of you making people feel smart at your own expense...

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 16:32:18 BDT
Dear Tubby.....the Fount is a Malmat...it's a joy....a true pleasure....I can only apologise for not making you appear smarter....however miracles are still beyond me.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 16:40:49 BDT
Lessfatman says:
I appreciate the effort.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 17:34:43 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
Fatman,
If you could clarify what you meant in the sentence below then it would clear up my supposed misinterpretation of it,

`What REALLY bugs me is the guys who sell good conscience to ignorant audiences with ecocatastrophies as their main theme.'

The second point I would like to clarify is I don't have any interest in population growth and the perceived repercussions at all as I don't think overpopulation is the issue more a fairer distribution of resources to combat food and shelter issues.
My reading skills are very selective btw as I pretty much know by now at age 46 what I like and don't like to read which means I very rarely read the Daily Mail or The Economist for example.
Furthermore I read between the lines on anything I do read, something one poster in particular on here has great difficulty in distinguishing from taking things at face value!

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 17:36:24 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
David Groom,

You still haven't provided any evidence to substantiate what you keep writing on this thread nor is there any intellectual or sensible replies to my questions,

Therefore I'm afraid it is time to call it a day with you as you are now bracketed with Bert Einstein, and I have no desire or the time to reply to a silly old man who resorts to calling people unintelligent to mask his own inadequacies at being unable to field logical replies to myself and Ms Thoday amongst others.

As I stated earlier in the thread I expect one or two unsophisticated acolytes of yours to appear and squeak their disapproval at my post shortly - my pleasure!

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 18:03:50 BDT
Defenceman says:
Dav45,

You have become as tiresome as Bert with your incessant demands for that which I have already provided. He's always demanding more evidence, and when it's provided asks for yet more, so I think I'll bow out of any further debate with you. But as a passing shot, you do Ms Thoday a great disservice if you bracket your own capabilities with hers!

If, by unsophisticated acolytes, you mean people who can recognise that your bluster masks a failed argument, then I guess you may be right. Well have to see.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 18:37:51 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jul 2012 18:55:02 BDT
Lessfatman says:
You do read things in my postings that weren't there.
I never accused the researchers of denying the sea level rise. You put the words in my mouth.

If we are dreaming about a science-based economy without including the amount of population to be fed in the equations, we might as well stop calculating. You do see China and India industrializing and trying to achieve the same standard of living as the 1st world countries, don't you? Did you ever stop to think what that would mean in the need of arable land or carbon dioxide levels or the pressure of people trying to get to the green branch in the industrialized countries, yours and mine?

Do you realize what the so-called humanitarian help is doing to the ratio of resources / size of the population to be fed?

I do agree that redistribution would be of advantage at a short time range.
Only that the industrialized countries are exporting their ecological problems to the 3rd world where people have very little concern for sustainable growth. They are fighting for their lives and our industry is taking advantage. WE are taking advantage.

I see no political will that would change this as everybody is looking after his/her immediate gratification.
No leader with "hey guys, you earn enough, let's share with the Bangladeshis" would ever win an election.
There are other factors that are related to the maturity of the economical thinking outside of some selected 1st world countries. Ecology as a science is a recent newcomer, unfortunately tainted with well-meaning airheads who have done more harm than good to an issue that is becoming a question of life and death to an increasing amount of people all over the world.

It is your choice to read or not to read the articles I quote.
Between the lines you may project what you please. With or without my consent.

PS. I do not see hybride cars as a solution to the greenhouse phenomenon, even though their commercials are trying to convince us of the opposite.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 20:06:14 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
David Groom,

'But as a passing shot, you do Ms Thoday a great disservice if you bracket your own capabilities with hers!'

So at last you have admitted you were out of your depth debating the banking system with M T!
Instead of bowing out gracefully though you also resorted to accusing her of hurling insults at you and used that as an excuse to scamper off,
End of story thank goodness - At least I wont have you any more trying to score cheap points on my use of wording all the time because you felt humilated on the,

'Money to banks?....more debt.....more idiocy.' thread!

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 20:25:54 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
Fatman,

What you say for the most part is true enough,
I had all the waffle at Uni about the Environment and Ecology and so forth and even though my Geography degree was part entwined with these issues I did not fully accept everything as gospel which they taught,
In fact coming from a working class background I asked one of the high ranking ecology tutors how poorer working people in this country were going to afford all these `Green Measures' that were being implemented and the cost passed to the consumer.
His answer was `Oh they will have to' which showed how out of touch he was with the everyday life of ordinary people!
The Ecology bandwagon is out of control in this country and although many projects and so forth are worthy others are just cynical ploys to extract more money out of us the consumer.
Pointless getting our own house in order as regards carbon footprints and all the rest when China, India and Indonesia are still building old technology power stations and pumping all sorts of rubbish into the atmosphere!

I will read the articles you quoted when I arrive home from work later.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 20:54:12 BDT
Dav45
" However I dont think all the sea defences being built all around the coastline are just being constructed for fun."
Indeed not, but it is a giant leap from that to concluding it is mainly concerned with sea level rise. It is more likely to protect against a similar event as in 1953, which would probably not affect exactly the same area. If the same size surge occurred today with a sea level DECREASED by a few centimetres, the defences will still be needed. Again, that is not to say that levels have not risen, just that it would be unsafe to draw on sea defence planning as justification. When selling such schemes to authorities the dangers of not adopting them will usually be exaggerated.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 21:00:46 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jul 2012 23:05:51 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
In that case why are many of the sea defences being built on the West Coast?
No North Sea storm surge there to contend with!
Coastal erosion has been accelerated by rising sea levels which is why properties previously thought safe are now on cliff edges when previous slower rates of coastal erosion should have given them many more years!
If somebody could supply credible evidence that sea level rise DOES NOT affect coastal erosion rates then I would be glad to see it.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 21:02:05 BDT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jul 2012 00:47:20 BDT
Reply to Dav45.

Another very fair/logical comment with which only the most bigoted could argue. As to the "Ecology bandwagon" you speak of. I suggest you take a look at:- Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future by James Delingpole. This impeccably researched book incontestably reveals how, following the bankrupcy/collapse of the old Soviet Union, the only thing left for the West's Marxist/Maoist/Trotskyist fraternity was dispair and a deep abiding hatred of the Capitalist system which had seen off their cherished 'Workers Paradise'. With no other refuge these radical activists joined the Enviromental Movement in droves, intent on continuing their anti-Capitalist crusade under a different flag. Rather like your 'out of touch' tutor however, these people seem not to understand (or perhaps care?) that the major losers to the dictats of the 'Green' agenda are the poorest in society, both here at home and around the world.

PS. Concerning the West Coast sea defences, the Atlantic Ocean is far more unpredictable than the North Sea. Since time immemorial towns/villages have occasionally been devastated by flooding/tidal waves; only recently some tourists at Lands End were swept away and drowned by a 'freak' wave. In reality there was nothing freak about it, which is why the Atlantic rollers are so popular with surfers.

Best Regards CWB.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 21:10:07 BDT
Lessfatman says:
An interesting observation that I share.
I referred to the airheads giving a bad name to ecology. The ones you mention are the among the people I was pointing at.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 22:54:36 BDT
Defenceman says:
Dav45,

'So at last you have admitted you were out of your depth debating the banking system with M T!'

Dream on! There's quite a different interpretation of my remarks and you seem to have missed it entirely. Not really surprising given the subject matter!!!

'Instead of bowing out gracefully though you also resorted to accusing her of hurling insults at you and used that as an excuse to scamper off,'

If you had read the thread then you would easily have spotted the insult. I didn't need to accuse her of hurling insults. It's there for anybody with eyes to see.

'End of story thank goodness '

Hear, hear!

'At least I wont have you any more trying to score cheap points on my use of wording all the time because you felt humilated on the,'

It seems to me that you are poster of the cheap remarks, since I notice that you aren't exactly forthcoming when it comes to points raised with you, nor do you seem to be able to understand the errors you make and the glaringly obvious responses that stem from them. In short, you appear unable to comprehend when you are wrong and keep defending your position even when it is quite clearly untenable.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 22:58:46 BDT
Defenceman says:
Prints of Whales,

'Indeed not, but it is a giant leap from that to concluding it is mainly concerned with sea level rise.'

Much coastal defence work has nothing directly to do with sea level rise and is far more directed towards coastal erosion, a factor that is a massive problem regardless of water levels. Wave power is taking cliffs away at a collossal rate in the east, but sadly protection schemes cannot be afforded everywhere. Hence, the objections from those left to fend for themselves where coastal defences schemes are declined.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2012 23:23:20 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
CW,

You are quite right about the unpredictability of the Atlantic Ocean although the coastal area where I live is bordered by the Irish Sea which does not generally receive the battering that coastal areas facing straight out to Atlantic have.
However as I said earlier it has been proved that sea level rise has been the cause of reclaimation by the sea of areas of West Lancashire which has been verified by the discovery of bronze age settlements now under water.
Of course there is variation across different parts of the UK with some areas experiencing accretion such as the Spit on the Humber.
Where you live as you pointed out there doesn't seem to have been much in way of sea level rise and I think the real changes that will be clearly discernable will occur later this century.
I can see the case for and against sea level rise but until somebody can actually show a credible source stating clearly that sea level rise has absolutely nothing to do with erosion then maybe they would have some credibility for their argument.
Unfortunately some people post with just their words and no decent literature to verify their view.

Your link looks interesting which I will look at tomorrow as I have not long been in from work,

Regards

Dav45

Posted on 16 Jul 2012 00:26:14 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jul 2012 23:30:42 BDT
Defenceman says:
Dav45,

'I can see the case for and against sea level rise but until somebody can actually show a credible source stating clearly that sea level rise has absolutely nothing to do with erosion then maybe they would have some credibility for their argument.'

I'm assuming this is directed at me? If so, please note that I did not say that sea level rise has absolutely nothing to do with erosion. What I said was that in most cases coastal defence work has nothing directly to do with sea level rise and is far more directed towards coastal erosion. The idea that there is some magic document that states categorically that sea level rise has nothing to do with erosion is simply a ridiculous straw man argument.

My position on this, based by the way on observation of the south and east coast cliffs, is that sea level has very little to do with the problem. Erosion is caused by wave action and wave action is present at sea level regardless of the level of the sea. Indeed, if water didn't move at all, then there would be virtually no erosion and rising sea levels would make next to no difference. As it is, rising sea levels will have a small impact on the height of the waves and that may mean that cliffs are broken down somewhat quicker than in the past. Even given this, coastal defence loctions aren't decided on because of sea levels but on the need for protection of people and property in areas where the rocks are softest, which is generally post Triassic period and usually into the Eocene and later. West coast rocks are generally older and harder and so coastal defence work is less needed overall.

Where you have observed bronze age remains this is most probably the result of innundation particularly with the river flows that exist in West Lancashire and because there are now few cliffs left to erode. In other words, the land is low lying and river/sea reclaim has occurred, but if we are to be pedantic then the sea or rivers have eroded the shore line to allow innundation to occur, but that erosion is trivial compared to that taking place at say Beachy Head.

'Unfortunately some people post with just their words and no decent literature to verify their view.'

Check out any basic level geography book, or take a look at the information guides in areas subject to erosion.

Posted on 17 Jul 2012 09:50:32 BDT
John says:
Reading the posts here, this one really had me thing about how much we are manipulated and how naive we would be to think otherwise http://stephanjmyers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/bob-diamond-puppet-masters-pawns.html

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jul 2012 11:52:33 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jul 2012 11:56:11 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
David Groom,

I will give you the benefit of this answer even though my post was to C W Bradbury and not yourself.
However you seem determined to keep repeating yourself despite the fact I have agreed with you to a certain extent, the only bone of contention being that you think,

"What I said was that in most cases coastal defence work has nothing directly to do with sea level rise and is far more directed towards coastal erosion."

First of all you have not provided any evidence for this in the form of online journals or any other creditable source at all during this discussion.
Secondly coastal defence work has been stepped up dramatically in the past few years especially along the West Coast near where I live, because erosion has increased due in large part to rising sea levels.
If sea level rise has nothing to do with coastal defence work being vastly expanded in recent years then why has erosion become more of a problem? The answer to this of course is in large part due to increased sea levels accelerating erosion rates and hence the need for more sea defences.
Link here which is a Parliamentary Briefing on what the main purpose of sea defences are,

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:oNg1HchB5eQJ:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-363.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgDUZ8y7nvMx3fcCiT7NffqFCXCeUejW0uLcuxjt84Yz-sGkVhNkLCiHNpQwo7rs3iiTzEvkatf47aqX-TW1SDUgpSGLhDFwdV7v3wCnf1uunLYrjfDxY4oqJldcAmOZWhCzIQq&sig=AHIEtbRTR_pahMOhaLiNLvyRFviuO6HgWw&pli=1

A further statement from yourself which has little if any standalone credibility,

"My position on this, based by the way on observation of the south and east coast cliffs,"

I have only included this as it is so laughable - In other words you on trips to the coast ascertain without any scientific knowledge or equipment that there is no sea rise nor does it affect erosion rates.
Yes well David if your powers of observation are so far reaching then you wouldn't be writing on this Forum!
Another little gem from yourself,

"Where you have observed bronze age remains this is most probably the result of inundation"

You go onto lecture me about why the Lancashire coastline is disappearing without providing any evidence to support you theory,
Here is a further link from the University of Manchester detailing why the Lancs coastline is retreating

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=4339

Your theory is partly correct, there is low lying land on the West Lancashire Plain which is susceptible to inundation. However the sea has always being kept at bay until recently and as the UM report concludes is now under severe threat from sea level rise.
Furthermore N Wales and Cumbria's coastline are also under threat from sea level rise and their coastline for the most part is not low lying making your theory redundant.
Last little piece of advice from you,

"Check out any basic level geography book,"

I've just completed a Physical Geography Degree at Edge Hill University, Lancs,

If you want verification of this I will be happy to supply you with the Dept Head's name phone number and email as well as my name which is on my wish list on Amazon anyway.
Don't like blowing my own trumpet, after all I am just a simple Lancashire lad and not a know all from the SE.
I do know a little about coastal erosion though regarding the main causes, why sea defences are being strengthened and so forth as it formed a large part of my degree course.
As far as I am concerned there is nothing more to be said and if you wish to continue it would be a pleasant surprise if you could provide creditable sources to back your claims other than your own observations of cliffs!

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jul 2012 17:15:56 BDT
Sorry, but aren't you confusing cause and effect? CLAIMS of sea level rises result in increased sea defenses, then you use increased sea defenses as evidence of sea level rises! In my day scientists were more likely to have to prove something was happening, not that it wasn't. If I claim that there are fewer frogs in Essex than ten years ago, I need to prove it, not someone prove that there are not.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jul 2012 17:47:53 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
Not really,
If there was no sea level rise then there wouldn't be the huge amount of investment in sea defences needed,
Both are hand in glove - whether one or the other is used as evidence is irrelevant,
In your day as you put it scientists needed to prove something was happening,
Well I have by providing EA links and scientific journals which state that there is sea level rise and that sea defences have been built or strengthened to counter sea rise,
You keep banging on about wanting to prove it that there is no sea level rise,
Then go on the internet or go the library to validate your position!
You have posted on here maybe half a dozen times with the same spiel and yet haven't come up with any evidence.
I'm perfectly sure there is sea level rise which is causing increased erosion rates and hence the need for more sea defences.
I dont need to prove this to anyone as I'm happy with the evidence provided.
If you think otherwise then do some research along with DG and present it on the thread.
Otherwise there is no point posting comments to verify a claim without proper scientific evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jul 2012 23:08:00 BDT
Defenceman says:
Dav45,

'I will give you the benefit of this answer even though my post was to C W Bradbury and not yourself.'

If you make a passing derogatory reference to me, then you must expect a response. Whether you reply is up to you.

'First of all you have not provided any evidence for this in the form of online journals or any other creditable source at all during this discussion.'

This really isn't necessary, as anybody with a brain in my part of the world has seen the effects of erosion first hand: Reculver village in Kent, Beachy Head, Charmouth, Aldeburgh, Fairlight, Blackgang, Scarborough - the list goes on. In all these cases and the many others in between, rising water has not been the cause of the problem, but coastal erosion of soft rocks has been. In itself water level rises exacerbate the problem, but don't directly cause it. And no I don't intend to reference to this, since it is a simple matter of education and lifetime experience in the same way that I don't need to prove to you that 2+2=4.

'Secondly coastal defence work has been stepped up dramatically in the past few years especially along the West Coast near where I live, because erosion has increased due in large part to rising sea levels.'

Where exactly in Lancashire is this erosion taking place? Most of the coast that I have seen is pretty flat or is already protected by the usual concrete walls, mostly in the distant past. The only real cliffs I have seen are around Heysham, but even these are of fairly hard rock, unlike the South and East which is mostly Jurassic up to the present day and much more readily eroded. there's some further cliffs around Arnside, but again this is largely protected by an existing sea wall.

'I have only included this as it is so laughable - In other words you on trips to the coast ascertain without any scientific knowledge or equipment that there is no sea rise nor does it affect erosion rates.'

You fail to remember that I was in my former career, an Emergeny Planning manager with BT, a role I undertook for nearly 30 years. During that time, I regularly discussed flooding, both fluvial and alluvial with the Environment Agency, together with the East and South Coast Storm Tide Warning Services, and have examined the Thames Barrier first hand. In short, my knowledge in this area isn't as you sneeringly remarked based 'on trips to the coast to ascertain without any scientific knowledge etc', but on first hand discussions with those who do understand it.

'You go onto lecture me about why the Lancashire coastline is disappearing without providing any evidence to support you theory,'

I did say most probabaly. It certainly wasn't man-made global warning in the bronze age, was it?

'Your theory is partly correct, there is low lying land on the West Lancashire Plain which is susceptible to inundation. However the sea has always being kept at bay until recently and as the UM report concludes is now under severe threat from sea level rise.'

I wouldn't argue with this at all. Nowhere, despite what you appear to think, have I said that climate change and water levels will have no effect on the potential for flooding or innundation. What I said was that erosion was caused by wave action not water level rises, a fact that remains true.

'If you want verification of this I will be happy to supply you with the Dept Head's name phone number and email as well as my name which is on my wish list on Amazon anyway.'

Why would I wish to do this? I don't offer you details of my educational qualifications to check out.

'As far as I am concerned there is nothing more to be said'

Oh joy!! But I somehow doubt this.
Your reply to Defenceman's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2012 09:54:36 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
David Groom,

There was no passing derogatory reference made to you as I dont recall your name being mentioned in a post exchanged beween myself and C W Bradbury,
I am not disputing that erosion is causing most of the damage along the coastline, rather my point is sea levels are excaberating erosion rates which you seem to have difficulty comprehending,
Once again you have provided no evidence to validate your position which given your boast as being a former BT disaster manager seems rather strange as any manager former or otherwise knows from experience that producing good verifiable evidence is the crux in any debate or issue.
Therefore I can only conclude your claim as a disaster manager is hollow as there is no proof of this and therefore it is irrelevant to the debate,
You seem to think this imaginary title absolves you from producing any evidence - Well I'm sorry David Groom but unfortunately you are a nobody both on and off this forum so providing creditible evidence is nescessary to substantiate your position,
The position David is you challenged what I have written and therefore you need to go out and produce evidence to prove your case,
I'm happy that what I have written is correct - I'm not really that interested if you think otherwise,

It is amusing though that you have finally admitted that sea level rise does have some bearing on erosion rates.
As a geography graduate I'm well aware of that and I certainly have not said anywhere on this forum that rising sea levels are the sole cause of erosion!
Therefore I dont really know what your argument is David Groom!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  211
Initial post:  13 Mar 2012
Latest post:  29 Jul 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions