Jump to content
  • Announcements

    Welcome! New around here? Take a look at the New Members' Guide for some pointers.

    Not a member yet? Sign up here and you can soon be chatting away with friends old and new..

    Check out our Handy Information section if you're after something quickly!

JennyMorgan

Likely Impact On The Broads?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

I must be being thick here VC, Me no understand.

Hope understand you this! Related to moving the topic out of the general forum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, batrabill said:

The problem with this debate is that 50% of climate scientists believe we are heading for a climate catastrophe, and the other 50% agree with them. 

I am not aware of anyone who denies it exists on the contrary it is generally accepted as the natural progression of the planet and that at the moment we are in a warming cycle, I would also suggest most people are in favour of the responsible adoption of new technology as and when it is proven to be beneficial, what I and many others are against is the knee jerk reaction being promoted at the moment which can cause as many problems as it solves, before anyone says it scientists are as fallible as anyone else and often get things wrong.

Fred

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, VetChugger said:

Oh dear!! Would never do for the world to see just what level of discussion goes on here would it!

except for the fact that speakers corner is just as open as the rest of the forum to general viewing, its just that this has turned into a debate, so this is where it belongs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I am not aware of anyone who denies it exists on the contrary it is generally accepted as the natural progression of the planet and that at the moment we are in a warming cycle, I would also suggest most people are in favour of the responsible adoption of new technology as and when it is proven to be beneficial, what I and many others are against is the knee jerk reaction being promoted at the moment which can cause as many problems as it solves, before anyone says it scientists are as fallible as anyone else and often get things wrong.

Fred

IMHO that post deserves one of the biggest ‘likes’ possible! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, D46 said:

Maybe a moderator could remind the forum of these terms ?

They do, quite often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vanessan said:
2 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

I am not aware of anyone who denies it exists on the contrary it is generally accepted as the natural progression of the planet and that at the moment we are in a warming cycle, I would also suggest most people are in favour of the responsible adoption of new technology as and when it is proven to be beneficial, what I and many others are against is the knee jerk reaction being promoted at the moment which can cause as many problems as it solves, before anyone says it scientists are as fallible as anyone else and often get things wrong.

Fred

IMHO that post deserves one of the biggest ‘likes’ possible! 

except we are overdue to have tipped over into an ice age (usually preceded by a period of warmth).

what if our pollution was the only thing that had prevented a new ice age, wouldnt we look silly then if we stopped the pollution.

actually a lot of climate events are overdue, ice ages, magnetic flips etc.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I would be a disturbed, dribbling wreck

thought you were peter

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vanessan said:

They do, quite often.

Good , maybe then some should take notice of them a bit more often .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I might return this thread to the Broads for a moment, it seems to me that the biggest threat facing The Broads in the short term is sea level rise. The Broads are not a natural environment like a salt marsh which can deal with modest rises in sea level. They are drained and the water confined to the rivers. Every day, the tide comes in and the tide goes out. The Broads cannot take much of a rise in sea level before the tide still comes in but no longer goes out. When that day dawns it will be the end of The Broads.

Curbing emissions to slow down global warming is what this change in fuel policy is actually about. Is it enough to save The Broads? I think that's unlikely.

So who's fault is it? Well.... Our generation has known about climate change for years but has not done anything like enough about it. It's the next generation that's got to sort the mess out. No wonder they are complaining. I would too.

Is it really that difficult to change to new technologies? I'm an engineer and I spent my working life launching new ideas and technologies. When you first look at it, the problems look huge, so you break them down, understand them and sort them, usually a bit at a time. When they are sorted, the solutions sell for a lot of money.

You know, we could lead the world in clean technologies. Many of my fellow engineers are working on it now. It's a massive opportunity and its no good whinging about it or saying its all a conspiracy. Its going to happen. Enjoy the ride.

Nigel (Ludham, soon to be Ludham-on Sea)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, D46 said:

Good , maybe then some should take notice of them a bit more often .

I’m sure they do. If you have a problem with someone breaking the tos and it hasn’t been noticed, you must report it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vanessan said:

I’m sure they do. If you have a problem with someone breaking the tos and it hasn’t been noticed, you must report it. 

I always do :default_smile: it's been discussed at length between my self and s moderator , it's their preferred way of dealing with issues rather than responding and possibly adding fuel to the fire .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, D46 said:

I always do :default_smile: it's been discussed at length between my self and s moderator , it's their preferred way of dealing with issues rather than responding and possibly adding fuel to the fire .

Well done, best way. 🙂

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky News is reporting today that a research station in Antarctica has provisionally recorded its highest ever temperature at 18.3 degrees. That’s definitely food for thought!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing we can be sure of is that what ever we do or don't do mankind will not stop the natural order of things, as much as we try to interfere with nature it will always have the last word we along with the rest of the worlds life forms will either learn to evolve or perish

Fred

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know if all the explosions in Syria cause ozone depletion? then there is the Australian fires John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/02/2020 at 13:44, batrabill said:

Why? I think old men slagging off a young girl makes the forum look really friendly. 

YAWN. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/02/2020 at 14:13, ModeratorTeam said:

Members should note that the comments here are abusive of a minor, and are well beyond the TOS. 
Some posts are therefore hidden pending Team discussion.
 

I assume that's why MY post was hidden?. No probs, and apologies if it caused any problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes not the slightest difference what we (the UK) does or doesn't do. The US, China, India, Brazil, all developing nations will continue tipping the balance. We could all sit in mud huts around a single candle for heat and light, won't make a scrap of difference on a global scale. Not saying we shouldn't try, but bankrupting ourselves in a mad rush to deliver a carbon neutral economy makes no sense, to me. BTW, did you see the Ben Fogle episode a few weeks back, where he went to Siberia? Now that's worrying! If the perma frost melts and releases all the carbon presently locked into it, as the researcher says "We're up s**t creek without a paddle". Happy days. :default_biggrin:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Regulo said:

Makes not the slightest difference what we (the UK) does or doesn't do. The US, China, India, Brazil, all developing nations will continue tipping the balance. We could all sit in mud huts around a single candle for heat and light, won't make a scrap of difference on a global scale. Not saying we shouldn't try, but bankrupting ourselves in a mad rush to deliver a carbon neutral economy makes no sense, to me. BTW, did you see the Ben Fogle episode a few weeks back, where he went to Siberia? Now that's worrying! If the perma frost melts and releases all the carbon presently locked into it, as the researcher says "We're up s**t creek without a paddle". Happy days. :default_biggrin:

Yep, agree with that Regulo.

Climate change and pollution.The former is for us all. Pollution, depends where you live I suppose. Certainley there is pollution on the broads. Now, that is something we can make a difference. 

Edited by Wussername
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, this stuff has such a familiar ring to me. What is happening here is that a radical new way of thinking and working is being proposed and when that happens, there are always people who say it is too difficult or it will never work.

Let me give you an example from the past:

Back in the 1980s, I was in charge of a little team of engineers and we were developing a new product which did not currently exist. I often had to discuss it with other parts of the company, and whenever I did, I was always told it would never work. As always, the naysayers gave two reasons why:

1. The technology is not ready and there are too many problems to make it work.

2. The idea is too radical and customers will not want to change their ways or will not accept it.

The 1980s computer technology was certainly a challenge and we had to resort to some pretty drastic measures, but eventually we got it working and launched it onto the unsuspecting customers. A week later, it had taken a million pounds in sales.

Then all the naysayers changed their tune and said they had always thought it was a good idea. Some even started saying it was their idea. Does this sound familiar to you?

The truth is that there are some huge technical challenges when it comes to climate change, and there is a lot of work to be done, but if you think we can't overcome these problems then you very much underestimate human inginuity. Some will embrace the new ideas and make a lot of money. Some companies will fail.

Can we make a difference? Sure we can. Soon everyone will be whizzing around in electric cars (or boats) and wondering what all the fuss was about.

I remember listening to a talk by Neil Armstrong about the Moon race. He said that when President Kennedy had said that a man was to be landed on the moon by the end of the decade, the technology to do it did not exist and it was completely impossible. At the end of the talk, Armstrong said to the children there that they were to go home, get out their dictionary, and cross out the word "impossible".

Nigel (Chartered Electronics Engineer, Ludham)

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, woodwose said:

Soon everyone will be whizzing around in electric cars (or boats) and wondering what all the fuss was about.

not unless they are supplied by some means other than the national grid, the infrastructure isnt in place to charge electric vehicles for more than about 1 in 50 cars on the road at present, a radical clean technology leap needs to happen for that to become a possibility.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only realistic leap forward in power generation is nuclear fusion. That's some way off being practical, as yet. As Gren states, even if we had unlimited power, there's no way to distribute it to the end user. Hydrogen is the way transport will go, but it will be a long way into the future. Do we have that long, I wonder?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, grendel said:

. . . . . . a radical clean technology leap needs to happen for that to become a possibility.

That and perhaps a major attitude shift by us mere mortals. We have become brainwashed into relying on our cars rather than our legs and public transport. Urban tramways perhaps, small, frequent and convenient? Town Centres have become no go areas for cars thus are increasingly dying. Electric cars are not going to alter that. We need to rethink how we access our infrastructure because cars are not always the answer. The population and car ownership is increasing whilst town centre car parks are not!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to say that climate change issues are too important to leave to politicians to sort out, and I still think that. However, to give them their due, I think that moving the dates back and setting a deadline to start the phase out of fossil fuels is actually a really good idea. You ask JFK and Neil Armstrong about the power of a deadline. It's do or die time for the car companies. It's probably quite an exciting time to work in the automotive industry. Whenever there is change there are opportunities. The best will seize them.

Thinking about some of the other stuff in this thread, I recall learning in the Debating Society at School that some types of argument are proper debate and some are not. So for example:

"I disagree with Nigel for the following excellent reasons" is proper debate.

"Nigel must be an idiot to think that way" is not proper debate.

We learned that if your only argument is a personal attack on your opponent then you have already lost the argument.

So this is why I think that Greta is so good. She holds the politicians (and others) to account and tells them how it is. You can see that they fear her and have no counter argument, so all they have left is a personal attack. However, as I learned at school, if you make a personal attack then the argument is already lost.

As Robin Day once said, politicians are here today and gone tomorrow, but Greta represents the future. I would be a lot happier in a future based on her vision.

Nigel ( Sunny Ludham)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.