Village is doomed, wanna buy really cheap houses with sea views?

busby said:
We were taught exactly the same..But can you trust Experts,,700 years ago they believed the world was flat although sailors told them different,,When steam trains appeared the experts said going above 20 mph would kill humans,,in the 50s a certain Mr Beecham decided we didn't need branch lines or The Gt Central Railway,,a little later the Experts stated oil was the future and we scrapped trams and trolley busses..90s experts told us diesel not petrol was the future now it's back to what we used years ago Electricity.and then of course we now have those Smart motorways, another idea by an expert who has probably never driven 50 miles in his or her life..Never believe an EXPERT.BUSBY.
Click to expand...
You say 700 years ago they thought the world was flat? What about the idiots now?!
 
nicholsong said:
No, because I learnt that decades ago and cannot recall the sources.
Click to expand...
The issue is that the soft clays and sands on the west coast does not stand up to erosion as well as the hard sandstones and igneous rocks on the west side - add a rising sea level into that equation.....
 
Paddywack said:
The issue is that the soft clays and sands on the west coast does not stand up to erosion as well as the hard sandstones and igneous rocks on the west side - add a rising sea level into that equation.....
Click to expand...

You are possibly focusing on coastal erosion risks rather than flooding risks here. The east coast is generally more vulnerable to coastal erosion compared to the west. The UK tilt is making it worse in the SE / E but more significantly, sea level rising will impact on many more countries coastal communities, such as shown here: https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/climate-change-puts-more-people-17162112.amp

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
I lived at ALDBOROUGH on the East coast as a lad during the summer in a bungalow we owned pretty near the cliff edge,loved my time there with many great memories. Stopped going when i started work but we reckon today .Sadly it will be just short of a mile out to sea now .
 
The white South East coast cliffs constantly erode due to freezing and cracking of the water soaked chalk. That's one reason why they remain white, plus they are largely South facing which helps.
 
PeteH said:
Large Tracts of Holland are several metres below sea level?. In the UK it`s usual issue, we dont invest in infrastructure proper, just expensive "toy" projects to keep the "Fat Cats" in new BMW`s.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately we have a much longer coastline to "defend" than Holland. I used to work with the Flood Defence team from our local EA office, and as they explained when asked about this - Essex has more coastline to defend than the whole of Holland, how much are you prepared to pay in incresed taxes each year to fund it? Also, do you want to live in a country with a 20 foot wall all the way round it??
 
How much more proof do people want than the measured sea level, measured rate of ice melt, measured increase in severe events (e.g. Australia fires, droughts, flooding etc.) than we see (and measure to the best of our abilities now)?

If, what they want, is the Apocalypse before they take notice and make changes then that might be a bit late.

What other prople, and other nations do, is up to them We can try and influence others, but we can only deal with our lifestyle, both personally and as a nation, and make the changes that we can control.
 
EastAngler said:
How much more proof do people want than the measured sea level, measured rate of ice melt, measured increase in severe events (e.g. Australia fires, droughts, flooding etc.) than we see (and measure to the best of our abilities now)?
Click to expand...

No one doubts temperatures rise. And everyone see glaciers retreating in the Alps.

The doubt is on whether it is mainly man-made and controllable.

It would help the alarmists cause if they didn't attribute everything and anything to global warming as well. For example, Australia fires owe much more to arsonists than to climate. And the horrific extend of the damage owns much more to the environmentalists clamp down on selective burning than to global warming.

Floods in our campaigns are on the rise compared to decades ago mainly because there is an EU ban on dredging and not because it rains more.
 
Stephane Bosman said:
No one doubts temperatures rise. And everyone see glaciers retreating in the Alps.

The doubt is on whether it is mainly man-made and controllable.

It would help the alarmists cause if they didn't attribute everything and anything to global warming as well. For example, Australia fires owe much more to arsonists than to climate. And the horrific extend of the damage owns much more to the environmentalists clamp down on selective burning than to global warming.

Floods in our campaigns are on the rise compared to decades ago mainly because there is an EU ban on dredging and not because it rains more.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt, when 99.5% of the scientists say that it is man made, then any logical person would not have any degree of doubt.

The arsonist argument has already been disproved https://www.greenpeace.org/internat...d-fires-are-down-to-climate-change-not-arson/

The scientists you seek to dismiss predicted the extreme fires 11 years ago https://www.newscientist.com/articl...port-predicted-severe-wildfires-11-years-ago/ . As they did the other more extreme weather patterns.

Please direct me to the EU ban on dredging, I've just got my latest dredging licence issued, so this is obviously a surprise to me.
 
Paddywack said:
There is no doubt, when 99.5% of the scientists say that it is man made
Click to expand...

Utterly meaningless. The 99.5% figure comes from nowhere. There is a 97% figure widely quoted and its source has been shown to be dubious. And again, you're still talking about consensus, not proof. Not the same thing, as shown before.


Paddywack said:
The arsonist argument has already been disproved https://www.greenpeace.org/internat...d-fires-are-down-to-climate-change-not-arson/
Click to expand...

Greepeace! The multi-national that depends on manufacturing crises to survive! What a great source! By the way, they don't disprove anything in that article.


Paddywack said:
The scientists you seek to dismiss predicted the extreme fires 11 years ago https://www.newscientist.com/articl...port-predicted-severe-wildfires-11-years-ago/ . As they did the other more extreme weather patterns.
Click to expand...

The same scientists who encouraged to ban selective burning? Great job! Another article heavy on empty speculations and very light on facts.


All those activits also fail to mention what exactly should have been done that would have prevented the fires. 85% of the fires are lit by humans, whether intentionally or not. That is not going to significantly change whether they implement green policies or not. The best way to limit the damages is to have corridors with nothing to burn and forest management to limits the amount of dead wood that amplifies the fires. But all that is banned in Australia by green-inspired laws.


Paddywack said:
Please direct me to the EU ban on dredging, I've just got my latest dredging licence issued, so this is obviously a surprise to me.
Click to expand...

Excessive regulation has lead to severe restrictions and delays on dredging. The rivers are dredged a lot less now and that results in floods. That is explained here: https://www.iadc-dredging.com/wp-co...union-environmental-law-on-dredging-104-1.pdf and here: https://www.express.co.uk/comment/e...ectives-dredging-crisis-worse-Stephen-Pollard
 
Stephane Bosman said:
The Earth being flat with the Sun and the other planets orbiting around it was a scientific consensus, by the way.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. The ancient greeks knew the earth was round and had a measurement of its diameter that was within 10% of the correct value. The consensus was the earth was round, and the sun, planets and stars orbited round it. Copernicus proposed the 'helio-centric', ie sun-centred universe. Which, if we are to be pedantic, is not actually correct in that the stars do not orbit the sun.
 
Stephane Bosman said:
Utterly meaningless. The 99.5% figure comes from nowhere. There is a 97% figure widely quoted and its source has been shown to be dubious. And again, you're still talking about consensus, not proof. Not the same thing, as shown before.




Greepeace! The multi-national that depends on manufacturing crises to survive! What a great source! By the way, they don't disprove anything in that article.




The same scientists who encouraged to ban selective burning? Great job! Another article heavy on empty speculations and very light on facts.


All those activits also fail to mention what exactly should have been done that would have prevented the fires. 85% of the fires are lit by humans, whether intentionally or not. That is not going to significantly change whether they implement green policies or not. The best way to limit the damages is to have corridors with nothing to burn and forest management to limits the amount of dead wood that amplifies the fires. But all that is banned in Australia by green-inspired laws.




Excessive regulation has lead to severe restrictions and delays on dredging. The rivers are dredged a lot less now and that results in floods. That is explained here: https://www.iadc-dredging.com/wp-co...union-environmental-law-on-dredging-104-1.pdf and here: https://www.express.co.uk/comment/e...ectives-dredging-crisis-worse-Stephen-Pollard
Click to expand...
I've already demolished most of your dismissive arguments in my flat earther post, so I'll just pick you up on the dredging one here.

You stated the EU banned dredging and then linked to a paper that describes how EU legislation "restricts" dredging, so I take you acknowledge that the EU doesn't stop dredging?

As it happens one of the contributors to the paper is employed by the dredging company wehave used in the past - Van Ord. The issue that the dredging companies have with the EU directive is that it assumes that most tailings will be contaminated and treated as waste, in most cases the EU is correct, with most tailings in river mouths being severely polluted with heavy metals and other nasties. To dump these products on the sea floor can wreck eco systems, so the EU directive insists we test the area we need to dredge before a licence is issued, the result of those tests does not stop dredging, it merely states how the tailings can be disposed.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
autorouter said:
No it wasn't. The ancient greeks knew the earth was round and had a measurement of its diameter that was within 10% of the correct value. The consensus was the earth was round, and the sun, planets and stars orbited round it. Copernicus proposed the 'helio-centric', ie sun-centred universe. Which, if we are to be pedantic, is not actually correct in that the stars do not orbit the sun.
Click to expand...

Your post is disingenuous. I reacted to being called a flat earther, which refers to a period when the Earth being flat was the scientific consensus and it was not Ancient Greece.
 
busby said:
We were taught exactly the same..But can you trust Experts,,700 years ago they believed the world was flat although sailors told them different,,When steam trains appeared the experts said going above 20 mph would kill humans,,in the 50s a certain Mr Beecham decided we didn't need branch lines or The Gt Central Railway,,a little later the Experts stated oil was the future and we scrapped trams and trolley busses..90s experts told us diesel not petrol was the future now it's back to what we used years ago Electricity.and then of course we now have those Smart motorways, another idea by an expert who has probably never driven 50 miles in his or her life..Never believe an EXPERT.BUSBY.
Click to expand...
Totally agree Borr,,, dun'ear in Narfuk we wreckuns a X issur unknown quanatee annn spurt issa drip undur presshur,,, ??
 
Paddywack said:
I've already demolished most of your dismissive arguments in my flat earther post, so I'll just pick you up on the dredging one here.
Click to expand...

No you have not demolished anything. On the contrary, I'd say.


Paddywack said:
You stated the EU banned dredging and then linked to a paper that describes how EU legislation "restricts" dredging, so I take you acknowledge that the EU doesn't stop dredging?
Click to expand...

Are you acknowledging the EU restricts dredging?
 
Stephane Bosman said:
Excessive regulation has lead to severe restrictions and delays on dredging. The rivers are dredged a lot less now and that results in floods. That is explained here: https://www.iadc-dredging.com/wp-co...union-environmental-law-on-dredging-104-1.pdf
Click to expand...

Out of interest have you actually read the paper ?

In summary there is no 'EU Ban' on fresh water dredging;

It is added regulation to ensure that wildlife is not unduly affected and the sea is not polluted.

Which if you dredge 20 miles of the River Parrett is Somerset you are going to visibly make a lot of ducks homeless, but at least they can fly elsewhere and will soon be back to repopulate as long as they have food.

You are also going to invisibly destroy the habitat of all the fish and the other aquatics the fish feed on. They cant move elsewhere.

In addition what do you intend to do with the spoil.
As they point out, a lot of it is polluted with heavy metals and fertilisers
They want to ensure it's not simply dumped at sea.

On the face of it all reasonable requests, not regulation.
Not that a proper informed decision will stop a MP jumping on an anti EU bandwagon for a few extra votes and the Express wanting extra gammon readership.
 
Ivory55 said:
Might have something to do with all the dredging for sand and ballast that they have done in the North Sea. I guess that the holes will fill in with something.
Click to expand...

The ballast dredgers are constantly off the Norfolk coast and probably contribute to erosion of the soft makeup of many cliffs in the east .

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Brains said:
It is added regulation to ensure that wildlife is not unduly affected and the sea is not polluted.
Click to expand...

So it does restrict dredging. Restriction cannot be done without banning for various reasons and allowing when some conditions are met. So there is banning.


Brains said:
Which if you dredge 20 miles of the River Parrett is Somerset you are going to visibly make a lot of ducks homeless, but at least they can fly elsewhere and will soon be back to repopulate as long as they have food.

You are also going to invisibly destroy the habitat of all the fish and the other aquatics the fish feed on. They cant move elsewhere.
Click to expand...

So I guess it has become more important to insure the well being of ducks and fish than to protect human habitat and agriculture.
 
JFF
ELXq5lvXUAE44I5

When it's obvious to all that we need to act will there be time to revert to the last century's climate?
And in other new, the world is round :)

EDIT: just a grammar fix - well, the one I spotted
 
Last edited:
busby said:
Been happening for hundreds of years especially on the East Coast..Remember UK was joined to mainland Europe once..BUSBY.
Click to expand...
UK was joined to mainland Europe? Really???
Wot,,, was that back in the day when the earth was flat Borr??? ?
 
Stephane Bosman said:
Utterly meaningless. The 99.5% figure comes from nowhere. There is a 97% figure widely quoted and its source has been shown to be dubious. And again, you're still talking about consensus, not proof. Not the same thing, as shown before.

Greepeace! The multi-national that depends on manufacturing crises to survive! What a great source! By the way, they don't disprove anything in that article.

The same scientists who encouraged to ban selective burning? Great job! Another article heavy on empty speculations and very light on facts.

All those activits also fail to mention what exactly should have been done that would have prevented the fires. 85% of the fires are lit by humans, whether intentionally or not. That is not going to significantly change whether they implement green policies or not. The best way to limit the damages is to have corridors with nothing to burn and forest management to limits the amount of dead wood that amplifies the fires. But all that is banned in Australia by green-inspired laws.

Excessive regulation has lead to severe restrictions and delays on dredging. The rivers are dredged a lot less now and that results in floods. That is explained here: https://www.iadc-dredging.com/wp-co...union-environmental-law-on-dredging-104-1.pdf and here: https://www.express.co.uk/comment/e...ectives-dredging-crisis-worse-Stephen-Pollard
Click to expand...

85% of bushfires may have been startef by humans (deliberately or not) but the fire season started earlier and more intensively that in the past due to extreme hot weather and the drying out of previously wet areas. Climate change is the major factor in causing these conditions. There are plenty of reports on the Internet that will give more information on this.

Please provide links to proof that Green peace is wrong with their report.

Who has banned selective burning? Again, there are explanations why they haven't been so widespread recently - once more, this is down to climate change - the burning season Ia shorter than in the past.
 
bigguspeckus said:
UK was joined to mainland Europe? Really???
Wot,,, was that back in the day when the earth was flat Borr??? ?
Click to expand...

When sea levels were lower, there was a land bridge from SE England to Europe.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Stephane Bosman said:
Your post is disingenuous. I reacted to being called a flat earther, which refers to a period when the Earth being flat was the scientific consensus and it was not Ancient Greece.
Click to expand...
No, it is perfectly ingenuous. There have always been, and still are, people who believe the earth is flat. On second thoughts, I suppose you could be right. I'm not very clued up on scientific thought before the Ancient Greeks.
 
Paddywack said:
There is no doubt, when 99.5% of the scientists say that it is man made, then any logical person would not have any degree of doubt.
Click to expand...

Really would love to see the actual figures on that.

Also when you see an advert for a cleaning material and it says kills 99% of germs.

That will leave around 3000 still alive.

Makes ya think a bit that one doesn’t it ?

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Join us

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Back
Top