Jump to content

Recommended Posts

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Have you a link to said scientific proof please,


How could there be such a link?


In the post-truth world anything goes. I can say 'there is proof that' with no references to authority because authority (in the sense here of specialised fallible knowledge) itself has been deemed untrustworthy. Peddlers of such 'certainty' cannot live with this. The fallibility of knowledge (of all knowledge) is denied by the word 'proof' - thus justifying the post-truth certainty. The word proof is itself the give-away in the error of pop's post. Proof is a potential property derivable from deductive systems (such as mathematics) that cannot be sustained as a totality for ANY system either in completeness or consistency (G?del). It has nothing to do with the fallible empirically oriented messy organisational languages of science - these are always open to being overthrown BECAUSE they are science (open to new readings of the empirical) rather than post-truth verbiage in which 'facts' are 'known' (see for example Mary Hesse, but really any philosopher of science currently recognised in the academy as a philosopher).

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Have you a link to said scientific proof

> please,

>

> How could there be such a link?

>

> In the post-truth world anything goes. I can say

> 'there is proof that' with no references to

> authority because authority (in the sense here of

> specialised fallible knowledge) itself has been

> deemed untrustworthy. Peddlers of such 'certainty'

> cannot live with this. The fallibility of

> knowledge (of all knowledge) is denied by the word

> 'proof' - thus justifying the post-truth

> certainty. The word proof is itself the give-away

> in the error of pop's post. Proof is a potential

> property derivable from deductive systems (such as

> mathematics) that cannot be sustained as a

> totality for ANY system either in completeness or

> consistency (G?del). It has nothing to do with the

> fallible empirically oriented messy organisational

> languages of science - these are always open to

> being overthrown BECAUSE they are science (open to

> new readings of the empirical) rather than

> post-truth verbiage in which 'facts' are 'known'

> (see for example Mary Hesse, but really any

> philosopher of science currently recognised in the

> academy as a philosopher).



Precis:


Everything jaywalker posts is rubbish.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rather than enter into a philosophical discussion

> of what constitutes proof, a peer-reviewed

> scientific paper will do me, I'm a simple man.


but they will (and must) conflict.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Have you a link to said scientific proof please,

> and more appositely to proof that streets with

> trees have higher pollution levels in parts per

> million than streets without? In a rainforest,

> yes, smoke etc can stay trapped under the canopy.

> We don't have rainforests in London. If air "is

> suppressed at ground level" by trees on streets

> barometric pressure would be higher on streets

> with trees than those without. Which it isn't.




Didn't you read the guardian article I linked to

Here it is again

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/trees-may-increase-air-pollution-on-city-streets


I know ED is the guardian reading capital of the world so it must be the truth.. No?

That report is not evidence, you will note there are an awful lot of "mays" and "coulds." By contrast, a Leicester University study last year found that trees can reduce pedestrian head height levels of pollution by up to 7%. In certain very specialised scenarios (very high traffic flow, tree canopy providing 100% coverage, wind of a specific speed and direction etc) trees can hold pollutants in place - none of these circumstances pertain anywhere in East Dulwich as far as I'm aware. Please note this most important point: trees do not increase air pollution, the pollution is made by cars. Your apparent desire to cut down all the trees on our streets and in our gardens to fight pollution, rather than take measures to reduce the number of cars, would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad and so indicative of a certain all too prevalent mindset.


By the way, trees serve an absolutely vital role as baffles for sound pollution, something about which I believe you feel rather strongly.


Happy Christmas - do you have two place settings for pop and fazer, or do you share the same plate?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37813709 London trees are estimated according to this recent report to provide ?133 million worth of benefits to Londoners, including air pollution removal and carbon sequestration, cooling and reducing the amount of water that flows into our drains.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That report is not evidence, you will note there

> are an awful lot of "mays" and "coulds." By

> contrast, a Leicester University study last year

> found that trees can reduce pedestrian head height

> levels of pollution by up to 7%. In certain very

> specialised scenarios (very high traffic flow,

> tree canopy providing 100% coverage, wind of a

> specific speed and direction etc) trees can hold

> pollutants in place - none of these circumstances

> pertain anywhere in East Dulwich as far as I'm

> aware. Please note this most important point:

> trees do not increase air pollution, the pollution

> is made by cars. Your apparent desire to cut down

> all the trees on our streets and in our gardens to

> fight pollution, rather than take measures to

> reduce the number of cars, would be hilarious if

> it wasn't so sad and so indicative of a certain

> all too prevalent mindset.

>

> By the way, trees serve an absolutely vital role

> as baffles for sound pollution, something about

> which I believe you feel rather strongly.

>

> Happy Christmas - do you have two place settings

> for pop and fazer, or do you share the same plate?


I'm not anti tress ! lol

I'm anti BIG trees in the wrong places.


I've said I'd rather 100's of smaller trees cherry blossom type rather that a few large monster trees which are a problem in many ways.


As for fazer and pop you really are getting silly trying to intimidate / insult / belittle me as per previous attempts very sad.


I hope you have a lovely Christmas enjoy the tree hugging and you tree mental illness where ALL trees are worshiped regardless.


Take care ..

I'm not trying to intimidate, insult or belittle you, I'm just having a good laugh at your expense as it was the funniest thing I saw on here all year (for the uninitiated, pop used to have an account on here as Fazer1973 or some such, then he came on as pop saying "I agree with Fazer" - which might have worked if admin hadn't popped up to say it's not surprising you agree, as you are Fazer!).


Please stop describing people who disagree with you as having a mental illness, it's really not on.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Agreed. Mental illness is not something to joke

> about or to treat lightly.

>

> If pop/fazer does this again, I shall refer

> his/her comments to the Administrator.



We're all mentally ill at some level

ie on the spectrum of insanity

that's standard for most humans


Report me to who ever you like your god you mummy your daddy you administrator your wife child friend or work mates..


If that makes you feel better I'm happy for you ..



If mental illness has become your taboo that is interesting! Why do you see it that way? What makes you think raising it in that way would help those who are at the high end or the spectrum or the rest of humanity?


Or have you simply had a knee jerk PC reaction to my saying an obsession with ALL trees being good is imo a mental illness?



I guess I'm not allowed to say being mad about trees isn't in some way a mental issue ?


Why ?

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not trying to intimidate, insult or belittle

> you, I'm just having a good laugh at your expense

> as it was the funniest thing I saw on here all

> year (for the uninitiated, pop used to have an

> account on here as Fazer1973 or some such, then he

> came on as pop saying "I agree with Fazer" - which

> might have worked if admin hadn't popped up to say

> it's not surprising you agree, as you are

> Fazer!).

>

> Please stop describing people who disagree with

> you as having a mental illness, it's really not

> on.


Ah so your mental illness is having a laugh at other peoples expense.

You are showing the uninitiated you are not really very nice.

As I said much of humanity is mentally at some level or other.

I?m no exception.

If you believe you are an exception then that?s a true sign of it 


Human Sheep following the leader ..


There are some who shout loud about their mad views on trees the ?sheep? follow and become part of the madness. Just like the acceptance of pollution noise etc.


This thread is about a HUGE tree which is blocking a pavement and restricting peoples? ability to use the pavement.


In any sane world people of any logic would cut the bloody thing down reinstate the pavement and plant a new smaller variety of tree or tress which are more suited to the location.


But noooooooo we get mental people who think it?s acceptable that a tree takes up 50% of the pavement ..


And other mental people who are talking about another time on another thread .. for some weird purpose which can maybe only be explained by some form of craziness?



Hilarious

I know it's now a very peculiar opinion to think a pavement should be wide enough to be a pavement prior to being reported to admin I thought pavements should be for walking on.


I'm so very weird ..


I now realise thanks to the clever people in this thread that trees should be everywhere


Bring on the middle of the road trees and the motorway middle slow and fast lane trees


I was so silly ...


Admin may have reason to ban me for my crazy views on mental illness and trees.

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Line speed and the strength of your Wi-Fi signal are two separate things.  The first is determined by the type of connection (fibre/copper etc) to the outside world and the second is the connection between the device (printer/TV/laptop/tablet etc) and the router. If you are connecting a device to the router using cables (as Alec1 is) then this is will give the best possible connection but isn't practical for many without a degree of upheaval and even then not all devices (tablets for example) will allow a wired connection. So you relying on the quality of the Wi-Fi signal from the router to the device and this will depend on the quality of the router, the type of Wi-Fi connection (the frequency), line of sight etc - many different things.  This is why some people opt for a "mesh" type setup which is supposed to give a solid quality of Wi-Fi signal around the house with little or no blackspots.  It's expensive though and still requires the devices that send and receive the signal (like the plug-ins you have) to be wired to the router.
    • We have had a few cat flaps over the years but none have been electronic. They just have a small clip that you turn to lock or open.  Some come with a magnet and a matching magnet that the cat wears on its collar  This prevents other cats entering.  I've not used these as I don't like the idea of a cat wearing a collar. Cats do like to be out at night and you need to encourage yours to return after a late evening sortie. Calling,rustling treat wrappers worked for ours but he seems to have now got into the habit of coming back about 9pm. without this.        
    • Having had several cats over the past 40 years - mainly rescue, we have a tried and tested routine, Initially confined to one room with litter tray/food/water - we take it in turns to stay for a few minutes several times a day so they become familiar with our scent. They are gradually introduced to the rest of the house. We have a wire cat basket and we place cat in basket and take them outside, over a few days we place basket in different areas of the garden - grass area/gravel area, patio area etc - different flowers/plants. Some of the more nervous cats we walk around the garden on a lead. They get use to the scent of the garden. We have a cat flap in the back door so they have full access - If we need to keep cat in - just block off the cat flap so they cannot escape! We are now down to one elderly cat - who during the summer just laid on the garden chairs and came in for food, but as weather getting colder prefers to sit on a worktop in the kitchen looking out into the garden. So we are back to the cat litter as she is reluctant to go out in the rain/cold.  
    • With fibre you are paying for the speed, which is the number, yours is 300 so if you did a lot of gaming, for example, you would want the fastest possible.  If it's just office work or maybe streaming on Netflix you likely won't need as fast, but, if there are a lot of people in your house all doing their own thing on different devices, then faster speeds are better.  I don't rely on my Wi-Fi much other than when I am using my mobile.  I use Ethernet cables to connect up everything, I Have one cable running from my router, along the skirtings and through a hole I drilled in the wall to another room.  I have attached the plusnet speed guide which gives you an idea of how it works.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...