Fat tree, Narrow pavement

[jaywalker]

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).

[edhistory]

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]

Rather than enter into a philosophical discussion of what constitutes proof, a peer-reviewed scientific paper will do me, I'm a simple man.

[jaywalker]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Precis:

>

> Everything jaywalker posts is rubbish.

please amplify

[jaywalker]

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.

[edhistory]

> please amplify

You amplified, I provided a helpful contraction.

[Zebedee Tring]

It's been scientifically proven that Elvis Presley is still alive and working for the Co-op in LL. I know it's true - I read it on the internet.

[rendelharris]

That'll be where all the bloody bread's going!

ETA and the bacon, the jam and the peanut butter to boot...

[pop9770]

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?

[rendelharris]

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?

[sdrs]

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.

[pop9770]

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 ..

[rendelharris]

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]

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.

[pop9770]

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 ?

[pop9770]

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

[rendelharris]

Enough already. Reporting to admin, you can't just go around accusing people of being mentally ill because they don't agree with your extremely peculiar opinions.

[pop9770]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Enough already. Reporting to admin, you can't

> just go around accusing people of being mentally

> ill because they don't agree with your extremely

> peculiar opinions.

Ok

[pop9770]

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.

[jaywalker]

I have a candle burning in my sitting room because it is xmas. My smart device has just warned me the air quality has deteriorated significantly. I am having the walls and ceiling demolished as soon as we are over these atavistic bank holidays.

[natty01295]

Climate change The more trees the better !!!