The government is maintaining that it will still be okay to build on flood plains " as long as adequate flood defences are in place.
Perhaps the government should look at all the places that were flooded over the weekend that were either ;
a) Already provided with flood defences that were in adequate for that amount of water.
or
b) Thought to be at no risk of flooding because water levels had never ever reached that height before.
I know this government has set ambitious targets for building new houses, but must they be on flood plains ?
2 comments:
That is an age old question, and mankind (farmers first) usually answers it in the affirmative. The great cities of the American midwest, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, Lincoln, are all in the Mississippi river valley, a rich fertile flood plain half a continent wide.
During the Great '93 flood, the question was not so much, why do you build in a flood plain, although that was asked.
Farmers, merchants, bankers, port officials & the neighbor down the street at St. Louis, Missouri, Memphis, Tennessee and elsewhere were in no mind to answer short-sighted scoffers from Los Angeles or Miami.
The true concern of those Americans outside the valley was their desire not to be compelled to subsidize repeat reconstruction.
This plan has to be stopped in its tracks.
The way forward is to expose the nonsense used to justify the plan in the first place which is based on flawed assumptions and out right lies.
Firstly the assumption is that sea levels will keep on rising based on the lie that global warming is real. I always ask the global warming alarmists what is the worst case scenario for your fear mongering G.W. nonsense. After some thought the only thing they site as being a real problem ( bearing in mind that a warmer climate and an increase in CO2 would be a benefit to plant and therefore ALL life) is rising sea levels. Then I ask them if the ice in their drink was to melt would they expect their glass to overflow? The fact is if the ice caps melted altogether the rise in sea levels would be negligible as most of the ice is already under water. Therefore the displacement potential is practically non-excitant.
In the view of many sane and level headed scientists
31,000 on this website for instance http://www.petitionproject.org/. the IPCC report is based on flawed science. Personally I am not willing to consider any climate model that totally ignores the SUN in their calculations. Also there are other things to consider when creating climate models that for some reason no one talks about. Here are just two more that need to be included before I would even look at the issue.
1. The earth is a ball of red hot molten rock with a very thin crust. Intense heat is ever present under the crust.
2. Space has a temperature 0º Kelvin which is
-273ºC
To my knowledge these two facts are also absent from the climate models used by the IPCC and therefore the IPCC models on global warming are clearly flawed and can be ignored for the laughable child like attempts at public deception they are.
They say the argument is over. The point is, the argument most certainly is not over, in fact far from it. The people of Norfolk have a fight on their hands but this is a fight they will win.
Post a Comment