Congrats to Luke "Ming" Flannagan getting elected as mayor of Roscommon...

dynamick wrote: »

I found it frightening to see Ming claim last night that a bog could grow 40% in a few years. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on TV by a long shot. I don't care how many medical cards Ming has sorted out or how stoned he can get or how pointy he can train his beard.

That the people of Roscommon could pick such a hectoring gobdaw to represent them is beyond embarrassing.

Who needs knowledge like when you have a shovel?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2396128

BTW his figures appear to have originated with a government/state body ?

Why do you think he is embarrassing and a gobdaw ?
Is it because you have issues with his appearance or becuase he would fight for what he and his neighbours believe against the wishes of you or some people you admire ?

There have been far more embarrassing politicans picked by other constituencies including those of urban Dublin city.
What constituencies did ray burke, liam lawlor, bertie ahern, willie o'dea, charlie haughey represent ?
All primarily urban.
And yes other rural constitiuencies have voted in people like the flynns, jackie healy rae, jack neddy o'keefe, micahel lowry who I would deem not fit to lace the shoes of Ming.

And Ming has done far less, if any damage at all, to the body politic of this country.

You appear to have serious issues with his appearance ?
Personally I would rather an honest man looking like a tramp than a liar and thief in charvet shirts wearing makeup all at my expense.

Have you ever listened to him speak on issues like planning ?
You may not agree with the man, but at least you have to admit he often stands up against the popular and easier line.

BTW I have respected the guy from the day I heard him talk on radio about the travesty that was planning and development during the construction bubble and this comes from a guy that knew him from college days when I thought he was a one trick pony only interested in legalising drugs.

It has been noticable of late how many debates are degenerating into a battle between rural and urban.

Can't wait to see how many of the urban environmentalists will be pro environment when they want to remove water from the Shannon system to feed the wastage of the capital ?

To other posters (Sink, T.W.H Byron, OscarBaavo), have I ever said expert opinion should be ignored ?
What I have said is that you just can't try and tell people shut up, becuase you are not an expert and thus don't have the right to an opinion on this and that is IMHO what some posters are affectively saying.

The reason some of us highlighted the issues with doctors/banks etc is to highlight that expert opinion does often need to be challenged because it can be wrong and is not infallible as some would have one think.

killbillvol2 wrote: »

The issue is simple. He put out a statement, quoting from some govt sponsored report, that Bog X grew by 40% over Y number of years and the scientist didn't dispute it or correct it. She just sat there looking faintly bemused. Surely it should have been very simple to debunk his statement?

If I remember correctly she replied with the 1mm(?) per year growth of bogs.

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

If I remember correctly she replied with the 1mm(?) per year growth of bogs.

Edited my post above after looking at RTE Player. She had no idea what his figures meant as they came at her out of the blue. Personally I think he was quoting figures relating to flora & fauna/biodiversity.

limklad wrote: »

Where do you think scientist get their initial knowledge about bogs and the dangers about them? It call local knowledge. They add on top of that.

Scientist too get things very wrong. Science and technology is always evolving over time and always through painful steps. It a human trait to believe they are always right because they were educated that they have a doctorates, masters, etc. Look at many malpractice by Doctors over the last few decades and they have some of the Highest points from the leaving cert. Look at the economist all around the world who got the fundementals of the world economies badly wrong and they degraded anybody who questioned the facts. They too were highly educated and had many decades of experience in the field.

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/science-mistakes/science-mistakes.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915

Only good/Great scientist and Engineers constantly question things. They Day they don't is the day I worry about scientific facts!

Did you read any of the more recent posts before yours before typing that? Because I know I addressed what you've said before you said it and I know other people did too. You're not required to read all the posts of course but this isn't a particularly long thread so it isn't too much effort to do it. I recommend page 3 of this thread, most of the replies to your post are there, a full page before your post.:)

limklad wrote: »

Where do you think scientist get their initial knowledge about bogs and the dangers about them? It call local knowledge. They add on top of that.

Yet apparently, despite having added to that knowledge, they somehow know less about bogs than local people do....according, at least, to some.

limklad wrote: »

Scientist too get things very wrong. Science and technology is always evolving over time and always through painful steps. It a human trait to believe they are always right because they were educated that they have a doctorates, masters, etc.

I don't assume anything of the kind - I have a Master's degree myself, in a field which actually emphasises the extent of the rigidity of much scientific thought. However, knowing that someone who has studied bogs for 20 years is also a fallible human being doesn't change the fact that they've got 20 years more hands-on experience of bogs, 20 years more thinking about bogs, and 20 years more knowledge of bogs than someone who hasn't - and who is also a fallible human being.

Experts aren't some kind of infallible oracle, but that doesn't mean they're not experts - frankly, that line of thinking is just the flip-side of the "they're always right" mistake.

limklad wrote: »

Look at many malpractice by Doctors over the last few decades and they have some of the Highest points from the leaving cert. Look at the economist all around the world who got the fundementals of the world economies badly wrong and they degraded anybody who questioned the facts. They too were highly educated and had many decades of experience in the field.

Neither economics nor the practice of medicine are sciences.

limklad wrote: »

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/science-mistakes/science-mistakes.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915

Only good/Great scientist and Engineers constantly question things. They Day they don't is the day I worry about scientific facts!

That's kind of the point. Scientists do constantly question, do constantly deal in uncertainties, and are (nearly) always willing to take on board new information. That's why it's so easy to make them look like unsure incompetents in rapid-fire public debate - you throw them a couple of new facts they probably haven't come across, and which would change the case if they were true - and the scientist goes "ooh, new fact, well, I should take that on board, I can't check it now, but yeah that would certainly change the picture". You then say "ta-daa!".

By the time the scientist has gone off and painstakingly found that the figure you've just quoted at them is complete rubbish - that is, they would describe it as 'probably unfounded' - the show is long over and everyone's gone home thinking you're the greatest lad ever. Easy kill every time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'll be talking to her next week, so I can ask...it's a funny thing, though, that nervousness often comes across as arrogance, whereas confidence comes across as approachable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lukovic wrote: »

http://www.filefactory.com/file/b1820ca/n/tcca_submission.pdf

Hmmm.

These self styled experts, with the support of EU bureaucrats appear to view rural people as an invasive species, deserving of eradication.

In this respect the Government have a choice, which we do not. The Government can choose the path of co-operation or conflict. If the path of conflict is chosen, rural communities will have no choice but to fight for their very survival. Such a contest may appear at first glance to be an unequal one, with the Government holding all of the cards, and all of the power. However, we draw our inspiration from the immortal words of Terence McSweeney as he lay dying on Hunger Strike in Cork jail, ….

I must say, they do love their rhetoric. It's rather ridiculous to be fair.

lukovic wrote: »

Fine rhetoric indeed. Page 26 has some interesting information on it.

I saw that but they are far from clear as to where they got the figures from.

In addition to the data presented in the previous pages, the TCCA have extracted the
following information from documentation obtained from the NPWS under the
Freedom of Information Acts. The data provided in Tables 1, 2 & 3 demonstrates the
following:-
(a) As is evident in table (1), in the absence of turf cutting, the extent of ARB habitat
still deteriorated very seriously in individual bogs.
(b) As evidenced in table (2), ARB habit extent did improve in some bogs where
there was no turf cutting.
(c) As evidenced in table (3), not only can ARB habitat coexist alongside Domestic
Turf Cutting, it can prosper alongside it !

It won't be taken seriously until some proper referencing is done.

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

I saw that but they are far from clear as to where they got the figures from.

It won't be taken seriously until some proper referencing is done.

AlekSmart wrote:

Definitely a case for the setting up of an "Expert Group" I should think,or perhaps a "Consultants Report" to add to the greater breadth of our knowledge.

lukovic, thanks very much for that 'report'. Very interesting!

OK, looking at page 26, I see the 40% figure quoted by Ming is from this report - he's picked the highest number off that page as bogs regrowing "up to 40%", which is the figure for Lisnageeragh Bog. But how is 5.25 hectares supposed to be 40% of the Active Raised Bog Area at Lisnageeragh Bog? Lisnageeragh Bog's area of raised bog is 282.4 ha, according to the same PDF! That's 1.86% regrowth, not 40%.

I suspect that the figure there refers to something else - and I suspect it's this:

And there's more:

In 2005, Lisnageeragh Bog (Ref:000296) was the subject of a restoration project and is therefore worthy of particular mention in this context. Active Raised Bog (ARB) habitat increased by +5.25 Ha. Turf Cutting practice continued unchanged throughout and 0.08% of the high bog was used in turf cutting in the course of the 10 year period. Contrast this with Cloonshanville (Ref. 000614) where ARB habitat Decreased by -5.25 Ha, even though only 0.0071% of the raised bog was used for Turf Cutting in the same 10 year period.

So Lisnageeragh Bog was subject to a successful restoration project. OK - it gained 5.25 ha of active raised bog. But the TCCA are using that added bog as part of a set of figures purporting to show that even where there is cutting happening, you can still see bog growth? Of course you can - if someone is doing a restoration project on it!

The 40% figure is, I suspect, the 5.25 ha increase in active raised bog as a percentage of the restoration project area or other monitored area. It certainly isn't the increase in the overall bog area.

And the figures showing no cutting but ARB decreasing - yes, that's part of the point! A raised bog is a like a slightly heaped plate of porridge, if one cares to imagine such a thing. The bog is a wet mass that sits in a slight depression, but is mostly held in by its skin. When you cut into raised bog, you're doing the equivalent of making nicks in the skin at the edge of the plate - and the wet porridge inside starts to leak out (the analogy is only perfect in the case of bog bursts, otherwise what leaks out is water).

The only thing that re-seals the bog is regrowth of the skin - so cutting goes on having an effect year after year, because that skin grows back very slowly.

Also, if the TCCA's figures are right, then of the affected SAC area, only about 7.2% is in private hands (extrapolating from the figures they give), and the area actually affected yearly is 0.02% - that is, 454.5 ha and 1.32 ha of the 6294 ha of ARB they've given ownership and cutting figures for.

This is what's being claimed as the death knell of domestic turf cutting?

amazed,
Scofflaw