Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Robin-H]

Proven?

 

How has anything been proven?

 

Just because some internet site says so?

 

or because more people don't have the problems I have with those trees than I do?

 

I'm just stating my opinion based on my experience with said trees.

 

Maybe people who like trees more have a different view, that's what life experience is all about.

 

Have you read the link I provided? Like I said, ignorance is really not a defence when the information is so readily available. It was only one click away.

 

It is not proven because 'some internet site says so', no.

 

The links between urban trees and increased mental and physical health, as well as the numerous environmental benefits (UV shading, absorption of pollution, reducing risk of flooding to name a few) have been the subject of a growing number of empirical peer reviewed scientific research papers.

 

Now, it is fine to question the result of those papers if you feel the methods were flawed and the results unsound. It is not fine to say that the research papers are invalid because they are published on the internet. That is patently illogical.

 

Your opinion does not trump the research. You might not like urban trees, and as I have repeatedly said that's fine, but it obviously doesn't mean that the benefits of trees do not exist.

[Crosser]

Have you read the link I provided? Like I said, ignorance is really not a defence when the information is so readily available. It was only one click away.

 

It is not proven because 'some internet site says so', no.

 

The links between urban trees and increased mental and physical health, as well as the numerous environmental benefits (UV shading, absorption of pollution, reducing risk of flooding to name a few) have been the subject of a growing number of empirical peer reviewed scientific research papers.

 

Now, it is fine to question the result of those papers if you feel the methods were flawed and the results unsound. It is not fine to say that the research papers are invalid because they are published on the internet. That is patently illogical.

 

Your opinion does not trump the research. You might not like urban trees, and as I have repeatedly said that's fine, but it obviously doesn't mean that the benefits of trees do not exist.

 

I do not like urban trees, you are right, however my opinion does "trump" the research because of the blight said trees have had on my life over the last 20 years of clearing up after them, birdmuck on vehicles and damage from roots, not to mention the blockage of light from my south facing abode when I need it most.

 

The isolated trees on grass areas didn't seem to do much good down Meadowhall a few years ago either if I recall?

 

If someone else wants all those problems blighting their life, then that is up to them, I don't, and I think it'll take a VERY long time for me to change my mind on that.

 

 

 

...... Waits for the "well move" comment........... If only!

Edited March 7, 2017 by Crosser

[Robin-H]

I do not like urban trees, you are right, however my opinion does "trump" the research because of the blight said trees have had on my life over the last 20 years of clearing up after them, birdmuck on vehicles and damage from roots, not to mention the blockage of light from my south facing abode when I need it most.

 

If someone else wants all those problems blighting their life, then that is up to them, I don't, and I think it'll take a VERY long time for me to change my mind on that.

 

 

 

...... Waits for the "well move" comment........... If only!

 

 

Are you honestly suggesting that your one opinion invalidates all empirical peer reviewed scientific research papers?

[Crosser]

Are you honestly suggesting that your one opinion invalidates all empirical peer reviewed scientific research papers?

 

We all know about Empires (They tend to strike back and tell people what to think) , and who are the peers?

 

I'll just nip next door and ask Gus ..... brb

[Eater Sundae]

Have you read the link I provided? Like I said, ignorance is really not a defence when the information is so readily available. It was only one click away.

 

It is not proven because 'some internet site says so', no.

 

The links between urban trees and increased mental and physical health, as well as the numerous environmental benefits (UV shading, absorption of pollution, reducing risk of flooding to name a few) have been the subject of a growing number of empirical peer reviewed scientific research papers.

 

Now, it is fine to question the result of those papers if you feel the methods were flawed and the results unsound. It is not fine to say that the research papers are invalid because they are published on the internet. That is patently illogical.

 

Your opinion does not trump the research. You might not like urban trees, and as I have repeatedly said that's fine, but it obviously doesn't mean that the benefits of trees do not exist.

 

Urban trees does not necessarily mean roadside trees. Trees are great. But they don't need to be at the roadside.

[Robin-H]

Urban trees does not necessarily mean roadside trees. Trees are great. But they don't need to be at the roadside.

 

Crosser specifically stated that they did not like urban trees and that trees belong in the countryside (yes, really..)

 

When I provided the link to the paper by the Forestry Commission I specifically stated that it did not just refer to roadside trees, but all urban trees.

 

Regarding roadside trees specifically, we have had much discussion on here about the particular benefits of roadside trees which I'm not sure needs repeating.

 

Either you didn't read the papers I have previously linked to or you did read them and simply disagreed with them and so I am not sure that linking them again will be particularly fruitful.

[Crosser]

Crosser specifically stated that they did not like urban trees and that trees belong in the countryside (yes, really..)

 

When I provided the link to the paper by the Forestry Commission I specifically stated that it did not just refer to roadside trees, but all urban trees.

 

Regarding roadside trees specifically, we have had much discussion on here about the particular benefits of roadside trees which I'm not sure needs repeating.

 

Either you didn't read the papers I have previously linked to or you did read them and simply disagreed with them and so I am not sure that linking them again will be particularly fruitful.

 

No it probably won't, Neither will the trees thank god! (I mean Amey) At least they got something right!

 

goodnight xxx

[Guest makapaka]

Robin h and cyclone have an admirable tenacity in their views which I respect.

 

The inability to accept any alternative viewpoint renders this thread something of a one sided discussion.

 

Personally I don't want to see trees cut down, I also don't believe Amey or Scc are maliciously destroying the cities greenery.

 

We are well into the scheme now, and I have seen far more improvements as a consequence of streets ahead than reductions.

 

We live in a big city and sometimes things have to give for overall improvement. It's just how it is.

[Robin-H]

Robin h and cyclone have an admirable tenacity in their views which I respect.

 

The inability to accept any alternative viewpoint renders this thread something of a one sided discussion.

 

Personally I don't want to see trees cut down, I also don't believe Amey or Scc are maliciously destroying the cities greenery.

 

We are well into the scheme now, and I have seen far more improvements as a consequence of streets ahead than reductions.

 

We live in a big city and sometimes things have to give for overall improvement. It's just how it is.

 

It's not that I don't accept other people's viewpoints or opinions. I've said many times in this thread that people are perfectly entitled to dislike roadside trees, or indeed trees in general, for whatever reason they like.

 

Nobodies opinions and beliefs however can invalidate the growing body of evidence for the many benefits of roadside trees, unless of course they have legitimate and valid concerns about the way the research was conducted and therefore the soundness of the results.

 

It's absolutely fine to say that you still dislike roadside trees inspite of that evidence, but it is not OK to pretend the evidence doesn't exist and construct an argument on that pretence.

 

I personally feel that arguments based on bodies of peer reviewed research are stronger than arguments based on personal opinion, but that says nothing about the validity of that opinion, or the persons entitlement to hold it.

[Longcol]

The links between urban trees and increased mental and physical health, as well as the numerous environmental benefits (UV shading, absorption of pollution, reducing risk of flooding to name a few) have been the subject of a growing number of empirical peer reviewed scientific research papers.

 

Now, it is fine to question the result of those papers if you feel the methods were flawed and the results unsound. It is not fine to say that the research papers are invalid because they are published on the internet. That is patently illogical.

 

Your opinion does not trump the research. You might not like urban trees, and as I have repeatedly said that's fine, but it obviously doesn't mean that the benefits of trees do not exist.

 

Trees growing in the pavement and roadside verges (ie the ones being chopped / replaced) are a tiny percentage of "urban trees" in Sheffield - from experience they are well in the minority of trees within a few yards of roads in Sheffield.

 

I'd love a peer reviewed paper of how trees growing in the pavement and roadside verges reduce the risk of flooding given the floods we had in 2007 - well before anyone had heard of Amey.