Page 14 of 35 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 66 to 70 of 171

Thread: Housing Mistakes

  1. #66
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    Yes, and another example of data being "corrected" (fudged?) to set up a govt. policy...

    The debate would be a lot more robust if the data collectors actually released the original data, and told you what corrections were performed and why.

    Concensus is not a scientific proof in any field except climateology.

    Next week I'm a judge at the local Southern Arizona Science Fair - I bet none of the kids present concensus as part of their exhibits...

    [Joke]Having spent two winter months over the last two years in Liverpool, I think 1 or 2 degrees C rise might actually be good - heck it would even reduce CO2 generation due to smaller heating bills... [/Joke]
    I’m sorry I’ve (scan)-read the links three times and see no mention of consensus. So I do not follow the reference.

    Similarly I don’t know the authors of the pieces or their qualifications to interpret either the base data or the adjustments.

    I do know that a ‘full disclosure’ of the raw data to the uninitiated or poorly qualified could be like asking a plumber to explain the full and detailed workings of the Hadron collider.

    And I would hope that the kids at the Science Fair are aware that there is no ‘proof’ in science. Science moves forward based on hypothesis and probable explanation. The scientific community is its own forum within which certain explanations gained more or less credence as time goes by.

    Explanation previously held as true becomes superseded by newer truths (from Newton to Einstein to Pauli). Perhaps not consensus but near enough to it as makes no difference.

    I can remember year after year winter snow in Liverpool. I went to a wedding in Zurich in December about two years ago - not one flake, in the sky or on the ground.

    ***

    As for one or two degrees being good, tell it to the birds - literally, the ones dying out because spring is coming too early and insect larvae are peaking too soon to feed the chicks. Not a joke.

    Or if you don't believe CO2 emissions are the cause, you can laugh about it with those affected by lack of water availability, flood risk, rising sea levels, storms and disease transference.

  2. #67
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I’m sorry I’ve (scan)-read the links three times and see no mention of consensus. So I do not follow the reference.

    My mistake. Consensus is the word used to denigrate the "deniers" when they ask for any proof. In this case proof would be accuracy of the predictive models.
    It's the term used by politicians given no scientific accuracy. One minor example here -

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

    Given that the models are now many years old you would think that their predictions could be checked - no examples have been shown of this yet.


    Similarly I don’t know the authors of the pieces or their qualifications to interpret either the base data or the adjustments.

    I do know that a ‘full disclosure’ of the raw data to the uninitiated or poorly qualified could be like asking a plumber to explain the full and detailed workings of the Hadron collider.

    Doesn't matter, they are not releasing their data to anyone, even those qualified to review.

    Even then, with a reasonable explanation, as a graduate Liverpool Univ. engineer, I should probably be able to follow the workings of the Hadron collider. The simple plumber explanation should also fit in with the engineer explanation - right now it's over-simplified (and alarmist) and is not fully connected to all of the available data.

    And I would hope that the kids at the Science Fair are aware that there is no ‘proof’ in science. Science moves forward based on hypothesis and probable explanation. The scientific community is its own forum within which certain explanations gained more or less credence as time goes by.

    I agree 'no proof', but theories are put out, along with observed data, and others review them. That is the way in all other scientific fields. The "climategate" e-mails showed how IPCC authors wanted a scientific journal editor removed becuase he dared to publish a paper from a qualified author that they disagreed with. The AGW community is not playing straight here...

    Explanation previously held as true becomes superseded by newer truths (from Newton to Einstein to Pauli). Perhaps not consensus but near enough to it as makes no difference.

    True, but with data and observations to back it up. All of the AGW is based on predictive models, and not one has really been checked - often the model internals are not even released to others inthe scientific community.

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/IPCC1995_Fail.htm


    I can remember year after year winter snow in Liverpool. I went to a wedding in Zurich in December about two years ago - not one flake, in the sky or on the ground.

    Interesting, I cycled 2.5 miles four times a day to Quarry Bank HS in the early 60's and remember very few days when I couldn't go. My dad didn't have a car and the bus routes sucked so I would have walked, and remembered it. Last year in Feb. in Liverpool there were a few days when I couldn't even walk around the block to my sisters because of the ice. When I was a teenager I had a nice tobaggon given to me. I can only remember one period of 3 days or so when Holts field was covered well enough in snow to use it. In the last two trips to Liverpool in the last three years I saw more snow on Holts field than that.

    In the climate world our personal recollections don't cover enough time span and are not uniform. Our minds cherry-pick the data.

    Your Zurich trip isn't a good example either, you could have gone to Venice this winter and seen the canals frozen over for the first time in several decades...

    ***

    As for one or two degrees being good, tell it to the birds - literally, the ones dying out because spring is coming too early and insect larvae are peaking too soon to feed the chicks. Not a joke.

    Again, surveys by scientists to get AGW grants. Most of what you quoted is based on predictions from the IPCC worst cases. It tries to make a good case for govt. intervention.

    Or if you don't believe CO2 emissions are the cause, you can laugh about it with those affected by lack of water availability, flood risk, rising sea levels, storms and disease transference.

    Again, based on the trend. Global Warming just got renamed in the last year to Climate Change - now everything can be blamed on CO2, hot/cold, wet/dry it's all our fault. What should the sea level be? Even the US can't come up with more than 6 inches in a century. Not cherry picking data, which the alarmist newspapers usually do, this is by where I lived in CA - Arizona doesn't have a sea level problem unless CA gets a giant earthquake...

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/slt...?stnid=9410840

    At less than 1/16 inch per year even the accuracy could be called into question....

    If the alarmists call for more storms in the US, then we may have more water available. I'm not arguing against conservation, I don't think we should waste stuff, but I see attempts at recycling and saving energy that make folks feel good, but actually use more energy overall.

    Solar panels are one - sounds like free electricity from the sun, but how much energy went into making them? Prices have fallen in the US, but it's distorted due to cheap Chinese panel imports - made with probably the dirtiest energy on the planet.

    In a similar vein, what should the temperature of the planet be? What is good and what is bad? Things change on their own - England grew grapes outdoors in Medieval times - Greenland was settled and farmed at one time. In climate timelines these were recent events, especially since the IPCC is predicting temperatures a century out.

    Note that every "solution" proposed so far involves the taking of money from your pocket and giving to the govt....

    UPDATE

    I found the good description of feedback and model accuracy I mentioned earlier, and it even comes from an ex-Australian govt. scientist. He was in the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) - Hey, there's that name change I mentioned earlier! Note that since he looked at more data and changed his stance, he is now ex-govt....

    http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

    It's the best clear explanation of feedbacks within climate systems I have come across. Even the plumber mentioned above could probably follow it. It even follows the scientific method that the kids could understand - make a prediction (theory), take the data, and then check if your prediction (theory) was true.

    The summary is here - my highlight -

    "The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media — have you ever seen anything like any of the figures here in the mainstream media? That alone tells you that the "debate" is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.

    This is an unusual political issue, because there is a right and a wrong answer, and everyone will know which it is eventually. People are going ahead and emitting CO2 anyway, so we are doing the experiment: either the world heats up by several degrees by 2050 or so, or it doesn't.

    Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO2 and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology."

  3. #68
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    A time scale on having to do something with a property somebody willingly and voluntarily bought would of course have an effect on making the new owner do something with it or why buy it in the first place if not just to let the land value increase as it will over time anyway - or perhaps the land will increase solely because of other developments and activity around it - like we saw with the King Edward pub site.

    The building I had in mind was obviously habitable not too long ago - the late 80s early 90s as I remember. Even if it is owned by the Council, though they were very cagey with me, then it's a disgrace that it's been left to go to ruin like that and not at least put out on the open market for sale. One way or another, whether it is privately owned or council, the scenario which has happened up to now (saving it falling down or being demolished) is the worst that could have happened up to now and that's not acceptable.

    Inheriting something somebody doesn't want is easily solved by selling it if it's not wanted, hasn't that always been the case, even if it's something rather than nothing. Perhaps inheriting something that's been bestowed upon you unwillingly is a different kettle of fish that actually going out of your way to own something which then becomes a blot on the landscape impacting upon others due to your negligence - just as the council do not allow residential tenants to overgrow their gardens out of control - at least that is the law - whether it's enforced often enough is another matter.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  4. #69
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    Doesn't matter, they are not releasing their data to anyone, even those qualified to review.
    The ‘business’ of science of every description is about finding funding/grants for research. That is no reason to discriminate against any particular group and particularly not on the basis that you happen to disagree with that group.

    As for us all paying (via government or not) well, we’ve all enjoyed the tune. Maybe it’s time to pay the piper.

    ***

    Concentration on looking forward alone (predictive models) rather than looking at what has happened (historic correlations) is highly selective and by no means the full story. It does however pre-suppose that a link has been established between cause (CO2 emissions) and effect (global warming/ climate change).

    That link is supported by IPCC to the point of accepted wisdom (consensus) and at least backed by the 928 scientific theses referenced (in that particular report).

    There is also science to hypothesise and observe the results of the resultant warming.

    Actual sea level increase, real melting of the ice caps, green Alps in December, no sparrows in my mum’s back garden in Huyton. Bloody Magpies everywhere - all of which are demonstrably happening.

    Note. These are not predictive and do not call on predictive research as proof of the pudding. The pudding is actually happening. Even the graph you cite shows an increase in sea level. It is happening!

    ***

    Yes, some of that is discountable as short-term personal experience and yes, there is contrary experience - but as I said, who’s to say that the slowing of the warming (or snow and ice in Liverpool last year) is not down to the melting of the ice caps or reversal of the gulf stream or some other unmeasured phenomena. The systems are complex.

    And so and as for checking predictive models, we’ve been trying to predict weather for as long as... and with just about as much success. Frankly I think it’s entirely reasonable for the IPCC not to make such an important debate such a hostage to such a fragile fortune.

    ***

    Some of the observed phenomena may well be headline catching but headline catching is what you have to do to get a message over. A number of Science (Non-)Fictionists (Arthur C Clarke, Asimov) have put the basis of the science forward for many years prior to the 1970s in rather more scientific terms than the genre suggests. They've been followed by more pointed commentators such as James Lovelock and others. And for just as many years they have been dismissed as Science Fantasists or Loony Lefties with an axe to grind against capitalist society. (If that's not vested and self-interest and bias, I don't know what is).

    But you need to make waves to get the message through even to the petrol heads who have a strong vested interest in keeping on, keeping on (Jeremy Clarkson, any Texan...). Unfortunate as it is, we live in a world of sound-bites.

    ***

    Well, I have a degree too and a post-graduate qualification and letters up the ying-yang after my name and I could probably have a better than average go at explaining the workings of the Hadron collider.

    Nevertheless, I am still not qualified to address the raw data and as an engineer - structural, civil, mechanical or electrical, neither are you. We are all guilty of living in a world of half-baked and ill-informed opinion - about almost everything. We need not swallow 'expert' opinion wholesale but we could all do with being a bit more humble.

    ***

    That said, I’ve also been working in the built environment for nearly forty years and on what I do know about, in some depth - the effects of global warming are very clearly marked.

    Buildings are more complicated. They cost more to build and are thus becoming smaller and even so, less affordable. They cost more to heat (largely because of ‘urban sprawl’ and extended distribution) and more to cool (because of increased temperatures).

    Quality of Life is falling because of global warming. You may argue in the face of ‘consensus’ that that is not as a result of CO2 emissions and that ‘the experiment is running’ - well, I for one would rather not wait till we pass a tipping point beyond which there is no redress. I would rather not risk runaway global heating because we no longer have ice caps to reflect solar radiation.

    ***

    We could do nothing. The planet is self-regulatory. Perhaps vines would grow in Greenland again. Maybe wheat on the tundra. Life would adapt and move on. But I would rather keep sea temperatures at levels that can absorb CO2 as they have done for millennia. I would rather the planet maintained a balance for life that includes, rather than excludes, us.

    I would rather run the other experiment. The other experiment of reducing CO2 emissions and seeing what happens with that.

    ***

    Because and like your planners in Tucson, I know that besides everything else, bringing people closer together (less travel) in more ‘passively’ engineered environments has positive benefits in any event, not only to lifestyle, social interaction, well-being and reduction of stress but also to the reduction of carbon emissions and other industrial pollutants in the atmosphere (and there is a moral imperative for that).

    For example, I wonder if anyone has correlated the plume from the refineries at Ellemere Port and the incidences of carcinogenic and respiratory disease in Liverpool recently?



    ---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    A time scale on having to do something with a property somebody willingly and voluntarily bought would of course have an effect on making the new owner do something with it or why buy it in the first place if not just to let the land value increase as it will over time anyway - or perhaps the land will increase solely because of other developments and activity around it - like we saw with the King Edward pub site.

    The building I had in mind was obviously habitable not too long ago - the late 80s early 90s as I remember. Even if it is owned by the Council, though they were very cagey with me, then it's a disgrace that it's been left to go to ruin like that and not at least put out on the open market for sale. One way or another, whether it is privately owned or council, the scenario which has happened up to now (saving it falling down or being demolished) is the worst that could have happened up to now and that's not acceptable.

    Inheriting something somebody doesn't want is easily solved by selling it if it's not wanted, hasn't that always been the case, even if it's something rather than nothing. Perhaps inheriting something that's been bestowed upon you unwillingly is a different kettle of fish that actually going out of your way to own something which then becomes a blot on the landscape impacting upon others due to your negligence - just as the council do not allow residential tenants to overgrow their gardens out of control - at least that is the law - whether it's enforced often enough is another matter.
    Ged, I’m sorry but I don’t think you’re getting my point.

    If nobody wants to buy a place or they haven’t got the money to do it up themselves or no-one is interesting in living or working there, there’s nothing anyone can do to change that (whether it’s owned by the council or not).

    You can’t 'easily solve' the situation if no-one wants to buy it or live in it. You’re stuck with it and if you’ve just bought it (or inherited it), it hurts.

    ***

    King Eddies fell into disrepair because no-one wanted to go to a pub there - out on a limb. No houses around. Dock Road businesses closed. Difficult road to cross for lunch time trade (who were better off in the Cross Keys). The owner was stuck with it. Why should he spend money on it?

    Along comes the expansion of the Business District and the owner says “I’ll have a bit of that” and sells it to a developer who puts in for planning permission at his own expense and risk.

    Along comes a recession and back to square one (almost) - no one wants it again. Unless the developer bought it ‘subject to’ he’ll be hurting like stink right now. What was the price? 8m? 25m plus planning costs? 6% to 12% at the bank? ouch.

    ***

    On the one hand and with the best will in the world, the buyer thought he had a go-er and put his money where his mouth was. Now he's stuck with a massive interest bill.

    On the other and if the sale didn't happen, should the owner be penalised because it fell through any more than the son fined because no-one wants his dad's house?

  5. #70
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    A time scale on having to do something with a property somebody willingly and voluntarily bought would of course have an effect on making the new owner do something with it or why buy it in the first place if not just to let the land value increase as it will over time anyway - or perhaps the land will increase solely because of other developments and activity around it - like we saw with the King Edward pub site.
    Ged, read my recent posts. Look at Land Valuation Taxation and Harrisburg in the USA. Harrisburg was in the same situation as Liverpool and dragged itself up by using intelligence and a system that works and proven to work. Derelict buildings were cleared up. The city prospered. LVT made Jo-Burg the economic super-city of half a continent - they introduced it in the city in 1918. There is no reason why Jo-Burg should be success in the location it is in once the mines were worked dry. The city is not on a river, a confluence of fertile valleys, on a lake and it is surrounded by poor farmland. I went to Jo-Burg about 16 years ago and the city was clearly prosperous. I saw no derelict buildings and the homes built were far larger than those in Cape Town - all due to a simple tax. No change of business laws or anything like that in Jo-Burg or Harrisburg.

    Then there is the brilliant success of Taiwan.
    The German colony of Kiaochow in China, established in 1898, had a Single Tax on land value, no other taxes, set at 6 percent. Its principal city, Tsing-tao, developed into a fine modern city. The Germans lost the colony in 1914 at the outbreak of World War I, but the experience of the colony influenced the Chinese revolutionary Sun Yat-sen, who became head of the government of China. He and his successors in the Nationalist Party were not able to implement land value taxation in that country, but when they moved to Taiwan in 1950 after the communists took control of the mainland, Chiang-kai shek implemented a land-to-the-tiller reform accompanied by a tax on land value. Taiwan has since developed into an advanced major industrial power from an agricultural backwater in a short timeframe. Hong Kong and Singapore became major commercial centers in large part because much of their public finance is based on taxing land values, or in the case of Hong Kong, from selling land leases, with low taxes on trade and commerce.

    Advertisements -------

    Liverpool has everything going for it. It is: on a wide deep water estuary, an in-place super large port, its own airport with easy access to another, the geographical centre of the UK, countless towns and cities within a few hours drive, established in-place rail and motorway infrastructure, etc, etc. Then why has the city struggled so much, blighted by abandoned buildings? That is a question with a complex answer, however, the solution is staring the city in the face. Some have seen it and attempted to get LVT implemented in the city. Whitehall officials came up and sent the US advisors from The Center for the Study of Economics packing. We should be campaigning to get the city more in control of its own financial affairs, and get rid of the dead paw of London.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

Page 14 of 35 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Terraced Housing In Liverpool
    By Bob Edwards in forum Bob Edwards' Liverpool Picture Book
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-05-2013, 09:15 AM
  2. Court Housing in Liverpool
    By Bob Edwards in forum Bob Edwards' Liverpool Picture Book
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 11:41 AM
  3. Eldon Grove Housing
    By Kev in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 11:31 PM
  4. Insanitary Housing Images
    By Kev in forum In My Liverpool Home
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-07-2009, 02:37 PM
  5. cathedral &housing
    By gregs dad in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-09-2007, 08:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68