div>
***
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 ----------
Originally Posted by
Ged
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?
Bookmarks