Why we need to think before we build

[Nemesis]

Graham, I've never said I was perfect, partially sighted yes, but if you are winding yourself up to another session of lying on the floor and drumming your heels about me don't bother.

Go have a nice cup of tea and calm down.

 

[Nemesis]

Moo - has that been festering away at you all this time?

I doubt it will blight Graham's day or Tom's day. Or Lime's. New posters are a different matter.

Not exactly sure what Graham's point is, although I am sure he has one.

Anyhow, I'm off for a few days.

Pity as this thread is bringing out the worst in all of you, and it's getting quite interesting for a number of reasons, but I will have to leave you to argue amongst yourselves.

 

[Lime]

OK.

So I repeat,
What we should be concentrating on and what concerns me is the damage that global warming "improvements" will do to older property.
Saving the planet and destroying all the fabric of older, and not so old, housing will damage "period" housing stock forever.

 

[skier-hughes]

1. Not exactly sure what Graham's point is, although I am sure he has one.

2. I will have to leave you to argue amongst yourselves.

1. Err!!

You commented on my grammar, I commented that you weren't perfect with your typing either, surely easy enough to pick up on. I did include a quote box for you to see what I refered to.

2. Thank goodness

 

[Nemesis]

To what were you referring? I made no comment on your grammar.


Yes, It will be good to have a few days away. (Smiley face)

 

[Nemesis]

Lime, I agree with your point, although if global warming is a reality then possibly we won't need to worry.

I note that there seems to be some turning of the tide regarding the awful Pathfinder demolitions too, although too late for many.

I hope that some of us can perhaps submit something to the Commons Select Committee, although I am very tied up with an inquiry and whatever I submit will be short.

All submissions are welcome, all taken into account, and you can also appear before the committee if you wish.

 

[Moo]

Moo - has that been festering away at you all this time?

Of course it has. Blighted my life, in fact. I sometimes wake up in the night dreaming of it.
How sensitive of you to guess.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh well, if it's done some good...

 

[Nemesis]

Anyhow - to get back to Lime's valid point - some ideas would be useful if we can throw 'em into this thread.

uPVC windows...

 

[NT]

Anyhow - to get back to Lime's valid point - some ideas would be useful if we can throw 'em into this thread.

uPVC windows...

At the risk of saying something sensible in this thread...

Suggestions for solutions arent too useful until one has established the problem that one needs solutions for. And in this thread, establishing the real problem has been somewhat unsuccessful.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

At the moment , we have a situation where a CSC is to investigate what can be done to the current housing stock to combat whatever it thinks requires its intervention.

I have a nasty feeling we won't like some of the suggestions.

Possibly these can be countered.

I consider the uPVC window approach to be a bit of a greenwash scam.

 

[tom.harrigan]

Biff

I think you will find that very close to the beginning of this thread, I suggested it was off topic. I was assured it was not. You now complain that some people find the thread interesting and engage in discussion. You use the most foul and degrading terms to describe people, who you think don't "believe" in AGW. We all know what you mean by "denier". It is a disgusting turn of phrase.

You prefer to continue with ad hominem insults rather than to take issue with a single aspect of either paper. I have a theory why.

You wrote:

"Monckton is nothing to do with science, nor, we learn from Gervase, even alchemy as he has not the wit to extract sunbeams from cucumbers"

And you accuse me of taking the "p*ss". That statement is childish in the extreme!

As for Schwatrz's work supporting AGW, well so does Monkton's. No one disputes that we are warming the planet. You obviously hadn't noticed that. What matters is by how much and how soon. The climate sensitivity is central to understanding this. There is a growing body of evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is about 1K. If this is correct AGW will not be catastrophic! That is the conclusion.

You wrote:

"the fit purpose of this forum, is not to continue a futile debate with contrarians and deniers, but concentrate our minds on how to care for our built heritage"

This is glaring hypocrisy from the person who started the thread with images of the north pole and the statement:

"The image shows the current amount of ice (the purple bit!) A record loss this year."

Have you no shame? Have you no intellectual integrity? You exhibit all the symptoms of a zealot faced with reason. You can't cope, you don't understand, you resort to verbal violence.

T

 

[Nemesis]

Oh don't feed the troll.

Foul and degrading!

I'm sure if we tried though we could be.

Those of us who know Biff will also know he is a man of sense, reason, integrity - and intellect.

Stop trying to raise the trolling game a notch. We are wise to you.

 

[biffvernon]

Frankly, I find support for the likes of Monckton a pernicious evil that risks doing great harm to humanity if policy-makers become inclined to believe the pseudo-science. There is, of course, nothing in Schwartz's work that supports Monkton's position, despite what Tom would have us believe. Indeed their positions are diametrically opposed. Writing in Nature on 27 July '07, Schwartz concludes "The century-long lifetime of atmospheric CO2 and the anticipated future decline in atmospheric aerosols mean that greenhouse gases will inevitably emerge as the dominant forcing of climate change, and in the absence of a draconian reduction in emissions, this forcing will be large."

I take that as meaning that if we don't do something about CO2 emission pdq my 18th century house will be subermerged under the Greater North Sea.

Those who are interested in the antics of AGW contrarians and deniers may find this Deltoidpiece on Monckton amusing.

 

[Moo]

Oh well, if it's done some good...

I can't thank you enough.

 

[NT]

Stop trying to raise the trolling game a notch. We are wise to you.

Doesnt look like it to me. While I may totally disagree with Tom here and there he is for the most part giving reasonable input.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

Remind me, which was the reasonable bit?

 

[Pford75]

I've tried biting my lip...but knew i'd have to dive in eventually.

Tom seems to have a point of view which is slightly different to some on this forum. He's clearly spent soem considerable time developing and researching his POV (although I would agree that doesn't make it necessarily right)....but he is at least trying to engage in the debate and offer up some alternative perspectives. He even acedes certain points and I have to say that he doesn't appear to have indulged in personal abuse to the extent of that rained upon him.

I've given up contributing my own views on this after the vicious public and private abuse that I was subjected to (with my children reading at least 1 of the foul-mouthed private messages).

I would encourage everyone to read "State of fear" by Michael Crichton. He does a good job of presenting both sides of the debate and points out the flaws/problems in both camps. The book itself contains some very interesting data points (as well as sources for all of his data). Although I do know that there was some heavy criticism from various scientific groups regarding what they believed to be inaccuracies in his claims. I'm not claiming this as a definitive scientific article (before anyone jumps on me)...just a good read.

However, what was most compelling for me was the appendix on the subject of eugenics. Crichton points out that prior to WWII, there was wide-spread support for the whole concept of eugenics (scientists, politicians, social 'figures', celebrities etc.) including Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, The Carnegie institute......(in much the same way that Global Cooling/Global Warming/Climate change (or whatever it is currently called) is supported. Those disputing the concept of eugenics were referred to as 'deniers' and abused/ridiculed/persecuted for their beliefs.

Of course, the final consequence of the eugenics debate was the holocaust. At which point, the vast majority of 'eugenic supporters' changed their view.

Now...before anyone explodes in rage, i'm not saying that those who believe in climate change are nazis or anything like that. Nor am I saying that climate change is wrong in the same way eugenics is wrong (although I am currently in the 'unconvinced' camp). What I am trying to do is highlight the dangers of stifling debate and dissention.....of seizing on a minority and pillorying them for their opinions (that's all it is). I do realise that people on all sides are passionate about this subject (and I admire that)....but we're all flesh and blood at the end of the day.

Hatred breeds hatred and i've seen this before between Catholic and Protestant families in Ireland...I don't find it hard to accept that others have a different view to me....so can't we all enjoy the Bank Holiday

Spread the love......

 

[NT]

Of course, the final consequence of the eugenics debate was the holocaust.

That sounds like a real failure to understand why hitler did what he did. In acts of gross abuse the perp's claimed reason, their justification, is not normally the same as the real reason. The claimed reason does not normally justify the actions taken.

I think you'll find Hitler's actions were more a consequence of his psychosis. A sane supporter of eugenics would not have done what he did. That hitler thought it was a reasonable step from his eugenic beliefs to what he did only confirms his psychosis.

Eugenics policies that have nothing whatever to do with killing in any form still have support today.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

Crichton may (or may not) be a good novelist, but he is not a climate scientist. He has written a pernicious little book that causes great harm because some people are gullible enough and scientifically illiterate enough to take his words seriously.

For those interested in what the climate science community are saying about the Schwartz paper (as yet unpublished but accepted by the Journal of Geophysical Research) see James Allen's blog.

There's more at
Jim Hoggan at Desmoblog
Joseph Romm at Climate Progress
William Connolley on Science Blogs
and, of course, RealClimate where the team promise a more thorough treament shortly.