Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Eco Towns, a solution, or distraction?

No smoking hot spot : Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005

Being a planner. I am concerned about whether planning policy is appropriate and appropriately evidence based. Unfortunately, the green movement is often based on the precautionary principle. This is a United Nations and EU principle that basically means, fear can be a substitute for evidence. Therefore, the risk that there may be a risk from greenhouse gases is enough to bring on eco towns upon viable farmland and to install carbon tax. So, here is another example of a scientist who has moved from the fighting global warming to being a sceptic. His story comes from his personal scientific experience. So, in our drive to solve the "housing crisis", which is infact a currency crisis (banks printed money, ploughed into mortgage securities, inflating prices), are ecotowns a distraction?

Posted by planning4acrash @ 01:02 AM (881 views)
Please complete the required fields.



20 thoughts on “Eco Towns, a solution, or distraction?

  • Living In A Box says:

    Great post. I doubt though, if this common sense article will knock any nails in the coffin that is the myth that WE cause climate change through our carbon emissions. It’s all bull, the politicians will still talk gently about carbon pricing. IT’S A TAX! Another one!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Unfortunately his opinion will have no effect on the gov policy. If they continue to talk carbon pricing and then introduce this as a worldwide tax, who can afford to pay it. We are on our knees already. Those on the brink will be further pushed over the edge as their houses that were once their asset will become a carbon liability around their necks.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • More assertion as truth;

    “But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.”

    What new evidence? This I wonder? ; “The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.”

    Yet the FACTS about the radiosonde data collection are different. Could this just be another conspiracy to prove we are all sheeple who don’t know how to look for real evidence?

    “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”

    Check the real evidence.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled

    http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

    Another pathetica attempt by the conspira-junta thimbleriggers to convince us of their world view using lies and half truth.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I should also have added that this has been a contested area among research groups. The data has been interpreted in different ways by different researchers and the flaws and discrepancies with the data sets has only recently been looked at in detail.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16099950

    The article talks about using fear over evidence as the modus operandi of people who accept anthropogenic climate change. The evidence says differently and the people who say anthropogenic climate change is a myth have been repeatedly busted for using incomplete and incorrect data sets and methods. See links above. The science behind man made climate change is difficult to follow and easy to manipulate which is what the author of this article has done for unknown reasons.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • To illustrate the complexity of the issue;

    The article states;

    “The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect”

    It’s true that most scientists agree about this and on the face of it this would seem a strong arguement. But then when you look at the detail of ice cores and the data you find another assertion that is based on half truth that fits the agenda of the author. There is a lag in the data BUT ONLY in specific places and this is a key point, these 800 year lags in the CO2 amounts are at the END OF ICE AGES. The lag is not consistent. Another mechanism is operating. Also the mixed in with this is the assumption that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming. Now this is a subtle but important point. No one has said that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere caused the end of the ice age. The key point is that CO2 is not the cause but when it is released into the atmosphere as the Ice age ends IT CONTRIBUTES to the warming. The current situation is different and the data are also different.

    The partial information used about the ice core data is a sure sign of hidden agenda.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Shoehorn anyone?

    “His story comes from his personal scientific experience. So, in our drive to solve the “housing crisis”, which is infact a currency crisis (banks printed money, ploughed into mortgage securities, inflating prices),”,

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Planning4acrash says:

    Thanks Fubar. Its great to have a debate on this, enough with indoctrination at school and on the telly screen!

    Here is the thing, hundreds of thousands of scientists say that global warming is not manmade, that it is natural and then they have a few hundred, employed by the UN, who say that it is man made. Are there real environmental issues? Absolutely. Are we in a lot of trouble? Absolutely, but the globalists are just offering a tax which will increase global warming and merely push the remainder of our great industry abroad to country’s with no democracy, and therefore, no environmental controls or human safety controls. In the meantime, our wealth will go down the tube because carbon tax can ration all we do. That is why the industrialists want to up sticks. Eco-towns give that incredible ability to build on viable farmland and nature land that would never otherwise be allowed.

    So, here is another part of the other side of the story, to let you evaluate for yourself:

    The Precautionary Principle in a nutshell
    Popular “green” light bulb is highly toxic, proving that govt care more about pushing this agenda than protecting you

    China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis.

    Evans’ public reversal of his position arrives on the back of two peer reviewed scientific papers, one of which documents how C02 emissions in fact cool the planet’s temperature and another that shows how the IPCC overstated CO2’s effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.

    As infowars reported last week, the world is cooling, sea levels are falling, ice is spreading, there are fewer extreme weather events, and it was hotter 1000 years ago, yet the myth of global warming is providing governments the excuse to micromanage every aspect of our lives, with Al Gore now openly calling for a carbon tax on the energy we use.

    Andrew Bolt of the Australian Sun-Herald has put together a series of graphs based on numbers from a plethora of scientific bodies to prove that the most alarmist claims about climate change are not only unproven, but in fact the complete opposite of what man-made global warming advocates proclaim is now being observed.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis”

    “there are fewer extreme weather events”

    Nice consistency.

    Propagandamatrix, prisonplanet…. don’t tell me, the mayans too?

    “Andrew Bolt of the Australian Sun-Herald has put together a series of graphs….”
    And we all know how well journalists called the house price bubble, so this must be quality info.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis.”

    “there are fewer extreme weather events”

    Nice consistency.

    Propagandamatrix, prisonplanet… and the mayans too?

    “Andrew Bolt of the Australian Sun-Herald has put together a series of graphs…”
    And we all know how well the journos called the house price bubble, so this must be quality info.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • 7. Planning4acrash said…”China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades”

    To make a judgement on temperature alone is a potentially fatal oversimplification. It is accepted that global warming results in extremes of weather of all types. Thus you may get hurricanes and tornados or flooding in the UK, as well as drought in Africa. There is also an argument that GW will cause a shift in the North Atlantic Drift and will result in colder weather in the UK. To cite specific examples is folly – we all know somebody who has smoked roll-your-owns all his life but remains healthy. That cannot be used to support the argument that smoking isn’t bad for you.

    Global warming is an issue, but how much of it is due to human influence may be open to debate (particularly because there have been episodes of GW in the past before we were around). I for one wouldn’t like to take the risk and I think we should do what we can to potect this rock in space for the good of our species.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Planning4acrash

    I appreciate your desire for a debate but it’s not true or fair to make the claim

    that hundreds of thousands of scientists say that climate change is not man made.

    That one statement is dynamite in it’s own imprecesion. Firstly who are these scientists? A lot of scientists take a lot of positions that frankly they are not in a position to. Are they climate scientists, Geologists, you know the Earth sciences most involved in climate research? Or are they scientists in unrelated fields? Because where it counts the debate is not about whether GW is happening but about how fast it is happening.

    It really is case closed as far as the fact of Global warming, it’s also a complete nonsense -sorry to be rude – to say there is any debate THAT MATTERS about man made global warming. It’s happening and it’s good science that is consistently proving that. You and I can bang that tennis ball backwards and forwards all we like. The climate change debate is one that has been poisoned by junk science like the article posted. This has (and I know how this is going to sound but it doesn’t change the facts) happened because of vested interests. Oil companies WANT there to be debate about this subject. They have invested money in junk science to make sure the water is muddied and that is exactly what is going on with the articles claiming there is no evidence or it’s not true. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to read everything you post, I really do try, but my day is packed, to do paper by paper point by point rebuttals. That said I have read A LOT of your posts. The evidence for the FACT of man made global warming exists in barrowloads. You have to look at the evidence that suits you and the evidence that is uncomfortable.

    I know you have an agenda, which is not a necassarilly a bad thing but you need to consider the possibility that you might be going wrong on this one.

    This is a good starting point.

    http://www.realclimate.org/

    Whilst I say Adiue to you my fleet fingered opponent.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Adieu even.

    That spelling mistake is a stylish internet equivalent of tripping on one’s cloak as you go out the door.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Just saw this Really going now.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Planning4acrash says:

    Fubar. Even if you are right, you must recognise that carbon taxing will merely displace and make the problem worse, further polluting the third world, plunging the west into poverty, accompanied by a massive boom in carbon emmissions. Our society is destined for despotism if we fail to question ‘established truths’ disseminated from politicians who we know represent commercial interests. Propoganda must be understood, suspended judgement and political action exercised.

    Just look at the ‘green’ lightbulbs forced upon us, in the interest of global warming that kill us with their murcury, the uPVC windows that pollute the world, last 20yrs and consume more energy in their production than they save from central heating.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Planning4acrash says:

    Fubar. I’m sorry that you find debate troubling. It may be because, at school, we are not laid out evidence to make a decision, we are explained the government line. In this circumstance, the line from global government. It is exactly the same with 9/11. Government have become so arrogant now. We are conditioned to absorb what we are told. We are no longer tought critical reasoning and logic. Just tell me, are you willing to loose your liberty and wealth to support carbon tax, on the basis of the precautionary principle?

    Either way, whatever you believe, we should all at least come together to agree that carbon tax will increase carbon emissions and reduce our wealth by pushing industry from the regulated west to the unregulated east. We should all remember established town planning principles when debating new settlements and let us not be blinded from them by an eco-town.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I agree P4ac. We have exported our carbon emissions to China and India, along with our industry. Individuals are not capable of controlling carbon emissions and GW as nobody will suffer the pain voluntarily. Governments are equally ineffectual due to incompetence and vested interest.

    I think you are coming round to my way of thinking at last. We need an all powerful Global entity to do what is right for the whole world. We need a new world order.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I don’t think I said or implied I find debate troubling. I like it, I love hearing contradictory arguments. I love evidence. You have me wrong I fear. Oddly, and you won’t read this often I AGREE WITH YOU I agree a carbon tax is the worst idea any one has had as a means of dealing with the problems we are facing. I AGREEUpc windows are the work of Satan. I AGREE WITH YOU Eco towns are a nightmare of nonsense and bullsh1t.

    And now, with all that accord sloshing around, I need to lie down and recharge my bile gland.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Although I quite like low energy light bulbs.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • planning4acrash says:

    Fubar. I did like low energy bulbs, till I discovered that they poison me with murcury, and take heaps of pollution/energy to be made. I now use incandescent bulbs, with a dimmer switch. I’m not into bright lights in the evening, so, probably consume the same as before!

    p.doff. The main thing to remember on world government is, that the big interests involved in it are the ones responsible for most of the pollution, who are blaming us all for it, and saying that we must cut back, whilst they find ever more ways to let them pollute the world and create real environmental disasters with things like GM crops. The people held back the very technology that would make products durable, sustainable and efficient. An indestructable tyre was invented, bought by car companies, never built. Check out this hemp car, built by ford, the material would have revolutionised our world and environment, but was held back from us.

    http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml
    Ford recognized the utility of the hemp plant. He constructed a car of resin stiffened hemp fiber, and even ran the car on ethanol made from hemp. Ford knew that hemp could produce vast economic resources if widely cultivated. That is why they banned it.

    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6092106738336839739&q=hemp+car+ford&ei=kjSISK-cLoLAigKUhPjSAQ

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • That’s better – something I can disagree with you about… Why focus on energy saving light bulbs? Why Mercury da baddie? Tungsten is a heavy metal. It’s not exactly benign in the environment. And have you done a comparison of the energy used to manufacture incandescent bulbs vs that used to manufacture Energy savers? Plus the energy saved over the lifetime of the eco bulbs?
    Just wondering.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>