Sharrowvale Parking Scheme - new thread

[Captain_Scarlet]

This is a planning condition which is usually applied to a development which is (or wil be) within a permit parking area adn is in a location which is very accessible by public transport and other sustainable modes.

 

So, what the Council is saying is that there is already too much pressure on parking in this area and it just won't take more cars. Therefore, Mr Developer, any development you bring forward has to be based around the residents adopting sustainable travel modes. Therefore no parking is warranted or could be allowed.

sorry but that's communism, the Council can't tell people they cannot own a car because there are buses. Which self righteous person tells people they can't own a car, which speshal person tells someone they can't own a car if they live somewhere? What is it with this anti commuting in a car thing? What is it with the Council that assumes we only use cars to go to work? what about shopping, holidays, indeed working, leisure... Having a life and driving there?

Telling people they can't have a car because there are two bus lines outside the house are not grounds to forbid them from owning a car!

You're not a dictator!

Building underground car parks is rather expensive and unless it is a high value site, developers will not want to build extensive basements.

You've come up with that one before and you have nothing to base your comments on. Single occupant houses have garages under the living room. You're telling utter tosh, the developpers sell the flats which can include a parking space, it's all in the selling price. what you build you sell. The garage isn't a freebie for all!?!

That's a concession for people like Health Visitors, who have to come into permit zones on a regular basis as part of their jobs, it's not a general thing for medicos.

Shame that's not for everyone who works in that zone... Health visitors aren't the only working people who require a personal vehicle for work.

Oh the joys of being a window cleaner in Broomhill...

We're discussing NEW developments which have planning conditions that they can't have a parking permit.

About how to live under a communist regime which took arbitrary rulings just because it felt people shouldn't do that "just because".

[jezzyjj]

Yet again, you support your initial fallacious argument withh further fallacy.

Says the person who failed to even read my post correctly.

 

Just because someone is an "experienced and learned scientist", does not mean they are necessarily right.

Correct, but that is not what I said. I was saying that educated and learned people are going to have more of a clue than uneducated illiterates, which is what you were comparing. Whilst you were quoting an Old Wive's tale as fact.

 

And while you say that a theory supported by evidence tends to be considered a fact - this is true of the uneducated and illiterate people, most "experienced and learned scientists" would not consider something a fact - there are very few facts, just highly probable explanations

Note the phrase 'tends to be' in my sentence - which you seem to have confused with the word 'is'. They have quite different meanings. And if you simply dismiss all theories supported by evidence as nonsense then you really don't understand science or just use it selectively to bolster your own agenda.

Which is only underlined by your next link

 

besides, there are many who do not consider global warming a fact, ranging from the popular writers - http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4099.html , to the high and mighty

You are linking to a review of a novel about the politics around climate change by a well science fiction writer who takes science and twists it from the reality to make very entertaining tales, as proof against Climate Change? So Jurassic Park Science must be true too, as is time travel? No only that, the site 'Intellectual Conservatives' is a very right wing propoganda site full of bad science. Would you also quote 'facts' from the BNP site when talking about "foreigners"?

 

 

"Growing numbers of global warming science skeptics are making their opposition known. They include experts in climatology, oceanography, geology, biology, environmental sciences and physics, among others. They are affiliated with prestigious institutions worldwide, including Harvard, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, MIT, the International Arctic Research Center, the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and many others. Many shared a portion of IPCC's 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (co-won with Mr. Gore), and others have won previous Nobel Prizes for their research. A U.S. Senate report accumulated more than 400 of their views to refute Mr. Gore's claim of "consensus."

Was this the same 'intelligence' that reported WMDs in Iraq?

 

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/global-gore-warming-1951764-consensus-carbon

'I know I'll quote the media in my quest to disprove the lies of the media regarding global warming. Wait that's makes no sense, but who cares, no-one will notice anyway.'

 

 

"As Swedish geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus at Stockholm University, wrote, "Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate ..."

Funny how you cut this important line.

"As far as I can see the IPCC 'Global Temperature' is wrong. Temperature is fluctuating but it is still most places cooler than in the 1930s and 1940s" Which only shows he hasn't quite grasped the concept of climate change. As some places will indeed get colder with the changing climate.

Global temp change refers to global average and individual places can easily get colder if planet is heating, as also some will get warmer if planet is cooling. Not to mention the fact that the actual measurements of overall global temperature contradict him. Plus temps in the 30+40s are just weather, Climate is weather averaged over a longer period of time - 35yrs.

 

 

But then, if you were a scientist, you'd know this...

Actually that was my background and I know that quoting myths as fact, biased rightwing propaganda sites full of bad science and selective quoting is very not what I would call science. Do you also believe in creationism?

[jezzyjj]

im still waiting for you to explain why driving is selfish . without cars and lorrys this country would collapse within a day.

Driving a car isn't in itself selfish.

I was commenting on your selfish attitude.

 

"i dont really care for global warming....i will never give up my car . thats not being selfish -0its called freedom of choice!!"

 

Me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me - that all we ever get from you. There are lots of things you aren't allowed to do, why not object to them? Like punching people, torture, theft, antisocial behaviour, treason...? Not being allowed to do them restricts your 'freedom of choice' too. Go and complain about them.

[jezzyjj]

And what about all those new bus lanes??, they were origionally tree's, grass and bushes ect, and a there are a lot more of them around!!!

Uh, they are usually roads painted a different colour. So it's the roads that have actually paved over the grass etc.

[jezzyjj]

WRONG, i live in the sharrowvale parking tax area, and i didn't know about it till AFTER i moved in..

Is that because you rented or bought property and you weren't told about it by your landlord or seller, assuming this was before scheme was implemented. If so not the council's fault.

And if if it was after which sounds like ithe case from your post, did you not notice the permit holder signs? I'd check parking before moving somewhere if I had a car and ask the owner/landloard about it as parking is often a problem in built up areas, with roads built before cars became popular or were even invented. Common sense.

 

 

and then i needed proof that i lived there before they would allow me to be robbed

Of course you need to prove you reside in the area before you can get a 'resident's' permit. The clue is in the name. Duh! So it's you that is the one it seems.

[Litotes]

Actually that was my background and I know that quoting myths as fact, biased rightwing propaganda sites full of bad science and selective quoting is very not what I would call science. Do you also believe in creationism?

 

 

But if you were a scientist, you would not dimiss the alternative viewpooint out of hand, you would prove it wrong...

 

still waiting...

[jezzyjj]

But if you were a scientist, you would not dimiss the alternative viewpooint out of hand, you would prove it wrong...

 

still waiting...

Hmm, Let's think about this, you complete ignore every point I've previously made that shows what you say to be untrue, a myth or based on politically motivation and not science. Just like you did with this latest lame response of yours.

You even struggle to read simple sentences and apparently you are confussed by the past tense of the verb 'to be'. I am not a climatologist, I am currently a photographer and I don't dismiss alternative viewpoints out of hand either, that seems to be your role. I read around topic and weigh up the evidence and bias of the reporting, which on the stuff you linked to was very biased and unscientific.

Now you are suggesting I engage in some research into paleoclimatology and compare with current climate trends. But even if I did so, going by past evidence of your behaviour, I would expect you to dismiss or ignore anything that you don't already think anyway.

You seem to be the sort of person who would have voted for Sarah Palin, if you had the opportunity.

[Litotes]

I am not a climatologist

 

Ahh, so me being in the field may have a better viewpoint of it than you perhaps?

 

 

I don't dismiss alternative viewpoints out of hand either

 

You appeared to...

 

Now you are suggesting I engage in some research into paleoclimatology and compare with current climate trends.

 

Been there, done that, got the doctorate in it, so YES I do feel that I am in a position to criticise the pseudo-science and pseudo-sientists that pop up whenever they have an opinion based on some ill-researched piece of work.

 

Who's "confussed" now?

[jezzyjj]

Ahh, so me being in the field may have a better viewpoint of it than you perhaps?

Like Sarah Palin is in the field of evolution maybe and still struglling with tenses I see...

 

 

You appeared to...

You assumed, inccorectly. Not agreeing with your ranting is not the same.

 

 

Been there, done that, got the doctorate in it, so YES I do feel that I am in a position to criticise the pseudo-science and pseudo-sientists that pop up whenever they have an opinion based on some ill-researched piece of work.

 

Who's "confussed" now?

Very obviously you, as you were the one linking to pseudo science sites, repeating myths as fact and you are the one who very carefullly avoids answering any of my points you canot argue with. You answer selectively and ignore data you don't like, lwhich ooks particularly daft when you suddenly claim to be a scientist. All the evidence of your ranting points to someone who has a vested interest and then picks information no matter how nonsensical to support your point of view.

If you really have a doctorate, it's probably from the University of Intellectual Conservatism and you bought from their dippy website.

 

 

 

My view on climate change is purely pragmatic. There are two options:

1 .- It's our fault and we need to do something about it.

2. - It's not our fault.

Now as we cannot test either until all the data is in and we are either dead or not dead, I would err on the side of it's our fault, as it's not a gamble we can afford to take. So lets do something about the problem ,as if we don't, our kids won't all live to regret out mistake.

It's not as if we don't benefit from trying to sort it out anyway. Less pollution, more efficient energy, less dependency on other countries for valuable resources [which tends to lead to wars and more death and pollution], which means we all winanyway. Bar those profiting from the current status quo and who also have the most money and influence to deny the problem.

You only have to look at history and the mistakes we have made to realise, this is one that won't make any history books as there may not be any.

Besides if doing things that reduce the possibility of climate change benefit us anyway overall, why moan about it? Obviously the selfish and inconsiderate who think not being allowed to pollute is a restriction of their freedom of choice will moan it's not fair. But then why worry about the [literally] terminally stupid.

[digglydog]

Ahh, so me being in the field may have a better viewpoint of it than you perhaps?

 

 

 

 

You appeared to...

 

 

 

Been there, done that, got the doctorate in it, so YES I do feel that I am in a position to criticise the pseudo-science and pseudo-sientists that pop up whenever they have an opinion based on some ill-researched piece of work.

 

Who's "confussed" now?

 

You are of course entitled to your opinion but you have to admit that the vast majority of climate scientists are of the opposite opinion.Even the U.S administration is accepting the assertion that man made global warming is correct.