Okay, the other thread has decided that “green” is hype. I’d like to be at least “PC Green”.
What do I have to do as a builder or subcontractor or general contractor to do, at a minimum, to make the claim that I am part of the green movement? Do I have to do it all and if I put in a “regular” gas water heater, I’m not green?
Where is the line? I’m not perfect and I have to live within some financial realities that I’m entwined with.
I’m a certified tree hugger (I alway hug my trees on my lots) and I’m convinced that I’ve saved more lumber than ten “custom” framers combined….but I can’t say I’m all “green”. I don’t want to be accused of only chasing the green, but I will admit that that is the goal of my business.
Bob’s next test date: 12/10/07
Replies
Blue,
Do you use locally renwable resources or does the wood in your houses come from across country? Do you build your houses durable enough to grow their replacement? etc.etc. etc..
Those are all part of the "green" movement.. it's not about doing things a certain way, it's about doing things with a minimum or no impact on our planet..
For example adobe is Green, while concrete may not be.
We could debate that since most concrete is local while wood may be harvested across country and shipped in..
Extremely complex subject.. still being debated..
All you can do is give a H.O. the best advise from your experience. I don't think you are in the wrong at all for promoting your business as trying to be green. ( Jim Allen Construction [Trying to build as mother nature would] just a slogan that popped in my head) As for a H.O. wanting to put in a tank water heater compared vs tankless again all you can do is advise. You still have to feed your family. As you made an HONEST effort. You tried.
Going back to my post ( No such thing) you would be a good line of defense between the dishonest marketing and a true effort towards being green.
Edited 2/12/2008 8:30 pm ET by Bridge_Dog
<I'd like to be at least "PC Green". >
Cool - I'll be Red Green
Forrest - "If women don't find ya' handsome, at least they should find ya' handy"
can I be "Spice Green"?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Hang in there. I'm in the process of learning more about it myself since the guy that I'm teaming up with is a certified 'green' builder. I think it's something that's in its infancy and needs to develop more into a mainstream thing, something that is happening very fast I'm finding.
Always when there is something new, new ideas etc, or even repackaging things, there will be the doubting Thomas, or those who resist which is actually can be a good thing.
My own opinion is that 'green' is real and is here to stay. It may not bubble up as much as it is now as it becomes mainstream, but the simple concepts of recycling and energy efficiency have been around a long time and make complete sense.
Okay, the other thread has decided that "green" is hype.
No, the other thread agreed on no such thing. There is hype and there are honest atempts to make "green" the goal of one's work.
I don't want to be accused of only chasing the green, but I will admit that that is the goal of my business.
I'm not sure what you're saying, but if your "goal" is to chase some of that niche work to make more money, then it's hype.
If the primary goal of your work is to save the planet and hopefully make a living in the process, then you can claim the "green" mantle.
Given the speed at which we're destroying the Earth's balance and driving the human race toward extinction, there really is no middle ground. Either you're a part of the solution or you're a part of the problem.
Solar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
"I'm not sure what you're saying, but if your "goal" is to chase some of that niche work to make more money, then it's hype.If the primary goal of your work is to save the planet and hopefully make a living in the process, then you can claim the "green" mantle.Given the speed at which we're destroying the Earth's balance and driving the human race toward extinction, there really is no middle ground. Either you're a part of the solution or you're a part of the problem."My goal is to serve those who want green servings.My goal in serving it to make a profit, so I can stay in business and maintain the warrantys that I'm sellingI do want to make "more" money. That's the nature of business. For the record: I don't believe that we are speeding toward extinction. A correction maybe. I don't have enough scientific background to read the scientist's journals and studies and although the cause might be worthy, I refuse to buy into the hype that claims that all the changes are man made or that we have any control over it. That argument warrants it's own thread. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
"For the record: I don't believe that we are speeding toward extinction. A correction maybe. I don't have enough scientific background to read the scientist's journals and studies and although the cause might be worthy, I refuse to buy into the hype that claims that all the changes are man made or that we have any control over it."
You don't have to read any scientific journals, only the newspapers or listen to the mainsteam news.
Hype? The conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which get worse with each new report, are based on the largest consensus of scientists in the history of science.
2007 IPCC Report:
"Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.
"Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Synthesizing reams of data from its three previous reports, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the first time specifically points out important risks if governments fail to respond: melting ice sheets that could lead to a rapid rise in sea levels and the extinction of large numbers of species brought about by even moderate amounts of warming, on the order of 1 to 3 degrees.
Riversong HouseWright
Design * * Build * * Renovate * * ConsultSolar & Super-Insulated Healthy Homes
I don't know anyone that was living back in 1750 and can verify your claims. I do know that I just left MI last year and global warming wasn't getting there soon enough if it was going to happen. If it happened, maybe I could move back there. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
If you want to preach about global warming go to JLC's website. Ther is a thread that is over 2000 postings both pro and con. It is hard for me to belive in global warming or dlimate change when there doesn't seam to be the consenus among scientist that everyone is claiming. To me it seems to be more of a political claim than anything else. It is hard to belive in climate change when the leading proponents of it, including the UN don't live what they preach.
It goes back to "do as I say and not as I do".
frammer52.
take the politics out of it and use a little common sense.
There are now 7 + billion people on this earth. each of us is at 98.6 degrees. which is a lot warmer than the earth averages..
Put a whole bunch of people in a gym and the temp goes up doesn't it? Just from the body heat of a few hundred spectators..
Now add what we heat up to keep ourselves warm and make stuff.. that's a whole lot more heat isn't it?
So pretend pollution is simply a political word and total up all the pure heat we generate and how can the earth remain the same tempurature?
If you want to preach about global warming go to JLC's website.
It ain't "preaching" - that's for those trying to spread an unprovable belief - it's teaching.
It is hard for me to belive in global warming or dlimate change when there doesn't seam to be the consenus among scientist that everyone is claiming.
Apparently you're not paying attention. As I said above, the conclusions of the IPCC represent the largest scientific consensus in the history of science. Every bit of research and every piece of data was considered and thousands of scientists from every country in the world have agreed with the conclusions.
The conclusions, of necessity, are watered down from what many of the scientists believe so that they could all agree to them. So this rather dire warning from the world's scientists is actually milder than what many of the world's best climatologists understand to be the case.
The only groups of "scientists" who have been consistently denying human-induced climate change have had their funding sources traced back to Exxon-Mobil, which launched a multi-million dollar campaign to create doubt about this subject. The "scientists" they've bought are some of the same ones who told us that there was no scientific link between smoking and cancer.
Believe what you choose, but the truth is inescapable.
Jim - you can build virtually anything, right? I'm not saying you can DESIGN it, or even specify what "green" really is, but you can BUILD it.
Isn't that what you're trying to sell? Building services (presolds or remodels) or products (finished homes)?
I think I'll leave all the definitions of "what's truly green" to the scientists and designers and architechts who claim to know. Let them "sell" the idea to the customer. I have my hands full trying to keep up with changing methodology and products in the building industry. Trying to be a leader in the green movement is way beyond me - I'll gladly tag along though. I do think it makes sense to work responsibly, to try my best to be part of the solution instead of the problem.
The hard part is defining the problem. I'll eat your peaches, mam. I LOVE peaches!
Please, the consenus is that the earth is flat, until it was proven wrong. The consenus in th 70's was that we were going into global ice age, until that was proven wrong. Science, over the years has been proven wrong time and again. Consenus is a political term, not scientific. You bought into this because that is how you view the earth. That is ok. Please don't expect me to buy into it yet. Again as I have said, itf the earth was warming substa., why are these so called sciencetist adding to the problem, by having there conference in such a remote location.
I have a hard time with anything the UN sponsers.
I belive that we have a responsibilty to use as few resources as possible while on this earth. Things don't make me happy, people do.
the consenus is that the earth is flat, until it was proven wrong... Science, over the years has been proven wrong time and again.
No, science has not "been proven wrong" it has itself proven prior theories wrong as new data and more sophisticated exploratory and evaluation techniques become available. It is a self-correcting enterprise.
At one time, with very limited tools of perception, evidence was that the world was flat. However, science now has tools and methodologies to compare today's CO2 concentrations with those of hundreds of thousands of years ago (through Antarctic ice cores), and a graph of the rise of CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution exactly coincides with the graph of rising Earth temperatures. While there have been higher CO2 concentrations in other eras, there has never been as sudden a rise in CO2. And the effects of this are already quite evident and have already been devastating.
Consensus is a political term, not scientific.
Consensus is a scientific term. It's almost never used in politics, since there is no political body outside of indigenous cultures and the Quakers who strive for complete agreement.
You bought into this because that is how you view the earth. That is ok. Please don't expect me to buy into it yet... I have a hard time with anything the UN sponsers.
I didn't "buy" into anything. I've simply paid attention to the evidence, and the evidence is overwhelming.
But you reveal your bias. You refuse to accept the message because of its affiliation with a sponsoring organization you don't trust.
Let go of your bias and you'll see the reality that's staring you in the face.
and every piece of data was considered and thousands of scientists from every country in the world have agreed with the conclusions.
Well, a person can poll a sample of wolves and sheep, and get a universal conclusion that eating is better than going hungry--that group is likely to be very diverse on where to go for lunch. The devil is in the details.
All of the folks who have fallen into True Belief on MMGW/MMCC have all the advantages True Belief provides. They are Right, and everyone else is Wrong. Any one questioning the Right is clearly a heretic, and must be burned at the stake, and tuit suite, too. Then, 150, 200 years from now and the glaciers return, none of the Inquisitors will be about to be given a serving of crow.
"Science" is supposed to be about the disspassionate observation of data, and drawing repeatable, test-able conclusions from that data. Decrying dissent as "hate" or "paid shills" is not supposed to be part of the process. After all, that goober Gaileo was a "paid hack" of the Church.
Personally, if IPCC wants to be credible, they ought to show how they re-examined the data after correcting "the hottest year on record" to be 1934. Changing a major datum by 40-50 years ought to affect all of that climate modeling that is alleged to have been studied so thorughly. Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
"Science" is supposed to be about the disspassionate observation of data, and drawing repeatable, test-able conclusions from that data. Decrying dissent as "hate" or "paid shills" is not supposed to be part of the process.
If you dispassionately follow the evidence (or in this case the money), you'll come to the obvious unbiased conclusion that the climate change denyers are for the most part paid propagandists.
Any one questioning the Right is clearly a heretic
Anyone challenging the overwhelming preponderance of evidence has an obligation to present an equal amount of controvening evidence.
This delusion about there being a Climate Change Crusade is based on nothing but a denial of evidence. No one has anything to gain from warning about climate change.
But the entrenched fossil fuel and resource extraction and consumer "goods" industries and the governments which support them have everything to protect by denying it. We saw this most clearly in the Bush adminstration's campaign of denial, which included forcing government scientists to rewrite their conclusions when they didn't jibe with government policy.
What's amazing is that, after the most recent IPCC reports, even the Bush administration has had to acknowledge that human-induced climate change is real. They still don't want to do anything about it, but at least they've been forced accept it.
However, far-sighted industry - like B.P. (Beyond Petroleum) - see the writing on the wall. And the insurance industry, which is based on actuarial predictions of risk - is on the front lines of climate change acceptance.
Edited 2/15/2008 12:37 pm ET by Riversong
Edited 2/15/2008 2:47 pm ET by Riversong
the overwelming evidence is that people belive that global warming exists nothing more.
Why has the effect of sunspots not been taken into account?
Why hasn't the earths natural cycle of cooling and warming not been taken into account?
1400's approx. were warm enough, that england had weather more like that of the medditer..Ther are inconsistancies that can't be explained. Maybe we are warming, I don't know for sure. The people like al gore are not helping your cause. If they want us to buy in then they must make sacrifices they are unwilling to make. Whast about all those people that flew provate jets to the last UN conference.
What about hte wild claims that the ocean is rising?
There appears to be a lot of inconsistancies.
What about hte wild claims that the ocean is rising?
Rising Sea Level Forcing Evacuation of Island CountryLester R. Brown
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update2.htm
The leaders of Tuvalu—a tiny island country in the Pacific Ocean midway between Hawaii and Australia—have conceded defeat in their battle with the rising sea, announcing that they will abandon their homeland. After being rebuffed by Australia, the Tuvaluans asked New Zealand to accept its 11,000 citizens, but it has not agreed to do so. During the twentieth century, sea level rose by 20-30 centimeters (8-12 inches). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects a rise of up to 1 meter during this century. Sea level is rising because of the melting of glaciers and the thermal expansion of the ocean as a result of climate change. This in turn is due to rising atmospheric levels of CO2, largely from burning fossil fuels.
View Image
Edited 2/15/2008 2:55 pm ET by Riversong
And finally you've hit on the real problem: what to do with people who must relocate or perish, regardless of the cause of global warming, which is a political problem we aren't addressing as long as everyone's busy pointing fingers.You might want to look into the selection criteria for the IPCC, btw.
And finally you've hit on the real problem: what to do with people who must relocate or perish, regardless of the cause of global warming, which is a political problem we aren't addressing as long as everyone's busy pointing fingers.
Now comes Mis-Interpreter. ;)
There are no "fingers" being pointed except back at ourselves for accepting responsiblity for causing the problem.
If Global Warming/Climate Change is NOT anthropogenic, then we can continue business as usual.
Once we all accept that:
global warming is real and it's accelerating
it's caused primarily by human economic activity
hence, it can at least be mitigated by reducing/altering such activity
Then, perhaps we can muster the collective will to respond appropriately, including humanitarian interventions (such as relocating environmental refugees - estimated at 50 million by 2010).
Is that anything like a Mis-Leader? ;^)You base your conclusions on untested premises. This is also one of the topics that's been extensively discussed by the Breaktime Brain Trust, but i promise not to burden you with links.You'd get no argument from me that we are indeed experiencing climate changes that have already discomfited humankind greatly. I'm not sure how much of a problem i have with that, for one thing, but the bottom line is that we don't need to know how the barn caught on fire before we try to get the horses out. What are the chances of that happening? You can see what success Tuvalu is having getting the milk of human kindness to flow.Billions of creatures are suffering and dying right here, right now, not hypothetically nor in the future. If we could muster the collective will to get just Haiti back on its feet, i'd say, sure, let's take a stab at placating Mother Nature.You like conspiracy theories...here's one from someone who doesn't have a bridge to sell you: GW, the new opiate, is being packaged and sold to the masses to take our minds off The Possible. Check out the Al Gore/Maurice Strong/Kofi Annan/IPCC connections and follow the money/power, and influence. Have you discovered the selection criteria for the IPCC yet?
Edited 2/15/2008 7:35 pm by splintergroupie
Thank you. He seems to think that we are dumb. They can see their side but cann't accept that their side has problems. I don't know if global warming is occuring, but the alarmist are sure spending a lot of our money to try to prove it. By tyhe way, they are not calling it gw, the new buzzword is global change. How stupid do they think people are. There is and always will be climate change.
I feal sorry for the people in Alaska that have to move out of their villages. This is a result of global change. How it is caused is the biggest problem.
I remember when we had to stop using cfcc(?) only to find out that the ozone layer has repaired itself.
to find out that the ozone layer has repaired itself
Or was not "damaged" in the first place. The alleged antarctic "hole" roughly matched the umbral (shadowline) boundary during the Antarctic winter. The interaction of sunlight at the extreme edge of the atmosphere is how O3 molecules are (and were) known to occur.
O3 photographs no better than O2, but color adjusting photos will allow chlorine & flourine compounds to be visible. Chlorines and fluorines and bromines al lhave chemical afinities and combine middling readily. They then fluoursce in many light conditions.
The only evidence for the dire threat was a shadow line. In fact no plausible mechanisim for transporting surface-level CFCs above the tropopause was ever advanced (under the tropopause stray molecules are very likely to be precipitated out; above, the molecules are subjected to much larger quanta of solar gain, more likely to break the molecules into other forms).Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
You like conspiracy theories...
Actually, I have no tolerance for conspiracy theories. I just follow the facts where they lead, and there are many documented conspiracies in our history.
But this is not one of them. It's a collage of wacko theories coming mostly from the extreme right about black helicopters and blue helmets, climate change advocates scheming to take over the world, or to turn it socialist, or to undermine globilization and the US economy, or to make lots of money selling carbon credits, or..................................
Have you discovered the selection criteria for the IPCC yet?
1.0 SCOPE
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE PROCEDURE
Recruiting and selecting the right people is paramount to the success of the IPCC and its ability to retain a workforce of the highest quality. This Recruitment and Selection Procedure sets out how to ensure as far as possible, that the best people are recruited on merit and that the recruitment process is free from bias and discrimination.
1.1.1 Legal requirements
Recruitment and selection procedures must comply with the IPCC’s Diversity Policy. This procedure incorporates compliance with the following legislation:
• The Sex Discrimination Act 1975
• The Race Relations Act 1976, along with the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003
• The Disability Discrimination Act 1995
• The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
• The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
So...you haven't followed the Gore/Strong/UN breadcrumbs and you have no idea how folks were selected for the IPCC outside of some motherhood statements?Not surprising, bec neither did the Nobel recipient whose lecture i went to a few weeks ago. The University is raking in the dough lately chasing climate change, though, esp with a new Nobel laureate on staff.
So...you haven't followed the Gore/Strong/UN breadcrumbs and you have no idea how folks were selected for the IPCC
No more than I follow the tripe about the Illuminati.
If you have some information to share, then enlighten us.
Otherwise, you present yourself as exactly what you accuse others of being: a conspiracy nut. All hat and no cattle.
""No more than I follow the tripe about the Illuminati."" Or perhaps like those who cried about govt. conspiracy and Y2K.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Or perhaps like those who cried about govt. conspiracy and Y2K.
Who were you listening to? I was centrally involved in the Y2k education and preparedness movement (I was my town's emergency management coordinator at the time and gave presentations all over Vermont), I did thousands of hours of research and I never came across any conspiracy theories (other than, perhaps, the conspiracy to silence those who were issuing warnings).
""(other than, perhaps, the conspiracy to silence those who were issuing warnings)."" You nailed it.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
So, what do you think happened to prevent the disastrous Y2k outcomes that seemed inevitable?
Or do you think that Y2k educators were being unnecessarily alarmist and it was a lot of hype?
""So, what do you think happened to prevent the disastrous Y2k outcomes that seemed inevitable?"" I think that the "disastrous Y2k outcomes" were overblown propaganda and media hype.
I never believed the in the disastrous outcomes nor the inevitableness of them. ""Or do you think that Y2k educators were being unnecessarily alarmist and it was a lot of hype?"' Depends on the individual "educator". In some cases some "educators" were not "educators" but rather were people spreading unfounded rumors and conspiracy theories out of their own fears.
Those are the ones who saw a "govt. conspiracy" to stop the spread of "real information". On the other hand are those educators who simply said it is wise to always be reasonably prepared for an emergency of any type.
Those are the ones who did not run around calling out "the sky is falling , the sky is falling " over Y2K.
They are also the ones who never claimed a "govt. conspiracy" over information concerning Y2K. And, as is usual in the case of human behavior, there were those who were somewhere between the two extremes in their behavior.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
I think that the "disastrous Y2k outcomes" were overblown propaganda and media hype.
Propaganda & media hype? Hardly.
What was most interesting about the year before Y2k was that a significant proportion of IT professionals, those most in the know about the potential for computerized infrastructure breakdown, were taking their money out of the banks. And the Federal Reserve pumped huge amounts of money into the economy prior to the changeover to forestall banking problems.
Of course, without the "Chicken Littles", there would not have been a global effort and hundreds of billions of dollars expended to remedy the problem before it occurred and to standby to alleviate problems as they occurred.
In spite of that, there were thousands of reports of problems from around the world, some of them potentially serious. Even the Pentagon spent $4 billion on mitigation. At Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, top Russian & American military leaders established the Center for Year 2000 Strategic Stability to ensure that no accidental missile launchings occurred on the rollover.
And every government agency and corporate board took the warnings seriously.
John Koskinen, White House Y2K Czar's on 01/27/2000:
The costly effort undertaken in the past two years to deal with the Year 2000 computer problem prevented massive disruptions in systems and services during the date rollover into the new millennium, according to White House Y2K coordinator John Koskinen.
Koskinen, Chair of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, said in a January 18 interview in Washington that the relatively problem-free date change that occurred is an indication not that the Y2K problem was not serious, but that the work devoted to fixing thousands of computer systems worldwide was successful.
Your last post would indicate the govt. was not a part of any conspiracy to silence those issuing warnings, quite the contrary it was actually doing the warning and the work. I think Mr Koskinen said it better than I can. ""On January 1, 2000, the world was stunned by the impact of the Y2K bug -- the minimal impact, that is. After all, so many people had been so worried. For months before the eve of the New Millenium, we heard sober-minded anxieties of how numerous simultaneous computer failures might impact our infrastructure. Others added some hysteria to the mix, predicting apocalypse, social upheaval, and disaster. Still others said nothing, but dug large holes in the ground and hid in them with hefty amounts of non-perishable goods. Very few came out to say, "Forget about it; nothing will happen." Or as I said earlier, some were spreading rumor and hype, some were educating and some were between those points on a spectrum. You post seems to imply a connection between "chicken little ism" with those who took the sober steps needed to deal with the problem in a rational manner. It is one thing to sound a prudent warning and take steps to prevent things from happening, it is another to run around saying the sky is falling. Kudos on your volunteering to the position of emergency coordinator. Still hold the position?
Edited 2/16/2008 7:15 pm by dovetail97128
If you have some information to share, then enlighten us.
I've already shared my information in GW threads, but you have already proven impervioius to reading any thread in which you don't figure prominently. Though i have dropped some breadcrumbs for you, i'm not willing to spoon-feed you.
In other words, you're not willing to have an authentic conversation - only play mind games.
Playing mind games with you would be taking advantage of the situation, Robert, bec i have a lot more choice about being emotional than you do.I do 'authentic' pretty well, though, whenever you're ready...and you've done your own damn homework.
In anticipating climatic timebombs, the biggest problem looming is still probably a return to ice age conditions. Human activity may delay this, but expect cooler weather ahead.Over the last 2 million years or so, there have been about 17 ice ages, lasting on average 100,000 years each. The relatively short, relatively warm, interglacial periods (like we are enjoying right now) only average 10,000 years or so. It has been roughly 11,000 years since the end of the last (Wisconsin) ice age.The locations of present-day Chicago and New York were under an ice sheet one mile thick just 18,000 years ago (the coldest point in the last ice age). Then, ocean levels were 300 feet below those found today. The ice has been in retreat most of the time since then. Ice has covered huge portions of the Northern Hemisphere during about 80% of recent geologic time.The warmest portion of our own Holocene period was 5000-3000 BC, and oceans were about 10 feet higher than at the present. This time, referred to the "climate optimum," was a favorable time allowing the first development of agriculture, city-states, and civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, and China.Even Roman sea ports were far inland of those today, mostly because the sea level was several feet higher.Many "climatologist" are really meteorologist in disguise. They have a hard time predicting the weather with any accuracy more than a week in advance. These folks need to spend more time with paleontologist, geologist and astronomers, who take a longer view of such things.In the next ice age, (that will be soon upon us--if geologic history is any guide), the Earth will only support a small portion of the life present in current conditions. In the grand scheme of things, global warming may be a good "problem" to have.
Interesting post. Do you have any information about how Austin, Tx will fare. Will we be a cold climate? If so, should I move to Mexico or further south? Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Mark my words, Austin is gonna be like South Dakota, in just another 5000 years or so...head to Honduras...before it's too late.
we seam to have lost him.
Who knows, he might be looking into some of my claims...or it may not be worth the bother.
I've been curious as to your take on GW; i was just too quiet and shy to ask outright. <G>
I happily recycle, eat low on the food chain, and love nature, etc....but I do view GW as a skeptic:Here is a link showing the evidently underestimated role of solar output on terrestrial temperatures. It is a BBC report from 2000:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stmMore food for thought from the world of comparative planetology...our neighboring planets both have atmospheres that are about 95% CO2. It is thought that Earth used to have a very similar percentage of CO2 in the air. Then plants and marine organisms began sequestering carbon and enriching the atmosphere with Oxygen in the process.The concentration of atmospheric CO2 dropped from a presumed 95% a billion years ago to a fraction of 1% (0.028% at the start of the industrial revolution). Most of the carbon is now locked in limestone. Astronomer Arthur Upgren stated, "It is ironic that life has managed to eliminate most of the atmospheric carbon dioxide, and in doing so, has threatened its own existence." (p.48, Weather, 2000)It is seldom mentioned that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in healthier crops resistant to both drought and disease and could increase agricultural productivity by about 30% IIRC.On rising ocean level, I crunched some numbers and the sea has been rising about 5x's faster than it is now for most of the latest warm up (since the last ice age). From 18,000 years ago through 5,000 years ago the ocean rose 310' that is about .29" per year. In the last 100 years it has only been rising .06" per year.More later...Nite Nite,Brian
I hadn't known about the Armagh site, but i've read the cosmic rays/cloud connection. That theory just got realized in a lab not long ago, to the amazement of everyone. As far as flora, i posted information in some other thread on that very thing. The rub(s) on that is, more dark green foliage can facilitate even even greater absorption of heat, and what carbon goes up as trees comes down as ashes. Interesting take about how successful the oxygen-breathers have become adapting to a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere...I did have my dozens 'n' dozens of forced tulips/daffs and even some amaryllis outside catching the rays today on the west deck of the house. THAT's never happened in February before!
please: the latest on this is that this ia not an never was true. check your sources
Get your head out of the sand, man!
Edited 2/15/2008 8:10 pm ET by Riversong
you remind me of a middle school bully.. Calling me names does not hurt me, only you.
If someone doesn't belive what you say, you will try personal attacks. This is no way to persuade people that you are right.
Calling me names does not hurt me
Now you're even more confused. I called you no names, only gave you some needed advice.
This is no way to persuade people that you are right.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone that I'm right, but that ignoring reality is killing people by the tens of thousands and causing the greatest species extinction since the Permian period.
This isn't a playground game of one-upmanship. This is the greatest life or death issue to ever face mankind.
Those who keep their heads in the sand will be responsible for those deaths and possibly for the extinction of our species.
I came across a quote this morning that is very interesting
"concenus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Reid Bryson " father of scientific climatology
I came across a quote this morning that is very interesting
"concenus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Reid Bryson " father of scientific climatology
And if the eminent Reid Bryson (or you) knew anything at all about science, he would know that consensus is the only thing that establishes the validity of theory.
Science cannot prove anything - it can only disprove hypotheses. When the preponderance of evidence supports a hypothesis and a consensus emerges in the scientific community of its validity, it is considered a valid theory.
This represents the wisdom of the 86-year-old Bryson (perhaps he's getting senile):
"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
Edited 2/16/2008 3:21 pm ET by Riversong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Nope. I didn't see anything about consensus. I thought repeatable testing with predictable results was the basis for a theory becoming a fact. Then all other scientists could use the facts to test new theories.
I cannot locate where every scientist can come to the same conclusion about global warming with a specific series of all inclusive tests... so far everything I've read is prediction based on various techniques of statistical modeling.
Can you show me where consensus is proof of a theory's validity? Better yet, can you show me the step-by-step process by which I can test the theory, including ALL the variables, and get the same conclusion every time.
I'm asking for help because I don't read so good as you.Liberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
did you or anyone else notice that when global change worshipers can't find an answer to a statement or question, they resort to personal attacks.
Yes.... sometimes that's true.
More often, though, I just get ignored.
Which is fine. I was the odd "fact-based" person in college and succeeded despite the advanced scrutiny of "emotion-based" professors.
At least here, my grades won't suffer just because someone despises my point of view.
Liberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
Edited 2/16/2008 7:40 pm by Hackinatit
What do you propose. If we reduce our production fo co2 by 30%, the effect on co2 .035% Dr. Fred Singer atomspheric physist(sp) Univercity if Virginia Sept 10,2001.
This is the reduction required by the Kyoto treaty.
While the climate is changing, how do you or anyone else know that the change net effect, is so terrible.
There are many inconsistencies in whether we actually cause this global warming.
CapnMac,
So you distrust the experts? Ok what about your own common sense?
Take a few hundred people and put them in a chilly room say a highschool basket ball court.
Leave all the HVAC units off and see what happens to the tempurature in that room. The human body is 98.6 and that's a lot warmer than earth is.. Now multiply that effect times the 7 + Billion people on the earth..
Add in the additional heat we humans create warming ourselves and making stuff plus delivering it..
Just look at your car.. see that big radiator? That's pumping out heat everytime you drive it..
So are the things we use to make stuff.
CapnMac common sense should tell you that things are getting warmer because of the impact human's have on the place we live..
Good try, but you're a bit off base.
It's not the body mass heat nor the heat of industrial activity which causes global warming. It's the greenhouse gasses that have been released by the use - during a few hundred years - of much of the carbon that the Earth carefully stored away during hundreds of millions of years.
If we released the carbon at the rate of storage, there would be no net effect. It's our greed and artificial "need" for unlimited energy to fuel what we mistakenly call "progress" that has created this imbalance.
Unfortunately, regardless of what we humans do now, the imbalance will take millennia to correct. Our shortsightedness has started a ball rolling which we are powerless to stop. We can only slow it down a bit.
Almost every day, we're discovering more "feedback loops" that will suddenly accelerate climate change once a triggering threshold is reached.
For instance, who would have thought that as the Greenland glaciers melt, millions of tons of mammoth dung would be unfrozen, start decomposing, and release CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, thus dramatically accelerating global warming?
Edited 2/15/2008 2:50 pm ET by Riversong
Riversong,
I know that,, you know that,, most people who care know that.. we are now trying to talk the stubborn ones into accepting it in a way which they can "buy"
Hopefully the ends justify the means... (even if it's that they take the effort to look up exactly why I'm wrong)...
But you're only proving the nay-sayers right by using demonstrably false arguments to prove the point.
Riversong
the conservatives have so much bad science supporting their views that two negatives might make a positive..
Frankly do you think any of they nay sayers will change their minds? If all it does is give them a slight pause some real science might enter. Besides.. heat is heat, energy is energy it really doesn't matter if it's body energy (which they can see and feel) or solar gain which is a remote concept to them and not something they have any real understanding of..
The fundamental trueth is humans have caused the problem. This isn't a math test where you need to show your calculations or it doesn't count..
The only thing that you are proving to me is how much BS that you put out.So instead of even bothering to look up any facts I just laugh that much more everytime I see one of your messages..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
You know, i try to give anyone with an ounce of craziness the benefit of the doubt, but the 'two wrongs make a right' method of discourse just floored me, too.
"Riversong, I know that,, you know that,, most people who care know that.. we are now trying to talk the stubborn ones into accepting it in a way which they can "buy" Hopefully the ends justify the means... (even if it's that they take the effort to look up exactly why I'm wrong)..."They don't want to accept it or their allegiance to the neo-cons has them blindsided into thinking that the overwhelming data (even from NASA and the NOAA) is junk science.What befuddles me is that we can all get worked up about the word "recession" and within a month throw a wad of money at it just to keep Americans shopping. Not every economist agrees with the economic outlook just as every scientist doesn't jibe with global warming.
Yet all the economic data coming in would indicate this country is headed toward a slowdown just as scientific data has indicated a climatic borne catastrophe. We act with immediacy urgency to stave off an economic inconvenience but no one gives a damn about being cooked like a lobster in a steam bath.
Ted,
Neo cons have extremely poor concept of history (unless it's been made into a movie recently) and an even worse imagination about the future.. (maybe that's why they are neo cons)..
The thing that bothers me about recessions is that they seem to be self-fulfilling prophesies.
Danno,
Well there are several points about recessions. First you technically don't know you are entering one until you have been in it for a while.. (2 quarters of no growth)
So some people try to forecast them.. when they do they go by indicators which normally foretell slow/no growth. So is that a self fulfilling prophesies. ?
Knowing that this indicator and that indicator will foretell a recession?
That, sir, is true.Liberty = Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
American Heritage Dictionary
Hey children, I know I am new here, and call me out of line. But can you guys save your arguments for an appropriate thread. Jim asked for some advise on his business, not a political debate. Form what I have read from Jim so far, he is more than willing to give advice and share his experience with others on building. Maybe some could return the favor.
Yep, you're new here.
Dont' try to save my thread because it's not my thread and it wasn't that interesting of a thread anyways.All hijax are welcome! Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Edited 2/16/2008 10:59 am by Jim_Allen
"All hijax are welcome!"
Way to go, Jim!
View Image
I was not trying trying to step on toes. I just would have liked to read what advice people had on the subject. Not who or what caused global warming. I think it's a diservice not only to you, but anyone else intrested in this thread, or any other for that mattter. Plus it's just plain rude. Apoloiges if I offended anyone.
No apologies needed. Those that want to keep the main theme going will keep it going, even if a sidebar is going fullsteam. You're a little bit new here but you'll get used to it. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
So you distrust the experts? Ok what about your own common sense?
Actually, it's the title of "expert" that I find lacking.
There is some human effect, anything with that much mass has an effect. But, there's a lot of mass in all biota, too. Cipher up the mass of plankton using just broad numbers. Gets to be some huge numbers pretty quickly. The zooplankton is creating CO2 in considerable volume, too (luckily the phytoplankton is inhaling that ans exhaling O2).
Sure 7*10**9 people at 3-350 btu/hr is a large energy quantum. Calculator offers that as 7*10**9 x 103W about 7.21**11W. So is the solar gain every day--about 1.3**17W. Even adding in fuel consuption, around 9.7**12W, the Sun is outpacing we mere humans. And there's a lot of rounding there.
We miniscule humans ought to do more to do better, but we are not the be-all, end-all here. Climate change has happened before, and will again. Climate has seldom bothered to be concerned by the cares of Man before, and likely will not again.
The amounts of energy required to either freeze, or thaw, just one meter of one 1 x 0.5KM glacier are enormous. Yet the glaciers came and went with no thought of Man. Such will be the case again. The historical record suggests sooner, too, rather than later. And yet, I do not suggest we ought do nothing--only that we err on the side of caution.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
CapnMac..
I like history. We know for example when WW2 was and who won etc.. there is a clear trail going back to that point..
There are also clear trails going back thru history in those ice cores they pull up from glaciers in the antartic/greenland etc..
If you learn a little you can learn to "read" those exactly.. this is year XXXX and this is what happened that year. Based on past history we learn trends.. and hopefully lessons about probable event in the future..
I do agree with you that this is not an exact science.. it's more like looking at the stock market with a broad perspective.. We know for example that stocks in general are more expensive now than they were during the depression.. the exact details aren't hypercritical just that the trend has been going up.
Same with warming trends..
I can't say for sure exactly what will happen in 2046 for example. It may occur then or it may occur in 2037 or 2081
If all you are concerned about is yourself then those dates are absolutely meaningless to you..
However if you care about your children or grandchildren and you do see and recognize the trend. I'm sure you will have to pay some cost knowing that you could have done something but choose not to..
"Apparently you're not paying attention. As I said above, the conclusions of the IPCC represent the largest scientific consensus in the history of science. Every bit of research and every piece of data was considered and thousands of scientists from every country in the world have agreed with the conclusions."But what about this comment that someone made."What we fail to recognize is that our contemporary religion - scientism - is also based on dogma and had persecuted dissidents almost as ruthlessly as has the historical religions.I can name dozens of cutting-edge scientists who have been driven from their careers or deprived of their status and funding by the scientific establishment.".
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
But what about this comment that someone made.
"What we fail to recognize is that our contemporary religion - scientism - is also based on dogma and had persecuted dissidents almost as ruthlessly as has the historical religions.
I can name dozens of cutting-edge scientists who have been driven from their careers or deprived of their status and funding by the scientific establishment."
Yes, those were my statements. However, I was refering to honest and independent scientists, who risked their funding and careers by pursuing the evidence where it led.
The Climate Change denyers, on the other hand, are receiving substantial funding for the PR value of their apparent expertise. And, as I mentioned earlier, some of these "scientists" are the same ones who publicly denied the link between smoking and cancer (and guess who paid them then?).
View Image
Senators to Exxon: Stop the Denial
Democrats and Republicans Say Stop Funding Global Warming Doubters
http://i.abcnews.com/Technology/story?id=2612021&page=1
ExxonMobil should stop funding groups that have spread the idea that global warming is a myth and that try to influence policymakers to adopt that view, two senators said today in a letter to the oil company.
In their letter to ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., appealed to Exxon's sense of corporate responsibility, asking the company to "come clean about its past denial activities."
Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".
Greenpeace report on Exxon’s continued funding of global warming denial and disinformation machine
Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/greenpeace_exxon_report/
May 2007 report by Greenpeace USA concludes that, in 2006, Exxon spent $2.1 million on 41 groups that are part of the climate change denial and disinformation campaign. The report says Exxon has now given $22 million to these groups since 1998.
"For the record: I don't believe that we are speeding toward extinction. A correction maybe. I don't have enough scientific background to read the scientist's journals and studies and although the cause might be worthy, I refuse to buy into the hype that claims that all the changes are man made or that we have any control over it.That argument warrants its own thread."That argument has already had its share of threads. We already know your position from previous posts on those threads.
You just have to be willing to pay for that little piece of paper that says you're green. See, if you buy something, say walnut hardwood flooring, you have options. You can get S&B for one price, say 6 bucks a foot, or you can get S&B with a piece of paper that says you're green for 9. Its the same wood. In some instances it comes from the same harvest and the same mill. I said some. Not all. And I'm not passing judgement.
What people spend their money on, how, why . . . we are all examples of things someone else wouldnt have done.
You pay for the paperwork it takes for the people and process to be in place to generate that chain of custody paperwork that says its green. If its worth it to you to back the movement that wants to do that, to enforce it, to monitor it . . . you help pay for it.
Real trucks dont have sparkplugs
I won't pay extra for the same wood. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Jim,
Just last night I filled out the green rating form for a single family home in Austin. Using no special techniques or doing anything any different that what I usually do, I scored 152 points which resulted in a 5 Star rated home in Austin-the highest rating you can get. This is the same score that the This Old House project in Austin got-with much more hype. So as of last night I am officially a Green Builder.
To get involved call the Austin Energy Green Building program, sit in for the one hour introduction and submit your forms for review when you begin a project. That simple.
I am sorry if I am sounding cynical. I think if you build a quality home, you are well on the way to being a "green builder" at least by the numbers.
Bruce
You think right. It is about stewardship of the customers resources
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
It was really interesting as I was filling out the form and evaluating the items or approaches you can get points for. I could sense immediately how your mindset can change from doing exactly what your client needs done to tweeking those things a little just so you can get some more points.
One example is tankless water heaters. In my opinion, they are simply not the best choice in most projects around here because of the drinking water chemistry and they are three to five times more expensive than a traditional gas water heater with limited gains on efficiency, if any. However, I could get four more points if I spend more of my clients money and install one.
I think it is a great thing that there are programs that are encouraging more energy efficient construction, but my concern is the misuse of "green" and assuming it means quality. The two are most definitely not mutually exclusive and can coexist beautifully, but I can see label being a misleading symbol of quality because they got a lot of points.
I find it interesting that there is no measure of quality of construction, strictly on products utilized during. I know it is difficult to measure, but in my thoughts, a well built structure is inherently green as it will not require constant repair and should provide shelter for many, many years.
Bruce
I find it interesting that there is no measure of quality of construction, strictly on products utilized during. I know it is difficult to measure, but in my thoughts, a well built structure is inherently green as it will not require constant repair and should provide shelter for many, many years.
Excellent point.http://grantlogan.net/
I refuse to accept that there are limitations to what we can accomplish. Pete (I am so in love with myself) Draganic
"I find it interesting that there is no measure of quality of construction"
remember trying to define what p0rn is?
"I know it when I see it"
Unfortunately, there are way too many people in todays world who cannot see quality when it ius shoved under their nose
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
It is difficult to define, but I do believe it is defineable and perhaps some effort should be put into that. If I can communicate a level of quality to my employees and subs, surely someone who is a far better communicator than I could help define levels of quality.-perhaps similar to drywall finishes level 1 through 5.
Just some thoughts.
Bruce
Thanks for the tip Bruce, and I'll be scheduling the meeting asap. We are interested in working with Austin Energy to achieve whatever goals they think are worthy. I've investigated some of the green ideas and quickly realized that we have been building green in MI since I started in the trades! None of the builders or ideas were 100% green but most are almost there. Where is your next house project going in Austin? I'm just a curious nosey little bugger! Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
4616 Ramsey- Stop by-We usually take lunch around 11:30.
Bruce
I'll do that next time I get close. I haven't been downtown much but I think I'm going to be there more. I was considering a house over there on 51st street which is very close to where you are. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Good design.
If you need 2 bedrooms, don't build three. Place light switches where you will use them. Plan using standard sizes and common materials.
IMO, defining your needs is the key. Build what suits you the best - and not 'what everyone else wants.'
I think the best you can do is go by one of the programs that exist right now- LEED for Homes, Southface's EarthCraft, Austin's program, et al. Energy Star might be toward the bottom of that list.
LEED is probably the furthest along in using holistic criteria for scoring points. In other words, it's hard to call a 6,500 sq ft house in the burbs green, no matter how energy efficient or low impact you make it. That makes it hard to score points and get certified.
Otherwise, I think using the term "green" as a builder is more about marketing than reality.
" it's hard to call a 6,500 sq ft house in the burbs green"
I agree, but I also wonder about that. There are (rich) people in professions who regularly must entertain large groups. What if that 6,500 sq ft house was built in such a way that portions of it could be lived in full time and portions of it could be shut down when not in use. The extra space may be "required" for the function of the home, but if you could shut it off from utilities when not in use then during the rest of the time the house would demand no more resources than mine. What if the house could be built in such a way that it required no utilities? That would make it greener than my 2300 sq ft. cottage.
Point taken- my parents' early 70's vintage home has 2 HVAC systems. They heat one side (LR with 2-story glass on one side) mostly with wood in the winter and don't bother during the summer except for minimal AC. For them, it was just frugal.
And the Eco Manor (http://www.ecomanor.com), a local project by Ted Turner's daughter's family, is in that same size range, but probably uses less energy than my 2,200 sq ft home. And there are a lot more kids running around there than I have, so the space may make some sense. But there's still a ton of materials that go into building it, admittedly (hopefully) just once.
The NY Times had an article and graphic on home size vs. energy use in metro ATL earlier in the week. They also showed carbon footprint based on which county you live in. I'm sure you could pick points with it, but it conveyed the concept that the further out you go, either the big houses or the commute has a significant effect on your impact.
>>PC Green
Wow. All of mine have been a shade of gray. I hear Apples get kind of wild ....
View Image
May your whole life become a response to the truth that you've always been loved, you are loved and you always will be loved" Rob Bell, Nooma, "Bullhorn"
"We Live" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kuBgh0VCqI&mode=related&search
And Annie Ross's "Twisted" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lqivrCIRGo&mode=related&search=
Jim
It's pretty easy to join one of the 200 green building certification groups currently in existence in America. I personally think the one at http://www.NAHBgreen.org is the easiest and least expensive to join and run through the verification and certification on. But they are all good as far as I can tell.
You'll need to find a third party verifier in your area but it looks like NAHB is going to make it very easy for HERS raters who are currently providing third party verification for Energy Star to pick up their third party verification on the side.
Don't worry about "chasing the green" as in profit. If your company isn't profitable it's not sustainable as a company. There's no shame in providing a nice home at a fair price and paying yourself and your employees enough that they can afford to send their kids to college and retire when their joints begin to ache. If you can do that and build green homes that live lightly on the earth then god bless ya.
------------------
"We DON'T build them like they used to."
"If you can do that and build green homes that live lightly on the earth then god bless ya."That's about how I feel. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
Hey Jim,
Sorry I missed you today. That house you saw is going to be a four or five star green house here in Austin. Give me a little heads up next time and we'll grab some lunch. I was stuck down at the building department trying to get a permit through.
Bruce
I'm probably going to be in Austin on a regular basis for the next few weeks. I'll be tied up tomorrow but I'd like to meet for lunch on Wednesday or Thursday. My treat of course. You pick the place and time. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07