Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: SB (r-us) purpose, and climate issues

Expand Messages
  • Derek Roff
    Thanks for your careful and detailed post, David (Neely). I agree with much that you say. Every data set on every topic of research is incomplete, and every
    Message 1 of 29 , Apr 1, 2011
      Thanks for your careful and detailed post, David (Neely). I agree with
      much that you say. Every data set on every topic of research is
      incomplete, and every scientific consensus, when such exists, is in
      constant evolution. At the same time, I'm opposed to the position
      (seldom heard on this list, but often in the media), that since we
      don't have definitive answers, therefore any data can be disregarded,
      and all viewpoints have equal scientific validity.

      It is certainly true that at any given moment on a specific topic, one
      of the minority scientific opinions is closest to being right. Over
      time, the majority opinion gives way to new information and a broader,
      deeper understanding. I'm interested in those shifts. A new synthesis
      develops, incorporating the most reliable and functional parts of
      earlier data and analysis, while controversy emerges on the leading
      edge of that new consensus. Not so long ago, controversy existed on
      whether the Earth revolved around the sun, whether microbes caused
      disease, whether the big bang was a useful descriptive concept for
      cosmology, whether an asteroid impact might have been a significant
      factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now the broad cores of
      those questions have sufficient consensus to not be interesting to most
      researchers, and energy is focused on the frontiers, edges, and
      details, or on other areas of research. It will be interesting to see
      what aspects of current views on climate will be discarded, and which
      will be retained, as our understanding increases.

      > The bottom line, though, is that for the purposes of this list it is
      > simply not necessary to agree on this issue.

      I agree, and I would add that, for the purposes of this list, it is not
      necessary to agree on anything. There will be diverse opinions on even
      the most prosaic building detail. Yet we come together to discuss our
      diverse opinions, and I think that is valuable.

      Derelict

      Derek Roff
      Language Learning Center
      Ortega Hall 129, MSC03-2100
      University of New Mexico
      Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
      505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
      Internet: derek@...
    • David Neeley
      Derek, I ve been reviewing some of the links that have been piling up in my rss reader over the last few days, as I ve been involved in my semi-annual IV
      Message 2 of 29 , Apr 1, 2011
        Derek,

        I've been reviewing some of the links that have been piling up in my rss
        reader over the last few days, as I've been involved in my semi-annual
        IV medication routine that has been taking many hours each day for the
        last few. Interestingly, in reviewing one of the climate sites, a few
        stories seemed to pop out that have some potential bearing on these
        issues. For example:


        Bombshell conclusion -- new peer reviewed analysis:
        "worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of
        global sea level over the past 100 years"

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/

        Another fascinating story:

        Our regular feature, "Quote of the Week" just doesn't work here. Neither
        does decade or century. No, a whole new category all by itself is
        reserved for this quote from the newly appointed Climate Commissioner of
        Australia, Tim Flannery, noted zoologist and author of the book /The
        Weather Makers/.

        Here it is, /brace yourself/:

        *If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to
        drop for about a thousand years.*

        Lest you think that is an errant remark out of context, here's the
        follow up from Flannery:

        Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all
        emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not
        going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a
        thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has
        to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

        Still other stories are included that are highly revealing that the
        issue of warming is far from settled science. For instance, it has just
        been discovered that Arctic plankton consumes so much more CO2 than was
        previously thought that it makes a surprisingly large impact on
        temperature projections based on CO2 levels--among many other
        fascinating details.

        Please keep in mind that I don't doubt that there has been a general
        warming trend since the last Ice Age, although some rather sharp spikes
        one way (Medieval Warm Period) or the other ("Little Ice Age") have
        indeed happened in that time.

        I do, however, continue to oppose wrecking the entire economy because of
        the fearmongering tactics of scientists who have acted both
        irresponsibly and non-scientifically in this whole matter. I am
        intensely interested in learning more and, as I have said, addressing
        more pressing issues.

        I am also very skeptical, it's true, because so many of their forecasts
        have been so far off--such as increased tropical storms (proven false);
        temperatures increasing with CO2 levels (so far not true); increasing
        sea levels (ditto)--not to mention their falsification of data
        (eliminating inconvenient details to get the "hockey stick" for
        example), manipulation of their computer models to manipulate the
        results the way they want to see them, and of course their suppression
        of dissenters from being able to publish--then seeking to discredit them
        for a lack of publication in the journals which the AGW crowd themselves
        controlled.

        I suppose you could call this a sort of "consensus"--but I'm not buying it.

        (I could go on--such as the refusal to incorporate solar activity into
        any of their models or views of climate despite convincing evidence that
        it is highly relevant. However, I'm sure that many on the list who have
        not already tuned out of this topic will be thankful to keep it even
        this brief...)

        David



        On 04/01/2011 04:22 PM, Derek Roff wrote:
        >
        > Thanks for your careful and detailed post, David (Neely). I agree with
        > much that you say. Every data set on every topic of research is
        > incomplete, and every scientific consensus, when such exists, is in
        > constant evolution. At the same time, I'm opposed to the position
        > (seldom heard on this list, but often in the media), that since we
        > don't have definitive answers, therefore any data can be disregarded,
        > and all viewpoints have equal scientific validity.
        >
        > It is certainly true that at any given moment on a specific topic, one
        > of the minority scientific opinions is closest to being right. Over
        > time, the majority opinion gives way to new information and a broader,
        > deeper understanding. I'm interested in those shifts. A new synthesis
        > develops, incorporating the most reliable and functional parts of
        > earlier data and analysis, while controversy emerges on the leading
        > edge of that new consensus. Not so long ago, controversy existed on
        > whether the Earth revolved around the sun, whether microbes caused
        > disease, whether the big bang was a useful descriptive concept for
        > cosmology, whether an asteroid impact might have been a significant
        > factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now the broad cores of
        > those questions have sufficient consensus to not be interesting to most
        > researchers, and energy is focused on the frontiers, edges, and
        > details, or on other areas of research. It will be interesting to see
        > what aspects of current views on climate will be discarded, and which
        > will be retained, as our understanding increases.
        >
        > > The bottom line, though, is that for the purposes of this list it is
        > > simply not necessary to agree on this issue.
        >
        > I agree, and I would add that, for the purposes of this list, it is not
        > necessary to agree on anything. There will be diverse opinions on even
        > the most prosaic building detail. Yet we come together to discuss our
        > diverse opinions, and I think that is valuable.
        >
        > Derelict
        >
        > Derek Roff
        > Language Learning Center
        > Ortega Hall 129, MSC03-2100
        > University of New Mexico
        > Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
        > 505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
        > Internet: derek@... <mailto:derek%40unm.edu>
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jimmie R Davis
        I think I will pipe up here. I always wonder how the global warming proponents explain that industrialization and human pollution is causing climate change,
        Message 3 of 29 , Apr 1, 2011
          I think I will pipe up here. I always wonder how the global warming proponents explain that industrialization and human pollution is causing climate change, and forget that in the past every household had a fire to keep the house warm and do the cooking. Now we use one big plant with anti pollution controls. In the past large cities ("e.g. London) had pea soup fogs that killed people because of the pollution in the fog. We don't have that now, and yet now we have global warming.
          Nadine

          wrote:
          >
          >
          >Derek,
          >
          >I've been reviewing some of the links that have been piling up in my rss
          >reader over the last few days, as I've been involved in my semi-annual
          >IV medication routine that has been taking many hours each day for the
          >last few. Interestingly, in reviewing one of the climate sites, a few
          >stories seemed to pop out that have some potential bearing on these
          >issues. For example:
          >
          >Bombshell conclusion -- new peer reviewed analysis:
          >"worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of
          >global sea level over the past 100 years"
          >
          ><http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/
          >
          >Another fascinating story:
          >
          >Our regular feature, "Quote of the Week" just doesn't work here. Neither
          >does decade or century. No, a whole new category all by itself is
          >reserved for this quote from the newly appointed Climate Commissioner of
          >Australia, Tim Flannery, noted zoologist and author of the book /The
          >Weather Makers/.
          >
          >Here it is, /brace yourself/:
          >
          >*If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to
          >drop for about a thousand years.*
          >
          >Lest you think that is an errant remark out of context, here's the
          >follow up from Flannery:
          >
          >Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all
          >emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not
          >going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a
          >thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has
          >to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
          >
          >Still other stories are included that are highly revealing that the
          >issue of warming is far from settled science. For instance, it has just
          >been discovered that Arctic plankton consumes so much more CO2 than was
          >previously thought that it makes a surprisingly large impact on
          >temperature projections based on CO2 levels--among many other
          >fascinating details.
          >
          >Please keep in mind that I don't doubt that there has been a general
          >warming trend since the last Ice Age, although some rather sharp spikes
          >one way (Medieval Warm Period) or the other ("Little Ice Age") have
          >indeed happened in that time.
          >
          >I do, however, continue to oppose wrecking the entire economy because of
          >the fearmongering tactics of scientists who have acted both
          >irresponsibly and non-scientifically in this whole matter. I am
          >intensely interested in learning more and, as I have said, addressing
          >more pressing issues.
          >
          >I am also very skeptical, it's true, because so many of their forecasts
          >have been so far off--such as increased tropical storms (proven false);
          >temperatures increasing with CO2 levels (so far not true); increasing
          >sea levels (ditto)--not to mention their falsification of data
          >(eliminating inconvenient details to get the "hockey stick" for
          >example), manipulation of their computer models to manipulate the
          >results the way they want to see them, and of course their suppression
          >of dissenters from being able to publish--then seeking to discredit them
          >for a lack of publication in the journals which the AGW crowd themselves
          >controlled.
          >
          >I suppose you could call this a sort of "consensus"--but I'm not buying it.
          >
          >(I could go on--such as the refusal to incorporate solar activity into
          >any of their models or views of climate despite convincing evidence that
          >it is highly relevant. However, I'm sure that many on the list who have
          >not already tuned out of this topic will be thankful to keep it even
          >this brief...)
          >
          >David
          >
          >On 04/01/2011 04:22 PM, Derek Roff wrote:
          >>
          >> Thanks for your careful and detailed post, David (Neely). I agree with
          >> much that you say. Every data set on every topic of research is
          >> incomplete, and every scientific consensus, when such exists, is in
          >> constant evolution. At the same time, I'm opposed to the position
          >> (seldom heard on this list, but often in the media), that since we
          >> don't have definitive answers, therefore any data can be disregarded,
          >> and all viewpoints have equal scientific validity.
          >>
          >> It is certainly true that at any given moment on a specific topic, one
          >> of the minority scientific opinions is closest to being right. Over
          >> time, the majority opinion gives way to new information and a broader,
          >> deeper understanding. I'm interested in those shifts. A new synthesis
          >> develops, incorporating the most reliable and functional parts of
          >> earlier data and analysis, while controversy emerges on the leading
          >> edge of that new consensus. Not so long ago, controversy existed on
          >> whether the Earth revolved around the sun, whether microbes caused
          >> disease, whether the big bang was a useful descriptive concept for
          >> cosmology, whether an asteroid impact might have been a significant
          >> factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now the broad cores of
          >> those questions have sufficient consensus to not be interesting to most
          >> researchers, and energy is focused on the frontiers, edges, and
          >> details, or on other areas of research. It will be interesting to see
          >> what aspects of current views on climate will be discarded, and which
          >> will be retained, as our understanding increases.
          >>
          >> > The bottom line, though, is that for the purposes of this list it is
          >> > simply not necessary to agree on this issue.
          >>
          >> I agree, and I would add that, for the purposes of this list, it is not
          >> necessary to agree on anything. There will be diverse opinions on even
          >> the most prosaic building detail. Yet we come together to discuss our
          >> diverse opinions, and I think that is valuable.
          >>
          >> Derelict
          >>
          >> Derek Roff
          >> Language Learning Center
          >> Ortega Hall 129, MSC03-2100
          >> University of New Mexico
          >> Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
          >> 505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
          >> Internet: <mailto:derek%40unm.edu>derek@... <mailto:derek%40unm.edu>
          >>
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Darcy Goodrich
          In the past when everyone cooked with wood, the population was half what it is now, maybe less. Maybe that combined with current emissions are the cause,
          Message 4 of 29 , Apr 1, 2011
            "In the past" when everyone cooked with wood, the population was half what it is
            now, maybe less. Maybe that combined with current emissions are the cause,
            instead of blaming one or the other. Who knows?
             Darcy Goodrich
            No Farmers, No Food, No Health
            Know Farmers, Know Food, Know Health
            www.purecountry.ca
            ________________________________






            ________________________________
            From: Jimmie R Davis <jimrdavis@...>
            To: SB-r-us@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Fri, April 1, 2011 1:02:14 PM
            Subject: Re: [SB-r-us] Re: SB (r-us) purpose, and climate issues

             
            I think I will pipe up here. I always wonder how the global warming proponents
            explain that industrialization and human pollution is causing climate change,
            and forget that in the past every household had a fire to keep the house warm
            and do the cooking. Now we use one big plant with anti pollution controls. In
            the past large cities ("e.g. London) had pea soup fogs that killed people
            because of the pollution in the fog. We don't have that now, and yet now we have
            global warming.
            Nadine

            wrote:
            >
            >
            >Derek,
            >
            >I've been reviewing some of the links that have been piling up in my rss
            >reader over the last few days, as I've been involved in my semi-annual
            >IV medication routine that has been taking many hours each day for the
            >last few. Interestingly, in reviewing one of the climate sites, a few
            >stories seemed to pop out that have some potential bearing on these
            >issues. For example:
            >
            >Bombshell conclusion -- new peer reviewed analysis:
            >"worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of
            >global sea level over the past 100 years"
            >
            ><http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/
            >
            >
            >Another fascinating story:
            >
            >Our regular feature, "Quote of the Week" just doesn't work here. Neither
            >does decade or century. No, a whole new category all by itself is
            >reserved for this quote from the newly appointed Climate Commissioner of
            >Australia, Tim Flannery, noted zoologist and author of the book /The
            >Weather Makers/.
            >
            >Here it is, /brace yourself/:
            >
            >*If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to
            >drop for about a thousand years.*
            >
            >Lest you think that is an errant remark out of context, here's the
            >follow up from Flannery:
            >
            >Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all
            >emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not
            >going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a
            >thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has
            >to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
            >
            >Still other stories are included that are highly revealing that the
            >issue of warming is far from settled science. For instance, it has just
            >been discovered that Arctic plankton consumes so much more CO2 than was
            >previously thought that it makes a surprisingly large impact on
            >temperature projections based on CO2 levels--among many other
            >fascinating details.
            >
            >Please keep in mind that I don't doubt that there has been a general
            >warming trend since the last Ice Age, although some rather sharp spikes
            >one way (Medieval Warm Period) or the other ("Little Ice Age") have
            >indeed happened in that time.
            >
            >I do, however, continue to oppose wrecking the entire economy because of
            >the fearmongering tactics of scientists who have acted both
            >irresponsibly and non-scientifically in this whole matter. I am
            >intensely interested in learning more and, as I have said, addressing
            >more pressing issues.
            >
            >I am also very skeptical, it's true, because so many of their forecasts
            >have been so far off--such as increased tropical storms (proven false);
            >temperatures increasing with CO2 levels (so far not true); increasing
            >sea levels (ditto)--not to mention their falsification of data
            >(eliminating inconvenient details to get the "hockey stick" for
            >example), manipulation of their computer models to manipulate the
            >results the way they want to see them, and of course their suppression
            >of dissenters from being able to publish--then seeking to discredit them
            >for a lack of publication in the journals which the AGW crowd themselves
            >controlled.
            >
            >I suppose you could call this a sort of "consensus"--but I'm not buying it.
            >
            >(I could go on--such as the refusal to incorporate solar activity into
            >any of their models or views of climate despite convincing evidence that
            >it is highly relevant. However, I'm sure that many on the list who have
            >not already tuned out of this topic will be thankful to keep it even
            >this brief...)
            >
            >David
            >
            >On 04/01/2011 04:22 PM, Derek Roff wrote:
            >>
            >> Thanks for your careful and detailed post, David (Neely). I agree with
            >> much that you say. Every data set on every topic of research is
            >> incomplete, and every scientific consensus, when such exists, is in
            >> constant evolution. At the same time, I'm opposed to the position
            >> (seldom heard on this list, but often in the media), that since we
            >> don't have definitive answers, therefore any data can be disregarded,
            >> and all viewpoints have equal scientific validity.
            >>
            >> It is certainly true that at any given moment on a specific topic, one
            >> of the minority scientific opinions is closest to being right. Over
            >> time, the majority opinion gives way to new information and a broader,
            >> deeper understanding. I'm interested in those shifts. A new synthesis
            >> develops, incorporating the most reliable and functional parts of
            >> earlier data and analysis, while controversy emerges on the leading
            >> edge of that new consensus. Not so long ago, controversy existed on
            >> whether the Earth revolved around the sun, whether microbes caused
            >> disease, whether the big bang was a useful descriptive concept for
            >> cosmology, whether an asteroid impact might have been a significant
            >> factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now the broad cores of
            >> those questions have sufficient consensus to not be interesting to most
            >> researchers, and energy is focused on the frontiers, edges, and
            >> details, or on other areas of research. It will be interesting to see
            >> what aspects of current views on climate will be discarded, and which
            >> will be retained, as our understanding increases.
            >>
            >> > The bottom line, though, is that for the purposes of this list it is
            >> > simply not necessary to agree on this issue.
            >>
            >> I agree, and I would add that, for the purposes of this list, it is not
            >> necessary to agree on anything. There will be diverse opinions on even
            >> the most prosaic building detail. Yet we come together to discuss our
            >> diverse opinions, and I think that is valuable.
            >>
            >> Derelict
            >>
            >> Derek Roff
            >> Language Learning Center
            >> Ortega Hall 129, MSC03-2100
            >> University of New Mexico
            >> Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
            >> 505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
            >> Internet: <mailto:derek%40unm.edu>derek@... <mailto:derek%40unm.edu>
            >>
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Desig
            Nadine, smog isn t the issue (or at least the main one). The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which is released when anything containing carbon is
            Message 5 of 29 , Apr 1, 2011
              Nadine, smog isn't the issue (or at least the main one). The main
              greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which is released when anything
              containing carbon is burnt. The quantity of fossil fuels being burnt
              has been rose substantially in the latter part of the 20th century
              (though it has begun to tail off and decline in some countries,
              particularly in Europe, as a result of efficiency, conservation, fuel
              substitution and a shift to renewables). Therefore the amount of carbon
              dioxide emitted has increased. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere
              for a long time - so, as it accumulates, its effect on temperature
              (something which has been established science for nearly a century)
              becomes more acute. (This is why the rise in temperature is lagging
              behind the rise in CO2 concentrations.) "Pollution controls" do not
              remove carbon dioxide, though they do remove other unpleasant things
              like particulates (which contribute to smog) and sulphur dioxide (which
              causes acid rain).

              [Removing carbon dioxide at source is an expensive business, which is
              being considered in a number of jurisdictions - it's known as "carbon
              capture and storage" or CCS - but that technology still can only reduce
              CO2 emissions per unit of energy out by about 80% at best - the other
              20% is still going to cause problems, so to my mind it makes more sense
              to go for carbon-free or carbon-neutral approaches like efficiency,
              conservation and renewables.]

              Mark
              "global warming proponent"
              also a "proponent" of (among other things) gravity, the laws of
              thermodynamics, relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution by natural
              selection, and plate tectonics
              and especially a proponent of scientific method and good science education



              On 2011:04:01 13:02, Jimmie R Davis wrote:
              >
              > I think I will pipe up here. I always wonder how the global warming
              > proponents explain that industrialization and human pollution is
              > causing climate change, and forget that in the past every household
              > had a fire to keep the house warm and do the cooking. Now we use one
              > big plant with anti pollution controls. In the past large cities
              > ("e.g. London) had pea soup fogs that killed people because of the
              > pollution in the fog. We don't have that now, and yet now we have
              > global warming.
              > Nadine
              >
              > wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > >Derek,
              > >
              > >I've been reviewing some of the links that have been piling up in my rss
              > >reader over the last few days, as I've been involved in my semi-annual
              > >IV medication routine that has been taking many hours each day for the
              > >last few. Interestingly, in reviewing one of the climate sites, a few
              > >stories seemed to pop out that have some potential bearing on these
              > >issues. For example:
              > >
              > >Bombshell conclusion -- new peer reviewed analysis:
              > >"worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of
              > >global sea level over the past 100 years"
              > >
              > ><http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/
              > >
              > >Another fascinating story:
              > >
              > >Our regular feature, "Quote of the Week" just doesn't work here. Neither
              > >does decade or century. No, a whole new category all by itself is
              > >reserved for this quote from the newly appointed Climate Commissioner of
              > >Australia, Tim Flannery, noted zoologist and author of the book /The
              > >Weather Makers/.
              > >
              > >Here it is, /brace yourself/:
              > >
              > >*If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to
              > >drop for about a thousand years.*
              > >
              > >Lest you think that is an errant remark out of context, here's the
              > >follow up from Flannery:
              > >
              > >Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all
              > >emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not
              > >going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a
              > >thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has
              > >to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
              > >
              > >Still other stories are included that are highly revealing that the
              > >issue of warming is far from settled science. For instance, it has just
              > >been discovered that Arctic plankton consumes so much more CO2 than was
              > >previously thought that it makes a surprisingly large impact on
              > >temperature projections based on CO2 levels--among many other
              > >fascinating details.
              > >
              > >Please keep in mind that I don't doubt that there has been a general
              > >warming trend since the last Ice Age, although some rather sharp spikes
              > >one way (Medieval Warm Period) or the other ("Little Ice Age") have
              > >indeed happened in that time.
              > >
              > >I do, however, continue to oppose wrecking the entire economy because of
              > >the fearmongering tactics of scientists who have acted both
              > >irresponsibly and non-scientifically in this whole matter. I am
              > >intensely interested in learning more and, as I have said, addressing
              > >more pressing issues.
              > >
              > >I am also very skeptical, it's true, because so many of their forecasts
              > >have been so far off--such as increased tropical storms (proven false);
              > >temperatures increasing with CO2 levels (so far not true); increasing
              > >sea levels (ditto)--not to mention their falsification of data
              > >(eliminating inconvenient details to get the "hockey stick" for
              > >example), manipulation of their computer models to manipulate the
              > >results the way they want to see them, and of course their suppression
              > >of dissenters from being able to publish--then seeking to discredit them
              > >for a lack of publication in the journals which the AGW crowd themselves
              > >controlled.
              > >
              > >I suppose you could call this a sort of "consensus"--but I'm not
              > buying it.
              > >
              > >(I could go on--such as the refusal to incorporate solar activity into
              > >any of their models or views of climate despite convincing evidence that
              > >it is highly relevant. However, I'm sure that many on the list who have
              > >not already tuned out of this topic will be thankful to keep it even
              > >this brief...)
              > >
              > >David
              > >
              > >On 04/01/2011 04:22 PM, Derek Roff wrote:
              > >>
              > >> Thanks for your careful and detailed post, David (Neely). I agree with
              > >> much that you say. Every data set on every topic of research is
              > >> incomplete, and every scientific consensus, when such exists, is in
              > >> constant evolution. At the same time, I'm opposed to the position
              > >> (seldom heard on this list, but often in the media), that since we
              > >> don't have definitive answers, therefore any data can be disregarded,
              > >> and all viewpoints have equal scientific validity.
              > >>
              > >> It is certainly true that at any given moment on a specific topic, one
              > >> of the minority scientific opinions is closest to being right. Over
              > >> time, the majority opinion gives way to new information and a broader,
              > >> deeper understanding. I'm interested in those shifts. A new synthesis
              > >> develops, incorporating the most reliable and functional parts of
              > >> earlier data and analysis, while controversy emerges on the leading
              > >> edge of that new consensus. Not so long ago, controversy existed on
              > >> whether the Earth revolved around the sun, whether microbes caused
              > >> disease, whether the big bang was a useful descriptive concept for
              > >> cosmology, whether an asteroid impact might have been a significant
              > >> factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now the broad cores of
              > >> those questions have sufficient consensus to not be interesting to most
              > >> researchers, and energy is focused on the frontiers, edges, and
              > >> details, or on other areas of research. It will be interesting to see
              > >> what aspects of current views on climate will be discarded, and which
              > >> will be retained, as our understanding increases.
              > >>
              > >> > The bottom line, though, is that for the purposes of this list it is
              > >> > simply not necessary to agree on this issue.
              > >>
              > >> I agree, and I would add that, for the purposes of this list, it is not
              > >> necessary to agree on anything. There will be diverse opinions on even
              > >> the most prosaic building detail. Yet we come together to discuss our
              > >> diverse opinions, and I think that is valuable.
              > >>
              > >> Derelict
              > >>
              > >> Derek Roff
              > >> Language Learning Center
              > >> Ortega Hall 129, MSC03-2100
              > >> University of New Mexico
              > >> Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
              > >> 505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
              > >> Internet: <mailto:derek%40unm.edu>derek@...
              > <mailto:derek%40unm.edu> <mailto:derek%40unm.edu>
              > >>
              > >
              > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Desig
              David, I have held my tongue on this, but the stream of disinformation and red herrings below is just too much for me. I am fed up with hearing halfbaked
              Message 6 of 29 , Apr 1, 2011
                David, I have held my tongue on this, but the stream of disinformation
                and red herrings below is just too much for me. I am fed up with
                hearing halfbaked talking-points presented as if they have equivalent
                validity to genuine scientific findings. And I am fed up with continual
                repetition of slurs on the character of scientists after they have been
                vindicated by multiple official enquiries. If you are an honest seeker
                after truth (which you seem to be when it comes to building design), you
                will diversify your reading material, and you will try to actually
                understand the physics instead of regurgitating misleading claims and
                half-digested "revelations" from notoriously unreliable blogs.

                I really do not want to be having this debate on a strawbale list, but
                at some point lies, distortions and character assassinations need to be
                answered. And I'm sorry to have to use such strong language, but there
                really is no other language that does justice to the reality going on
                around us. Climate change threatens all of us (though not necessarily
                all of us in this generation), and excuses for delaying action will just
                add to the crisis.

                Responses below.

                Mark



                On 2011:04:01 10:28, David Neeley wrote:
                >
                > Derek,
                >
                > I've been reviewing some of the links that have been piling up in my rss
                > reader over the last few days, as I've been involved in my semi-annual
                > IV medication routine that has been taking many hours each day for the
                > last few. Interestingly, in reviewing one of the climate sites,
                >

                which one? which ones do you read regularly?


                > a few
                > stories seemed to pop out that have some potential bearing on these
                > issues. For example:
                >
                > Bombshell conclusion -- new peer reviewed analysis:
                > "worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of
                > global sea level over the past 100 years"
                >
                > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/28/bombshell-conclusion-new-peer-reviewed-analysis-worldwide-temperature-increase-has-not-produced-acceleration-of-global-sea-level-over-the-past-100-years/
                >


                I can't comment in detail on the particular findings of this one paper
                because it is not my field (neither is it yours, David, and neither is
                it Watts's). However,:
                (1) This is a complex subject. Sea rise is relative to land masses,
                which are themselves either rising or falling in response to complex and
                poorly-understood tectonic effects.
                (2) A study which takes measurements in US jurisdictions only is not
                comprehensive
                (3) Significant _acceleration_ in sea level rise is not to be expected
                until the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets starts
                in earnest. What we have seen there so far is minor compared to what is
                predicted by competent scientists.
                (4) The actual fact that sea level is rising at all (whether that rise
                is accelerating or decelerating) points to the probability of global
                surface temperature increase - the effect is at present mostly thermal
                expansion, with some glacial melt.
                (5) Some societies are already experiencing the effects of a rise in sea
                levels - in the South Pacific and in the Ganges delta.
                Hence this is far from the "bombshell conclusion" which the utterly
                unqualified Mr Watts claims. A scientifically competent commentator on
                the subject would not post the paper without first reading all the other
                papers on the subject which Mr Watts doesn't flag up. And a
                scientifically competent student of the subject would take the last
                sentence of the authors' conclusions as a spur to further research
                rather than an excuse to rubbish the findings of previous research.
                Note that the authors do not question the reality of the 0.74degC
                temperature rise from 1906 to 2005. Note that they do not question the
                well-established fact that, above a certain temperature, water expands
                when heated. Note that they do not question the fact that glaciers have
                been retreating across the world, including in Greenland and
                Antarctica. They simply present an empirical finding which they cannot
                explain.




                > Another fascinating story:
                >
                > Our regular feature, "Quote of the Week" just doesn't work here. Neither
                > does decade or century. No, a whole new category all by itself is
                > reserved for this quote from the newly appointed Climate Commissioner of
                > Australia, Tim Flannery, noted zoologist and author of the book /The
                > Weather Makers/.
                >
                > Here it is, /brace yourself/:
                >
                > *If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to
                > drop for about a thousand years.*
                >
                > Lest you think that is an errant remark out of context, here's the
                > follow up from Flannery:
                >
                > Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all
                > emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not
                > going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a
                > thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has
                > to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
                >

                Yes, this is a well-established finding obtained by running standard
                climate models. The long timescale is because of CO2 storage in the
                oceans. We have _already_ made permanent changes to global climate
                (which will not be seen in their full severity for some decades to come
                because of delays in the system). To continue to pursue policies which
                will add to the CO2 burden until we run out of fossil fuels - which is
                the current default position and the one which denialist spokespeople
                are generously funded to protect - will only make those permanent
                changes more severe. Especially if we generate enough greenhouse gases
                to pass one of the multiple "tipping points" likely to occur at or just
                above a 2degC elevation in global mean surface temperature -
                irreversible icecap melt, release of methane hydrates from arctic ice,
                largescale release of methane from permafrost, forest fires/dieback and
                soil degradation turning the Amazon rainforest into a carbon source
                instead of a carbon sink, etc.

                The only ethically acceptable response to the very serious findings
                which Flannery highlights is to reduce CO2 and other GHG emissions to as
                close to zero as we can get, as quickly as possible; and to pursue an
                accelerated programme of carbon sequestration through natural systems -
                both reforestation and restoring/raising soil carbon levels. (Biomass
                power with carbon capture and storage may also have something to
                contribute, though its role is limited by cost, local geology,
                sustainable resource availability, etc.)


                >
                > Still other stories are included that are highly revealing that the
                > issue of warming is far from settled science. For instance, it has just
                > been discovered that Arctic plankton consumes so much more CO2 than was
                > previously thought that it makes a surprisingly large impact on
                > temperature projections based on CO2 levels--among many other
                > fascinating details.
                >

                Yes, those of us who follow the science are aware of that too. It is
                good that there is some sort of negative feedback in there moderating
                the Arctic temperature rise. And no doubt when it is well-understood it
                will be incorporated into the climate models, which are in a state of
                continuous improvement. But to say that they can be improved in the
                light of new information is not to say that they are fundamentally wrong.


                >
                > Please keep in mind that I don't doubt that there has been a general
                > warming trend since the last Ice Age, although some rather sharp spikes
                > one way (Medieval Warm Period) or the other ("Little Ice Age") have
                > indeed happened in that time.
                >

                The point is that there has been a significantly more marked warming
                trend over the last 30 years or so and that models based on established
                scientific understanding predict a dramatic increase in this trend if
                emissions continue. Yes, there are several things which can cause
                radiative forcing, and this shows up in the historic temperature record,
                but greenhouse gas emissions give the best fit for recent/present
                temperature trends.


                >
                > I do, however, continue to oppose wrecking the entire economy
                >

                If you are going to make this inflammatory claim, please provide
                evidence. All the serious studies I have seen suggests quite the
                opposite - real economic opportunities in greentech sectors outweighing
                economic losses from closedown of fossil fuel development in all but a
                few fossil-dependent jurisdictions. And if by some chance the serious
                scientists who spend their lives investigating these things have
                actually got it right about climate change (and a
                comprehensively-debunked and scientifically-unqualified TV weather
                presenter and a guy in Texas have got it wrong), letting
                fossil-dependency continue unhindered will do far more than "wreck the
                economy".



                > because of
                > the fearmongering tactics of scientists who have acted both
                > irresponsibly and non-scientifically in this whole matter.
                >

                Again, if you are going to make inflammatory claims, include evidence.
                Real evidence, not the twisted and spun confections that you get from
                wattsupwiththis or other ideologically-driven websites.



                > I am
                > intensely interested in learning more and, as I have said, addressing
                > more pressing issues.
                >

                Good. So, as I have said to you many times before, take a physics
                course. And read the scientific sites, not just the ones which suit
                your ideological preferences.



                >
                > I am also very skeptical, it's true, because so many of their forecasts
                > have been so far off--such as increased tropical storms (proven false);
                >

                no - insufficient time elapsed to know whether there is a trend. Nobody
                has claimed that these effects would be seen overnight



                > temperatures increasing with CO2 levels (so far not true);
                >

                again false information presumably based on the long-debunked denialist
                talking point dealt with at
                http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm . Or maybe
                it's the talking point dealt with at
                http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm , or
                the one dealt with at
                http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm .
                Or
                http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
                . It's not really clear which fallacy you are promoting here, David.



                > increasing
                > sea levels (ditto)
                >

                see above


                > --not to mention their falsification of data
                > (eliminating inconvenient details to get the "hockey stick" for
                > example)
                >

                a much discredited claim. How much longer are you denialists going to
                carry on repeating this poisonous lie? How would you feel if people
                were spreading similar slanders about you around the internet? See
                http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm for a
                summary of independent findings on the hacked-emails episode. As for
                the validity of the hockey stick curve itself, see
                http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm and
                http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm.



                > , manipulation of their computer models to manipulate the
                > results the way they want to see them,
                >

                Again, an inflammatory claim, rejected by multiple enquiries, and which
                should not be made without clear evidence.



                > and of course their suppression
                > of dissenters from being able to publish--then seeking to discredit them
                > for a lack of publication in the journals which the AGW crowd themselves
                > controlled.
                >

                Second-rate papers by "dissenters" even made it into the IPCC report
                despite the evident contempt which the editors had for their poor
                methodology. The "dissenters" have nothing to complain about.

                See http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm



                >
                > I suppose you could call this a sort of "consensus"--but I'm not
                > buying it.
                >
                > (I could go on--such as the refusal to incorporate solar activity into
                > any of their models
                >

                Untrue - it is incorporated into all the main models. It's just that
                solar activity cannot explain the temperature rises of the last 30 or 40
                years - it's going in the wrong direction.


                > or views of climate despite convincing evidence that
                > it is highly relevant. However, I'm sure that many on the list who have
                > not already tuned out of this topic will be thankful to keep it even
                > this brief...)
                >
                > David
                >
                > On 04/01/2011 04:22 PM, Derek Roff wrote:
                > >
                > > Thanks for your careful and detailed post, David (Neely). I agree with
                > > much that you say. Every data set on every topic of research is
                > > incomplete, and every scientific consensus, when such exists, is in
                > > constant evolution. At the same time, I'm opposed to the position
                > > (seldom heard on this list, but often in the media), that since we
                > > don't have definitive answers, therefore any data can be disregarded,
                > > and all viewpoints have equal scientific validity.
                > >
                > > It is certainly true that at any given moment on a specific topic, one
                > > of the minority scientific opinions is closest to being right. Over
                > > time, the majority opinion gives way to new information and a broader,
                > > deeper understanding. I'm interested in those shifts. A new synthesis
                > > develops, incorporating the most reliable and functional parts of
                > > earlier data and analysis, while controversy emerges on the leading
                > > edge of that new consensus. Not so long ago, controversy existed on
                > > whether the Earth revolved around the sun, whether microbes caused
                > > disease, whether the big bang was a useful descriptive concept for
                > > cosmology, whether an asteroid impact might have been a significant
                > > factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now the broad cores of
                > > those questions have sufficient consensus to not be interesting to most
                > > researchers, and energy is focused on the frontiers, edges, and
                > > details, or on other areas of research. It will be interesting to see
                > > what aspects of current views on climate will be discarded, and which
                > > will be retained, as our understanding increases.
                > >
                > > > The bottom line, though, is that for the purposes of this list it is
                > > > simply not necessary to agree on this issue.
                > >
                > > I agree, and I would add that, for the purposes of this list, it is not
                > > necessary to agree on anything. There will be diverse opinions on even
                > > the most prosaic building detail. Yet we come together to discuss our
                > > diverse opinions, and I think that is valuable.
                > >
                > > Derelict
                > >
                > > Derek Roff
                > > Language Learning Center
                > > Ortega Hall 129, MSC03-2100
                > > University of New Mexico
                > > Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
                > > 505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
                > > Internet: derek@... <mailto:derek%40unm.edu>
                > <mailto:derek%40unm.edu>
                > >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Andrew Webb
                David, Can I suggest you (and everyone else) read Flannery s Here on Earth for a full and reasoned explanation of the very complex issues. For a start, he
                Message 7 of 29 , Apr 1, 2011
                  David,

                  Can I suggest you (and everyone else) read Flannery's "Here on Earth"
                  for a full and reasoned explanation of the very complex issues. For a
                  start, he suggests that if we do not cut emissions now then very few
                  people will be around in 1000 years.

                  Then read "Natural Advantage of Nations" to begin to understand that
                  combatting climate change, whatever the cause (if you must keep that
                  proviso), is far from the path to "wrecking the entire economy," but the
                  only way to preserve it.

                  -Andrew

                  On 2/04/2011 2:28 AM, David Neeley wrote:
                  >
                  > Derek,
                  > Here it is, /brace yourself/:
                  >
                  > *If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to
                  > drop for about a thousand years.*
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Toby Weymiller
                  Seriously, WTF does this debate have to do with this Listserve? Take it elsewhere and quit clogging up my in box. Thanks. Toby ... [Non-text portions of this
                  Message 8 of 29 , Apr 1, 2011
                    Seriously, WTF does this debate have to do with this Listserve? Take it elsewhere and quit clogging up my in box. Thanks.

                    Toby

                    On 2011/04/02, at 15:28, Andrew Webb <andrew@...> wrote:

                    > David,
                    >
                    > Can I suggest you (and everyone else) read Flannery's "Here on Earth"
                    > for a full and reasoned explanation of the very complex issues. For a
                    > start, he suggests that if we do not cut emissions now then very few
                    > people will be around in 1000 years.
                    >
                    > Then read "Natural Advantage of Nations" to begin to understand that
                    > combatting climate change, whatever the cause (if you must keep that
                    > proviso), is far from the path to "wrecking the entire economy," but the
                    > only way to preserve it.
                    >
                    > -Andrew
                    >
                    > On 2/04/2011 2:28 AM, David Neeley wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Derek,
                    > > Here it is, /brace yourself/:
                    > >
                    > > *If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to
                    > > drop for about a thousand years.*
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Andrew Webb
                    ... Ever considered the interconnectedness of all things? Personally, as my computer has a delete button, I ve never minded what people talk about on this
                    Message 9 of 29 , Apr 2, 2011
                      On 2/04/2011 4:59 PM, Toby Weymiller wrote:
                      >
                      > Seriously, WTF does this debate have to do with this Listserve?
                      >
                      Ever considered the interconnectedness of all things? Personally, as my
                      computer has a 'delete' button, I've never minded what people talk about
                      on this 'social' forum. But, all of this has been said before.

                      -Andrew


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Heather James
                      Take the global warming stuff elsewhere. Lots of people get this list as digest...which means we have to read through the global warming propaganda to get to
                      Message 10 of 29 , Apr 3, 2011
                        Take the global warming stuff elsewhere. Lots of people get this list as digest...which means we have to read through the global warming propaganda to get to anything that is actually ON-topic. Also, some of us are trying to keep the list ON-topic by staying out of this discussion and not making it worse. The "interconnectedness of all things" could be used as an excuse for me to start talking about sewing or knitting or nutrition on this list, too, but those are OT, so I talk about them in more appropriate places.
                      • Andrew Webb
                        1. I thought this list was the OT list to keep it off the other lists. 2. I am very interested in what Derek Roff, David Neely, and others have to say about
                        Message 11 of 29 , Apr 3, 2011
                          1. I thought this list was the OT list to keep it off the other lists.
                          2. I am very interested in what Derek Roff, David Neely, and others have
                          to say about climate change. I am not interested in hearing people try
                          to stop this discussion. Since when does every discussion have to
                          consider whether everyone on the list cares? (please no more mention of
                          working bees in the US, if that is the case)
                          3. Where, for example, are the annoyed and offended comments about the
                          "Native flute" being OT - I don't suppose that challenges anyone's world
                          view, so it's ok? (it doesn't bother me, BTW)
                          4. For many of us climate change has a direct bearing on our interest in
                          straw bale - it is the fundamental topic. It is wrong to suggest that
                          technical details can be discussed and understood with no reference to
                          one of the reasons why.
                          5. This is the last I will chime in to answer those trying to stop an
                          interesting discussion - please keep it to yourselves; you are not the
                          only ones here.

                          -Andrew


                          On 4/04/2011 12:57 AM, Heather James wrote:
                          >
                          > Take the global warming stuff elsewhere. ........... appropriate places.
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • John Glassford
                          G day Been a while since I posted anything to this list as it seems to have done it s job over the past few years. So to have a few posts and only a few on
                          Message 12 of 29 , Apr 3, 2011
                            G ' day

                            Been a while since I posted anything to this list as it seems to have done
                            it's job over the past few years.

                            So to have a few posts and only a few on climate change should not worry
                            anyone.

                            Some say take this off list to another list, why? Just delete the post if
                            you do not want to get involved.

                            The subject will not go away no matter what you think about climate change
                            or global warming or even global cooling.

                            I doubt that we will ever get consensus on the subject. There are just too
                            many powerful people with vested interests in our country in keeping the
                            truth of climate change hidden from the public. The largest group here
                            would be the mining industry, especially coal.

                            We are a large country/continent (larger than the USA) with only 22 million
                            people and coal is our main source of power, thank goodness we do not have
                            any nuclear power stations.

                            We have a lot of sun but still no way will we get solar power stations for
                            many generations or until we run out of coal.

                            Now if we shut Australia down tomorrow, and we all went back to the lands we
                            came from, would we make any difference to the climate? No, of course not,
                            we are insignificant on the grand scale of things.

                            However countries such as China and India are not insignificant and with so
                            many coal fired power stations being built in China, therein lies a worry.
                            Good for Australia, as we export coal and iron ore to China but not good for
                            the environment.

                            Been building in straw bale now since 1996/7. Have we made any difference
                            to the environment? No of course not. What we have done though is to
                            reduce the power bills of those who have had straw bale homes built by us
                            and by others in our country. Not only that in the majority of cases the
                            total cost of the build has been lower than the average costs of a
                            conventional home. That alone is a good reason to build in straw bale.

                            Right now around here in the west of New South Wales wheat stubble is being
                            burnt and burnt and burnt, causing smoke haze and polluting the air around
                            us. The sun last night was blocked out by the smoke haze and those with
                            breathing problems would not have had a good night's sleep. We drove from
                            Orange to home around 4 hours and everywhere we went cockies were burning
                            the stubble to get ready for the next crop, just crazy!

                            I believe that the planet is warming up and I also strongly believe that we
                            humans, all 6 billion of us, are the main cause. I also know that it only
                            takes one large volcanic eruption to add to the problem of climate change.
                            One such volcano can create enough pollution to make a huge difference to
                            the current situation and in some cases as much as the total emissions of
                            the industrial revolution. So it is not just us humans that contribute to
                            the planet's problems of clean air.

                            There can be no doubt that the climate is changing and has been doing so
                            since the big bang created us. What we should be doing is to mitigate our
                            contribution in as many ways as we can and for mine not consuming so much
                            energy in cooling and heating our homes is one very practical way to do
                            something positive.

                            So if the climate change sceptics are right and climate change has nothing
                            to do with us humans then surely by building homes that are super insulated
                            and use materials that are sustainable, does it matter if we are right or
                            wrong? Power bills are going up and up and will continue to rise no matter
                            what; that is the way today. So build in straw bale, build small use less
                            energy in the construction and use less energy in living in our homes. That
                            to me is the way to go and to promote our style of build. Then if we are
                            wrong we still win.

                            Please do not take this topic onto another list this list, SB r-us was set
                            up by RT so many years ago now, it has been a great list and one that many
                            people have found very useful. We have also made many friends via this list
                            and surely climate change is close to all of us who build in straw bale.

                            Now those sceptics out there please join me in Africa in December where we
                            will witness first hand the effects of climate change and global warming on
                            the glaciers of the Mountains of the Moon. Tell me please that they will
                            not be totally gone in a few years time and tell me why they will not recede
                            any more and if global warming is not the cause, what is? I witnessed that
                            on Mount Kilimanjaro in 2007 and beneath my feet was enough proof for me
                            that the earth is heating up.

                            Kind regards
                            The Straw Wolf
                            Huff 'n' Puff Constructions
                            http://www.glassford.com.au
                            61 2 6927 6027
                            In Australia (02) 6927 6027

                            Mountains of the Moon 2011
                            http://www.mountainsofthemoon.org


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Toby Weymiller
                            Ohayo~ (good morning), I have no problem finding the delete button, but I do like to open, read and file away certain emails that I believe might be useful
                            Message 13 of 29 , Apr 3, 2011
                              Ohayo~ (good morning),

                              I have no problem finding the delete button, but I do like to open, read and file away certain emails that I believe might be useful later on. I'm on many listserves from SB to cat health and so I do like to control my reading to things I'm passionate about. While I'm passionate about the environment, I don't need to debate global warming and/or climate change. I'm sure there are other listserves out there where peeps can debate until their fingertips go blue. Why here?

                              For me, it's about setting precedent. What's next? The 9/11 co spiracy theories? Or "socialistic health care" or....? Seriously, I joined this Listserve to learn more about natural building. Why do we have to discuss/debate other stuff here?!? That's my two yen on this...

                              Toby
                              Hokkaido, Japan
                              Toby's iPhone
                              maikotobybomber.blogspot.com


                              On 2011/04/04, at 6:31, John Glassford <jacksflat@...> wrote:

                              > G ' day
                              >
                              > Been a while since I posted anything to this list as it seems to have done
                              > it's job over the past few years.
                              >
                              > So to have a few posts and only a few on climate change should not worry
                              > anyone.
                              >
                              > Some say take this off list to another list, why? Just delete the post if
                              > you do not want to get involved.
                              >
                              > The subject will not go away no matter what you think about climate change
                              > or global warming or even global cooling.
                              >
                              > I doubt that we will ever get consensus on the subject. There are just too
                              > many powerful people with vested interests in our country in keeping the
                              > truth of climate change hidden from the public. The largest group here
                              > would be the mining industry, especially coal.
                              >
                              > We are a large country/continent (larger than the USA) with only 22 million
                              > people and coal is our main source of power, thank goodness we do not have
                              > any nuclear power stations.
                              >
                              > We have a lot of sun but still no way will we get solar power stations for
                              > many generations or until we run out of coal.
                              >
                              > Now if we shut Australia down tomorrow, and we all went back to the lands we
                              > came from, would we make any difference to the climate? No, of course not,
                              > we are insignificant on the grand scale of things.
                              >
                              > However countries such as China and India are not insignificant and with so
                              > many coal fired power stations being built in China, therein lies a worry.
                              > Good for Australia, as we export coal and iron ore to China but not good for
                              > the environment.
                              >
                              > Been building in straw bale now since 1996/7. Have we made any difference
                              > to the environment? No of course not. What we have done though is to
                              > reduce the power bills of those who have had straw bale homes built by us
                              > and by others in our country. Not only that in the majority of cases the
                              > total cost of the build has been lower than the average costs of a
                              > conventional home. That alone is a good reason to build in straw bale.
                              >
                              > Right now around here in the west of New South Wales wheat stubble is being
                              > burnt and burnt and burnt, causing smoke haze and polluting the air around
                              > us. The sun last night was blocked out by the smoke haze and those with
                              > breathing problems would not have had a good night's sleep. We drove from
                              > Orange to home around 4 hours and everywhere we went cockies were burning
                              > the stubble to get ready for the next crop, just crazy!
                              >
                              > I believe that the planet is warming up and I also strongly believe that we
                              > humans, all 6 billion of us, are the main cause. I also know that it only
                              > takes one large volcanic eruption to add to the problem of climate change.
                              > One such volcano can create enough pollution to make a huge difference to
                              > the current situation and in some cases as much as the total emissions of
                              > the industrial revolution. So it is not just us humans that contribute to
                              > the planet's problems of clean air.
                              >
                              > There can be no doubt that the climate is changing and has been doing so
                              > since the big bang created us. What we should be doing is to mitigate our
                              > contribution in as many ways as we can and for mine not consuming so much
                              > energy in cooling and heating our homes is one very practical way to do
                              > something positive.
                              >
                              > So if the climate change sceptics are right and climate change has nothing
                              > to do with us humans then surely by building homes that are super insulated
                              > and use materials that are sustainable, does it matter if we are right or
                              > wrong? Power bills are going up and up and will continue to rise no matter
                              > what; that is the way today. So build in straw bale, build small use less
                              > energy in the construction and use less energy in living in our homes. That
                              > to me is the way to go and to promote our style of build. Then if we are
                              > wrong we still win.
                              >
                              > Please do not take this topic onto another list this list, SB r-us was set
                              > up by RT so many years ago now, it has been a great list and one that many
                              > people have found very useful. We have also made many friends via this list
                              > and surely climate change is close to all of us who build in straw bale.
                              >
                              > Now those sceptics out there please join me in Africa in December where we
                              > will witness first hand the effects of climate change and global warming on
                              > the glaciers of the Mountains of the Moon. Tell me please that they will
                              > not be totally gone in a few years time and tell me why they will not recede
                              > any more and if global warming is not the cause, what is? I witnessed that
                              > on Mount Kilimanjaro in 2007 and beneath my feet was enough proof for me
                              > that the earth is heating up.
                              >
                              > Kind regards
                              > The Straw Wolf
                              > Huff 'n' Puff Constructions
                              > http://www.glassford.com.au
                              > 61 2 6927 6027
                              > In Australia (02) 6927 6027
                              >
                              > Mountains of the Moon 2011
                              > http://www.mountainsofthemoon.org
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • John Glassford
                              Morning Toby Love your home it is simply beautiful and I follow your blog. Some of us, me included, do not have many discussion lists that we subscribe to.
                              Message 14 of 29 , Apr 3, 2011
                                Morning Toby

                                Love your home it is simply beautiful and I follow your blog.

                                Some of us, me included, do not have many discussion lists that we subscribe
                                to. Just do not have the time.

                                Climate change is an appropriate subject for this list, period.

                                It is one of the many reasons that I build in straw bale and one that I am
                                passionate about. I also prefer to talk about this subject with my peers on
                                this list.

                                I also do not think that you need to learn much more about straw bale
                                building, you have one of the best straw bale homes on the planet.

                                All the best to you Maiko, Bomber and Jack of course.

                                Those of you who are not familiar with Toby's home do yourselves a favour
                                and have a squiz at their beautiful home:

                                http://maikotobybomber.blogspot.com/2010/11/week-in-pictures.html

                                Thanks also for the updates on the tsunami in Japan, it helped me convince
                                my Rotary club to send 5 Rotary ShelterBoxes to Japan:

                                http://club.coolamonrotary.com/?p=809

                                Kind regards
                                The Straw Wolf
                                Huff 'n' Puff Constructions
                                http://www.glassford.com.au
                                61 2 6927 6027
                                In Australia (02) 6927 6027

                                Mountains of the Moon 2011
                                http://www.mountainsofthemoon.org


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Monte Goulding
                                ... Indeed this is what I find so interesting in this discussion as it further confirms my fears. Surely, if there can t even be a consensus on a strawbale
                                Message 15 of 29 , Apr 3, 2011
                                  > I doubt that we will ever get consensus on the subject.

                                  Indeed this is what I find so interesting in this discussion as it further confirms my fears. Surely, if there can't even be a consensus on a strawbale building list on which one would expect a population subset with greener tendencies then what hope is there of a consensus in the wider population. The obvious answer is none.

                                  As for this subject being off topic I can answer that one. One of my personal responses to the one-two punch of climate change and peak everything is to move to high ground with plenty of good soil around me and build a house out of a waste material that would have been burnt. So as a motivating factor then yes it certainly is on topic. Quite honestly if you don't care about the environment, resource depletion and climate change then this is a stupid way to build a house. It's slower, more expensive, harder work and still experimental.

                                  Cheers

                                  Monte
                                • Chris Green
                                  Straw bale housing may be experimental in some regards, but it s totally amazing how fast it has reached a level that can be generally described as a mature
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Apr 3, 2011
                                    Straw bale housing may be experimental in some regards, but it's totally amazing how fast it has reached a level that can be generally described as a 'mature technology', or at least pretty close to such. Imho. Cheers, chris green.

                                    On Sun Apr 3rd, 2011 7:10 PM EDT Monte Goulding wrote:

                                    >> I doubt that we will ever get consensus on the subject.
                                    >
                                    >Indeed this is what I find so interesting in this discussion as it further confirms my fears. Surely, if there can't even be a consensus on a strawbale building list on which one would expect a population subset with greener tendencies then what hope is there of a consensus in the wider population. The obvious answer is none.
                                    >
                                    >As for this subject being off topic I can answer that one. One of my personal responses to the one-two punch of climate change and peak everything is to move to high ground with plenty of good soil around me and build a house out of a waste material that would have been burnt. So as a motivating factor then yes it certainly is on topic. Quite honestly if you don't care about the environment, resource depletion and climate change then this is a stupid way to build a house. It's slower, more expensive, harder work and still experimental.
                                    >
                                    >Cheers
                                    >
                                    >Monte
                                  • David Neeley
                                    Monte, As you might suspect, I disagree on several levels. For example, in my experience straw bale has its own advantages that need not make it at all
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Apr 3, 2011
                                      Monte,

                                      As you might suspect, I disagree on several levels.

                                      For example, in my experience straw bale has its own advantages that
                                      need not make it at all "slower" or "more expensive." Because it can be
                                      done by far less-skilled people, too, very often the work involved in
                                      constructing the outer shell can be spread among many people including
                                      friends, relatives, and volunteers--making the work factor less per person.

                                      Whether it is a "stupid" method of building or not depends entirely upon
                                      the values and perceptions of the individuals.

                                      Frankly, the assumption that anyone *must* agree with your particular
                                      worldview about what being "green" is all about or they are "stupid" to
                                      build this way is both incredibly presumptuous and highly insulting.

                                      My primary point to begin with has been that such a consensus view of
                                      AGW is not at all necessary for people to conclude that this method
                                      makes sense for them--and if your view is correct surely that is a good
                                      thing?

                                      David

                                      On 04/04/2011 02:10 AM, Monte Goulding wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > I doubt that we will ever get consensus on the subject.
                                      >
                                      > Indeed this is what I find so interesting in this discussion as it
                                      > further confirms my fears. Surely, if there can't even be a consensus
                                      > on a strawbale building list on which one would expect a population
                                      > subset with greener tendencies then what hope is there of a consensus
                                      > in the wider population. The obvious answer is none.
                                      >
                                      > As for this subject being off topic I can answer that one. One of my
                                      > personal responses to the one-two punch of climate change and peak
                                      > everything is to move to high ground with plenty of good soil around
                                      > me and build a house out of a waste material that would have been
                                      > burnt. So as a motivating factor then yes it certainly is on topic.
                                      > Quite honestly if you don't care about the environment, resource
                                      > depletion and climate change then this is a stupid way to build a
                                      > house. It's slower, more expensive, harder work and still experimental.
                                      >
                                      > Cheers
                                      >
                                      > Monte
                                      >



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Monte Goulding
                                      ... David, you personally endanger my family and the world we live in by parroting the bullshit pseudo-science propaganda of big oil and coal. You spread the
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Apr 3, 2011
                                        On 04/04/2011, at 3:08 PM, David Neeley wrote:

                                        > As you might suspect, I disagree on several levels.

                                        David, you personally endanger my family and the world we live in by parroting the bullshit pseudo-science propaganda of big oil and coal. You spread the lies and other idiots read them and believe you know what you're talking about. You are ignorant, stupid and dangerous and If you think I care if I insult you or any other moron that does what you do then then think again.

                                        Monte
                                      • John Glassford
                                        Monte We have never had a post such as this from one of our users. I have been here from the very start and do not appreciate this kind of behaviour. I
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Apr 3, 2011
                                          Monte

                                          We have never had a post such as this from one of our users. I have been
                                          here from the very start and do not appreciate this kind of behaviour.

                                          I respectfully request that you cease this insulting behaviour immediately
                                          please.

                                          There is NO call for this post no matter your feelings, take it off list,
                                          better still take it away altogether, chill out mate!

                                          Kind regards
                                          The Straw Wolf
                                          Huff 'n' Puff Constructions
                                          http://www.glassford.com.au
                                          61 2 6927 6027
                                          In Australia (02) 6927 6027

                                          Mountains of the Moon 2011
                                          http://www.mountainsofthemoon.org


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • David Neeley
                                          While you, on the other hand, are the voice of sweet reason. To the list owner: Is this not a step or two over the line? David ... [Non-text portions of this
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Apr 4, 2011
                                            While you, on the other hand, are the voice of sweet reason.

                                            To the list owner:

                                            Is this not a step or two over the line?

                                            David

                                            On 04/04/2011 09:00 AM, Monte Goulding wrote:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > On 04/04/2011, at 3:08 PM, David Neeley wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > As you might suspect, I disagree on several levels.
                                            >
                                            > David, you personally endanger my family and the world we live in by
                                            > parroting the bullshit pseudo-science propaganda of big oil and coal.
                                            > You spread the lies and other idiots read them and believe you know
                                            > what you're talking about. You are ignorant, stupid and dangerous and
                                            > If you think I care if I insult you or any other moron that does what
                                            > you do then then think again.
                                            >
                                            > Monte
                                            >



                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Jeff Martin
                                            I don t usually post, although I have subscribed to SB-r-us for quite some time, but this exchange seems to have stirred me, perhaps because RT seems to be off
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Apr 4, 2011
                                              I don't usually post, although I have subscribed to SB-r-us for quite some time, but this exchange seems to have stirred me, perhaps because RT seems to be off doing something in the real world and hasn't weighed in, in his inimitable way.

                                              A few comments:

                                              1. Monte, while it seems likely that I'd be more inclined to agree with your perspective on climate change than David's, your approach is way out of line for this list (and anywhere else, for that matter) and puts you in the company of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, for bluster and belligerence. I'd suggest that an apology and retraction are in order. While it may be frustrating to see what seems like petroleum industry driven misinformation being given so much credence, responding with a reasoned argument, based on properly cited and credible sources of information is far more likely to achieve the change you desire than unfounded insults.

                                              2. As others have noted, I believe that this list was created for off-topic discussions related to strawbale (i.e., not necessarily about construction practices) and I think climate change falls squarely in that realm, for reasons others have noted. Those who aren't interested can easily delete or skip over the topic.

                                              3. Heather (if you're still following this thread), I'm curious about why you're interested in strawbale, if it isn't because of environmental concerns. David has been clear about why he finds value in it, in spite of his scepticism about the need to adopt home construction practices that lessen the contribution of our built environment to the increase in levels of atmospheric CO2, but you haven't told us anything about why you subscribe to this list.

                                              Okay, I'll go back to lurking, now! :)

                                              Jeff
                                            • Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Desig
                                              Monte, I absolutely agree with your first sentence. David s antics are indeed very dangerous (at least if anyone takes seriously the denialist talking-points
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Apr 4, 2011
                                                Monte, I absolutely agree with your first sentence. David's antics are
                                                indeed very dangerous (at least if anyone takes seriously the denialist
                                                talking-points which he propagates) because they incite complacency at a
                                                time when we urgently need action to reduce GHG emissions. And I am
                                                frustrated that, despite many urgings over many years, he appears not to
                                                have made any attempt to understand the science or read anything other
                                                than denialist blogs.

                                                However, there is no need to descend to the sort of abuse you use in the
                                                rest of your message.

                                                Mark




                                                On 2011:04:04 00:00, Monte Goulding wrote:
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > On 04/04/2011, at 3:08 PM, David Neeley wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > As you might suspect, I disagree on several levels.
                                                >
                                                > David, you personally endanger my family and the world we live in by
                                                > parroting the bullshit pseudo-science propaganda of big oil and coal.
                                                > You spread the lies and other idiots read them and believe you know
                                                > what you're talking about. You are ignorant, stupid and dangerous and
                                                > If you think I care if I insult you or any other moron that does what
                                                > you do then then think again.
                                                >
                                                > Monte
                                                >
                                                >


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Gabriella Morrison
                                                Dear Jeff, Well said! Cheers, Gabriella __________________ Gabriella Morrison Marketing/Videography Straw Bale Innovations, LLC P.O. Box 3145 Ashland, OR 97520
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Apr 4, 2011
                                                  Dear Jeff,

                                                  Well said!

                                                  Cheers,

                                                  Gabriella




                                                  __________________

                                                  Gabriella Morrison
                                                  Marketing/Videography
                                                  Straw Bale Innovations, LLC
                                                  P.O. Box 3145
                                                  Ashland, OR 97520 USA
                                                  www.StrawBale.com
                                                  Gabriella@...
                                                  Signature powered by
                                                  <http://www.wisestamp.com/email-install?utm_source=extension&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=footer>
                                                  WiseStamp<http://www.wisestamp.com/email-install?utm_source=extension&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=footer>



                                                  On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Jeff Martin <jeff@...> wrote:

                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > I don't usually post, although I have subscribed to SB-r-us for quite some
                                                  > time, but this exchange seems to have stirred me, perhaps because RT seems
                                                  > to be off doing something in the real world and hasn't weighed in, in his
                                                  > inimitable way.
                                                  >
                                                  > A few comments:
                                                  >
                                                  > 1. Monte, while it seems likely that I'd be more inclined to agree with
                                                  > your perspective on climate change than David's, your approach is way out of
                                                  > line for this list (and anywhere else, for that matter) and puts you in the
                                                  > company of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, for bluster and belligerence. I'd
                                                  > suggest that an apology and retraction are in order. While it may be
                                                  > frustrating to see what seems like petroleum industry driven misinformation
                                                  > being given so much credence, responding with a reasoned argument, based on
                                                  > properly cited and credible sources of information is far more likely to
                                                  > achieve the change you desire than unfounded insults.
                                                  >
                                                  > 2. As others have noted, I believe that this list was created for off-topic
                                                  > discussions related to strawbale (i.e., not necessarily about construction
                                                  > practices) and I think climate change falls squarely in that realm, for
                                                  > reasons others have noted. Those who aren't interested can easily delete or
                                                  > skip over the topic.
                                                  >
                                                  > 3. Heather (if you're still following this thread), I'm curious about why
                                                  > you're interested in strawbale, if it isn't because of environmental
                                                  > concerns. David has been clear about why he finds value in it, in spite of
                                                  > his scepticism about the need to adopt home construction practices that
                                                  > lessen the contribution of our built environment to the increase in levels
                                                  > of atmospheric CO2, but you haven't told us anything about why you subscribe
                                                  > to this list.
                                                  >
                                                  > Okay, I'll go back to lurking, now! :)
                                                  >
                                                  > Jeff
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >


                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Heather James
                                                  ... Straw bale is a good do-it-yourself way to build, using easily renewable resources. A straw bale house is an energy-efficient house, with a high degree of
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Apr 5, 2011
                                                    >3. Heather (if you're still following this thread), I'm curious about why >you're interested in strawbale, if it isn't because of environmental >concerns. David has been clear about why he finds value in it, in spite >of his scepticism about the need to adopt home construction practices >that lessen the contribution of our built environment to the increase in >levels of atmospheric CO2, but you haven't told us anything about why you >subscribe to this list.

                                                    Straw bale is a good do-it-yourself way to build, using easily renewable resources. A straw bale house is an energy-efficient house, with a high degree of comfort year-round. If you are doing much of the work yourself, straw bale can be a very inexpensive way to build, and you end up with a good, solid house. "Environmental concerns" do NOT necessarily have to include believing in the AWG religion. One can want an energy-efficient house for totally selfish reasons--like a much smaller utility bill and a more comfortable indoor climate, for example. Also, building an energy-efficient house, using more in the way of easily-renewable resources just makes practical sense. Energy-efficiency in general is just common sense, as energy is just not getting any cheaper. For the same reason, we have been known to run vehicles on homebrew biodiesel, and try to match the vehicles we own to actual needs, rather than just driving a "tuna boat" with a big
                                                    8-cylinder engine because it's comfortable and powerful, and upgrade such things as windows and furnaces as needed. Conservation of forests, etc. makes good sense for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming--wildlife habitat, using the trees for things that can't be done better with another material (we would love to see industrial hemp being grown for paper, too)--you are aware that the most effective wildlife and forest conservation programs in this country are those run by such groups as Ducks Unlimited--focused on hunting and such, rather than just on "environmentalism", while some of the biggest scandals in that area come from groups like the World Wildlife Fund? Homes built out of more natural materials also make sense to many folks for health reasons.

                                                    Nearly 20 years ago, when I first became interested in straw bale construction through an article in Mother Earth News, environmentalism was NOT the main reason it was being touted, by any means. It was then, and still can be, an inexpensive way for a DIY person to build himself a good, solid house for a reasonable amount of money. Someday, we will have our own land, and we will build a straw bale house on it. We've been wanting to do so for many years, but that piece of land hasn't happened yet, and a lot of other things have.

                                                    When I signed up for this list, I also signed up for several other yahoogroups about straw bale construction...and this was the only one that had a reasonable amount of traffic, none of which was spam, and almost all of which was on-topic, so I've long since dropped the others. I'm here because I want to keep on top of what is going on in the field of straw bale construction for that someday when we get to do some. Evangelists of the human-caused global warming religion are a dime a dozen. I can find those anywhere. Good information on building with straw bales is a little harder to come by.
                                                  • Andrew Webb
                                                    Heather is right that religion is often a barrier to serious discussion about climate change. I find the alternate universe that David and Heather live in to
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Apr 5, 2011
                                                      Heather is right that religion is often a barrier to serious discussion
                                                      about climate change.

                                                      I find the alternate universe that David and Heather live in to be
                                                      fascinating; it seems to be from another dimension - the 1st dimension -
                                                      where life is a black line on a white background and has no breadth. In
                                                      this dimension somehow self interest is distinct from common interest, a
                                                      problem doesn't exist until there is total agreement on the causes, and
                                                      a scientist who advocates for immediate action can be quoted to assert
                                                      that there is no point in doing anything. I would hate to live in that
                                                      dimension as it seems a very disagreeable place, although it would be
                                                      handy having an "away" to throw things to. Imagine if our political
                                                      leaders came from there.....oh wait a second!

                                                      -Andrew

                                                      On 6/04/2011 4:25 AM, Heather James wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > "Environmental concerns" do NOT necessarily have to include believing
                                                      > in the AWG religion. One can want an energy-efficient house for
                                                      > totally selfish reasons...
                                                      >


                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    • Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Desig
                                                      Then again, religion can be a real benefit in such discussions when people interpret their scriptures and traditions with open compassion, and when they value
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Apr 5, 2011
                                                        Then again, religion can be a real benefit in such discussions when
                                                        people interpret their scriptures and traditions with open compassion,
                                                        and when they value truth above what they think they already know. But
                                                        that has nothing to do with Heather's perverse decision (yes, I agree,
                                                        an alterate universe type of decision) to label decades of painstaking
                                                        _scientific_ work, based on observable reality and following multiple
                                                        strands of evidence, as "religion".

                                                        m



                                                        On 2011:04:05 22:34, Andrew Webb wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > Heather is right that religion is often a barrier to serious discussion
                                                        > about climate change.
                                                        >
                                                        > I find the alternate universe that David and Heather live in to be
                                                        > fascinating; it seems to be from another dimension - the 1st dimension -
                                                        > where life is a black line on a white background and has no breadth. In
                                                        > this dimension somehow self interest is distinct from common interest, a
                                                        > problem doesn't exist until there is total agreement on the causes, and
                                                        > a scientist who advocates for immediate action can be quoted to assert
                                                        > that there is no point in doing anything. I would hate to live in that
                                                        > dimension as it seems a very disagreeable place, although it would be
                                                        > handy having an "away" to throw things to. Imagine if our political
                                                        > leaders came from there.....oh wait a second!
                                                        >
                                                        > -Andrew
                                                        >
                                                        > On 6/04/2011 4:25 AM, Heather James wrote:
                                                        > >
                                                        > > "Environmental concerns" do NOT necessarily have to include believing
                                                        > > in the AWG religion. One can want an energy-efficient house for
                                                        > > totally selfish reasons...
                                                        > >
                                                        >
                                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                        >
                                                        >


                                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.