[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

GSBN: Digest for 11/24/06



This message contains a digest of the messages posted to the list today. If
you reply to this message, please be sure to change the subject line to
something meaningful. Also, be careful not to include the entire text of this
message in your reply.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


-> Re:  GSBN Research to combat solar warming
     by "Andy Horn" andy@...
-> Re: GSBN:Leaving the list and abandoning the wikibook
     by "moehlmann" moehlmann@...
-> Re: GSBN:Re: GSBN Research to combat solar warming
     by john@...
-> Re: GSBN:Re:  GSBN Research to combat solar warming
     by Graeme North ecodesign@...
-> Re: GSBN:Re: GSBN Research to combat solar warming
     by strawnet@...
-> Re: GSBN Research to combat solar warming
     by Derek Roff derek@...


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 2006 10:50:56 -0500
From: "Andy Horn" andy@...
Subject: Re:  GSBN Research to combat solar warming

Hi All,
John as per Professor Ian Plimer's take on global warming that you
forwarded, being an environmentalist at heart I need to strongly object to
what he is saying:

regardless of global warming predictions... what one can say is that the
environment IS being negatively affected  - as never before in the history
of the planet - by human activities...regardless of scientist we just need
to open our eyes:
- - Species extinction & loss of biodiversity! Up until the last 100 yeard or
so evolution has been getiing more and more diverse!
- - soil & vegetation loss through agricultural/economic activity on a massive
scale....can see it from a plane.
- - Alarming pollution in terms of persistant organic chemicals and
un-biodegradables produced & introduced into the world at an alarming rate.
- - High rates of cancers and respiratory deseases amoungst those living
around oil refinaries and coal fired stations...fact!
- - Snow caps receeding... Even when I compare photos of my brother who
climbed Mt Kilimanjaro 10 years back with what you can see now ...I am
afraid there is not much snow left for you to see on your Mt Kilimanjaro
expedition John!
- - See levels rising ...not much of Clifton beach in Cape Town left these
days when I compare it to 15 yeard ago when I first remember it! I suggest
Prof Ian ask's however many millions of Bangaladeshi's there are - who of
them won't mind a meter or 2 rise in sea levels?

As per straw bale building...besides the wonderful comfort you can achieve
with this material ...I just love the fact that the materials one uses on
these site (mine anyway) are all biodegradable. Also from a social
perspective it is so much more paticipatory and community building and can
increase on site job creation (ideal for 3rd world scenarios).

Thoughts and prayers for all humans to get off their fences and act now.
Andy Horn

ECO DESIGN
Architects & Consultants
A. R. HORN B.A.S. (UCT), B.Arch (UCT), Pr.Arch (SACAP),  MIA, CIA
Telephone/Fax: 021 462 1614
4th Flr, The Armoury
160 Sir Lowry Rd
CAPE TOWN
7925
www.ecodesignarchitects.co.za

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "John Glassford" jacksflat@...
To: "GSBN" GSBN@...
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 2:57 AM
Subject: GSBN:Re: GSBN Research to combat solar warming


>G ' day David
>
> Interesting information that you provided on global warming and at the
> moment our media are in a feeding frenzy re global warming and the
> politicians are jumping aboard the band wagon, elections upcoming next
> year!  However our mob are looking at nuclear power stations, some 25
> or so to combat emissions and hence reduce green house warming.  Even
> though we have an abundance of coal we also have a mass of uranium
>
> I have copied an article here from Profesor Ian Plimer a noted
> geologist down under.  Ian came and spoke at our Rotary club very
> recently and he debunks in some manner that global warming is caused
> directly by mankind.  He claims that there are 27 other reasons for
> the globe warming up.  Mainly Mother Earth and the Sun.
>
> I will continue to look at straw bale building from a cost and comfort
> point of view with the bonus being the environment.  However some
> straw bale homes here are costing a whole lot more than conventional
> buildings.  Their on going benefits are still the same if designed
> well and save a motza on heating and cooling which is a good  thing.
> The bad thing is they are costing far too much to build.  Not enough
> qualified straw bale builders around for now.
>
> I am also told that China is building a new coal fired power station
> every week until 2012!  Interesting but confusing times for us green
> builders.
>
> Kind regards
> John Glassford
> Huff 'n' Puff Constructions
> <a  target="_blank" href="http://www.glassford.com.au/";>http://www.glassford.com.au/</a>
> Mount Kilimanjaro Climb 28/8/07
> <a  target="_blank" href="http://www.coolamonrotary.com/kili/";>http://www.coolamonrotary.com/kili/</a>
> 61 2 6927 6027
>
> Here is an article by Ian Plimer and I would appreciate your comments:
>
> Global warming a damp squib -  Hot or cold
>
>
> The Australian
>
> by Ian Plimer
>
> January 05, 2006
>
> HEAT, bushfires. Just another Australian summer, some hotter, some
> wetter, some cooler, some drier. As per usual, the northern hemisphere
> freezes and the blame game is in overdrive. At the 2005 UN Climate
> Change Conference in Montreal, Greenpeace's Steven Guilbeault stated:
> "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean
> wetter, that's what we're dealing with."
>
> It is that simple! If it's hot, it's global warming; if it's cold,
> it's global warming. Demonstrators in frigid temperatures in Montreal
> chanted: "It's hot in here! There's too much carbon in the
> atmosphere!" The same apocalyptic Guilbeault says: "Time is running
> out to deal with climate change. Ten years ago, we thought we had a
> lot of time, five years ago we thought we had a lot of time, but now
> science is telling us that we don't have a lot of time." Really.
>
> In 1992, Greenpeace's Henry Kendall gave us the Chicken Little quote,
> "Time is running out"; in 1994, The Irish Times tried to frighten the
> leprechauns with "Time running out for action on global warming,
> Greenpeace claims"; and in 1997 Chris Rose of Greenpeace maintained
> the religious mantra with "Time is running out for the climate". We've
> heard such failed catastrophist predictions before. The Club of Rome
> on resources, Paul Erlich on population, Y2K, and now Greenpeace on
> global warming.
>
> During the past 30 years, the US economy grew by 50 per cent, car
> numbers grew by 143 per cent, energy consumption grew by 45 per cent
> and air pollutants declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5
> per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent and airborne lead by
> 97.3 per cent. Most European signatories to the Kyoto Protocol had
> greenhouse gas emissions increase since 2001, whereas in the US
> emissions fell by nearly 1per cent. Furthermore, carbon credits
> rewarded Russia, (east) Germany and Britain, which had technically and
> economically backward energy production in 1990.
>
> By the end of this century, the demographically doomed French,
> Italians and Spaniards may have too few environmentalists to fund
> Greenpeace's business. So what really does Greenpeace want? A
> habitable environment with no humans left to inhabit it? Destruction
> of the major economies for .07C change?
>
> Does it matter if sea level rises a few metres or global temperatures
> rise a few degrees? No. Sea level changes by up to 400m, atmospheric
> temperatures by about 20C, carbon dioxide can vary from 20 per cent to
> 0.03 per cent, and our dynamic planet just keeps evolving. Greenpeace,
> contrary to scientific data, implies a static planet. Even if the sea
> level rises by metres, it is probably cheaper to address this change
> than reconstruct the world's economies.
>
> For about 80 per cent of the time since its formation, Earth has been
> a warm, wet, greenhouse planet with no icecaps. When Earth had
> icecaps, the climate was far more variable, disease depopulated human
> settlements and extinction rates of other complex organisms were
> higher. Thriving of life and economic strength occurs during warm
> times. Could Greenpeace please explain why there was a pre-Industrial
> Revolution global warming from AD900 to 1300? Why was the sea level
> higher 6000 years ago than it is at present? Which part of the 120m
> sea-level rise over the past 15,000 years is human-induced? To
> attribute a multicomponent, variable natural process such as climate
> change to human-induced carbon emissions is pseudo-science.
>
> There is no debate about climate change, only dogma and
> misinformation. For example, is there a link between hurricanes
> Katrina and Rita and global warming? Two hurricanes hit the US Gulf
> Coast six weeks apart in 1915, mimicking Katrina and Rita. If global
> warming caused recent storms, there should have been more hurricanes
> in the Pacific and Indian oceans since 1995. Instead, there has been a
> slight decrease at a time when China and India have increased
> greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of hurricanes might seem more
> severe because of the blanket instantaneous news coverage and because
> more people now live in hurricane-prone areas, hence there is more
> property damage and loss of life.
>
> Only a strong economy can produce the well fed who have the luxury of
> espousing with religious fervour their uncosted, impractical,
> impoverishing policies. By such policies, Greenpeace continues to
> exacerbate grinding poverty in the Third World. The planet's best
> friend is human resourcefulness with a supportive, strong economy and
> reduced release of toxins. The greenhouse gases - nitrous oxide,
> carbon dioxide and methane - have been recycled for billions of years
> without the intervention of human politics.
>
> Ian Plimer is a professor of geology at the University of Adelaide and
> former head of the school of earth sciences at the University of
> Melbourne.

>
>
a>
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 2006 11:02:03 -0500
From: "moehlmann" moehlmann@...
Subject: Re: GSBN:Leaving the list and abandoning the wikibook

Hi Duncan, dear all,

thanks for your lovely input. Sort of swinging with the same thoughts.
Sometimes people still come along and for some reflections on their ideas,
such as today. So to some extend it helps having watched some of the recent
discussion, like that on the magic new bales, which is great to share. On
the other hand, since 3-4 years my external focus on the building world is
decreasing, so that feeling of lurking is extending.

We do discuss new people entering and pretty leave it up to our individual
sense, whether it still makes sense to stay or not. For me it feels also
fine to leave. There is just one thing I could possibly share best to TLS
(pictures), which is the final report on our new lovely house which
sometimes is exposed to one of the most extreme windy and wetty conditions
I've ever met, which I would like to share together with Kuba, who is
spending a part of his thesis on this project.

Best wishes form Brittany (=  "Kenavo" in Breton language),

Martin Oehlmann





- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Duncan Lithgow" duncan@...
To: "GSBN" GSBN@...
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: GSBN:Leaving the list and abandoning the wikibook


> (sorry for cross-posts)
>
> Hi all, I've been a lurker and sometimes commenter on this list for a
> while now. But the backlog of unread emails tells me that my energies
> are being focused in other places. Probably because I now have a son and
> have started full time study again.
>
> One of the projects I started is the wikibook on strawbale which is
> hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation - the people who brought you
> wikipedia. The address is
> <a  target="_blank" href="http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Straw_Bale_Construction";>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Straw_Bale_Construction</a>
>
> Now listen here! A wikibook is a shared book - that means that while
> only a few people have done most of the work so far, you are welcome to
> join in. Finally a politically neutral, controlled by no-one,
> non-regional place for everyone with Straw Bale knowledge and a wish to
> share it with others can make a contribution. My vision for the wikibook
> is that as it grows and the sections develop people will adopt sections
> they are most passionate about and act as caretaker for them.
>
> I should address some conceHi all, I've been a lurker and sometimes
> commenter on this list for a
> while now. But the backlog of unread emails tells me that my energies
> are being focused in other places. Probably because I now have a son and
> have started full time study again.
>
> One of the projects I started is the wikibook on strawbale which is
> hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation - the people who brought you
> wikipedia. The address is
> <a  target="_blank" href="http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Straw_Bale_Construction";>http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Straw_Bale_Construction</a>
>
> Now listen here! A wikibook is a shared book - that means that while
> only a few people have done most of the work so far, you are welcome to
> join in. Finally a politically neutral, controlled by no-one,
> non-regional place for everyone with Straw Bale knowledge and a wish to
> share it with others can make a contribution. My vision for the wikibook
> is that as it grows and the sections develop people will adopt sections
> they are most passionate about and act as caretaker for them.
>
> I should address some concerns people have raised.
>   * Accuracy: Any bok is only as good as the accuracy of it's content. A
> wikibook is no different. It's important that information is referenced
> to reliable first-hand studies and sources.
>   * "Isn't 'x' already a great website?" - The answer is probably yes,
> and it will remain so as long as the person/ group running it remain
> committed to it. The wikibook could be a repository for the information
> they present on their website. A wikibook has a copy-left license.
> Anyone can use the texts for other purposes - it's actually perfectly
> legal and possible to wrap a wikibook, or just a page, in your own
> websites design.
>   * "Sounds technical" - it's not. It can be as easy as writing and
> email. And if everyone who answers a question on this list also made
> sure the information they share is in the wikibook - imagine what a
> resource it will become!
>
> In my view the parts of the wikibook which are most useful are the
> comprehensive list of Worldwide organisations and contacts and the
> section of Technical Studies.
>
> I encourage everyone to have a look and keep the project alive. Feel
> free to email me direct with any questions (duncan@lithgow-schmidt.dk),
> or reply to this thread - I'll put a note on this thread when I finally
> unsubscribe.
>
> Duncanrns people have raised.
>   * Accuracy: Any bok is only as good as the accuracy of it's content. A
> wikibook is no different. It's important that information is referenced
> to reliable first-hand studies and sources.
>   * "Isn't 'x' already a great website?" - The answer is probably yes,
> and it will remain so as long as the person/ group running it remain
> committed to it. The wikibook could be a repository for the information
> they present on their website. A wikibook has a copy-left license.
> Anyone can use the texts for other purposes - it's actually perfectly
> legal and possible to wrap a wikibook, or just a page, in your own
> websites design.
>   * "Sounds technical" - it's not. It can be as easy as writing and
> email. And if everyone who answers a question on this list also made
> sure the information they share is in the wikibook - imagine what a
> resource it will become!
>
> In my view the parts of the wikibook which are most useful are the
> comprehensive list of Worldwide organisations and contacts and the
> section of Technical Studies.
>
> I encourage everyone to have a look and keep the project alive. Feel
> free to email me direct with any questions (duncan@lithgow-schmidt.dk),
> or reply to this thread - I'll put a note on this thread when I finally
> unsubscribe.
>
> Duncan
> --
> Linux user: 372812 | GPG key ID: 21A8C63A | <a  target="_blank" href="http://lithgow-schmidt.dk";>http://lithgow-schmidt.dk</a>
>

>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -------------
> Orange vous informe que cet  e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail.
> Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.
>
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 2006 15:26:05 -0500
From: john@...
Subject: Re: GSBN:Re: GSBN Research to combat solar warming

G ' day Andy

Thoughtful response my sentiments exactly mate.

Trouble is over here and the US of A the two leaders are the only two
leaders who have not signed Kyoto.  Both George W and John Howard are
pushing the nuclear option and cite employment and the economy will
suffer if we sign up.  They are powerful men and look after the big
end of town.

Looking forward to climbing Kilimanjaro and I hope to make it to the
glaciers want to touch them before they go until the next ice age!

Let us know how straw bales are going in South Africa.  Any push for
the low cost end of your building industry for straw bales?  Is the N2
project under way?  Any chance of straw bale getting in front of the
Ministry of Housing?  How are you going with your buildings would love
a couple of pics one day.  Maybe you could post some on SB -r-us list?
 I could do that for you if you want.

We are hoping to be back in Cape Town next July on the way to Kilimanjaro.

Every one on this list is off the fence and acting by example with
straw bale building just got to get it in front of our pollies.

Kind regards
Susan and John Glassford
Huff 'n' Puff Constructions
<a  target="_blank" href="http://www.glassford.com.au/";>http://www.glassford.com.au/</a>
Mount Kilimanjaro Climb 28/8/07
<a  target="_blank" href="http://www.coolamonrotary.com/kili/";>http://www.coolamonrotary.com/kili/</a>
61 2 6927 6027


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 2006 19:06:46 -0500
From: Graeme North ecodesign@...
Subject: Re: GSBN:Re:  GSBN Research to combat solar warming

Read Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers - the history and future impact of
climate change" for a very good take on the subject.

ISBN 1 920885 84 6
Text Publishing, Melbourne, Australia. 2005


Graeme,
Graeme North Architects,
49 Matthew Road,
RD1, Warkworth,
New Zealand 0981
Ph/fax +64 (0)9  4259305

www.ecodesign.co.nz





----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 2006 22:35:16 -0500
From: strawnet@...
Subject: Re: GSBN:Re: GSBN Research to combat solar warming

 Hello all,

 I'm just catching up on e-mail that isn't of the "must deal with" variety
after an intense couple of weeks of travel, meetings and work. I'll warn you
that this is somewhat of a rant, but I'm compelled to add some thoughts and
suggest a few resources related to the discussion about global warming as well
as nuclear power.

 Before I jump in, I want to offer a short Thanksgiving offering to all of
you. Here in the U.S. we have this peculiar holiday during which we are
encouraged to be grateful for what we have. And, indeed, I am profoundly
grateful for having so many extraordinary, generous, committed, funny, smart
and caring people such as each of you in my life. It is a blessing beyond
measure and I am filled with gratitude for all the gifts that flow from being
in such a community. Thank you all for what you do and for who you are as you
do it.

 And I want to thank you, John, for sharing Ian Plimer's article about global
warming, not because I think it is accurate or agree with its author, but
because I think it's crucial that we all begin to understand these issues at a
much deeper level than we have in the past. You've provided an opportunity to
delve into something that is extremely important.

 Perhaps I've been involved with these issues for too long to be a completely
dispassionate observer, but I simply know too many people of deep integrity
and intelligence who have been engaged in the science and work of
understanding these issues for decades to have much patience or tolerance for
the witting or unwitting distortions of fact that surface so often in these
discussions or debates.

 Let me start by pointing out what I consider to be a common and troubling
distortion of statistics in relation to the supposed progress in the U.S. over
the past few decades. Professor Plimer states:

 "During the past 30 years, the US economy grew by 50 per cent, car
 numbers grew by 143 per cent, energy consumption grew by 45 per cent
 and air pollutants declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5
 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent and airborne lead by
 97.3 per cent. Most European signatories to the Kyoto Protocol had
 greenhouse gas emissions increase since 2001, whereas in the US
 emissions fell by nearly 1per cent. Furthermore, carbon credits
 rewarded Russia, (east) Germany and Britain, which had technically and
 economically backward energy production in 1990."

 Let's be clear, the decline in air pollution, toxic emissions, etc. in the
U.S. is due almost entirely to the moving of the vast majority of the dirtiest
industrial processes from the U.S. to developing nations (China, Taiwan, South
Korea, etc.) where the levels of pollution now exceed those of the worst
periods in U.S. history. This makes it appear that we have figured out how to
miraculously have this enormous economic growth and increase in production
with no accompanying environmental impacts. We all live on the same small
planet and if Plimer and others were using global instead of national
statistics to examine what has actually happened they would see something
remarkably different and more dangerous.

 But there is more to say here. It is absolutely not true that U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions have declined since 2001. I don't know where Plimer is getting
his facts but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency among others show a
persistent rise in GHG emissions in the U.S. including a 1.7% increase in 2004
alone. Further, small particulate air pollution has increased dramatically in
the U.S. and water and air quality levels have been declining in recent years,
not improving. Of course airborne lead has dropped - we outlawed leaded
gasoline and replaced it with MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) which has led
to widespread groundwater pollution. Nothing is said about the disastrous
effects of the doubling of biologically available nitrogen in terrestrial
ecosystems in the U.S. or the tripling of phosphorous and their associated
impacts. One would believe from the above statement that all is well
environmentally here in the U.S. which is just not true.

 Plimer says: " Does it matter if sea level rises a few metres or global
 temperatures rise a few degrees? No. Sea level changes by up to 400m,
 atmospheric temperatures by about 20C, carbon dioxide can vary from
 20 per cent to 0.03 per cent, and our dynamic planet just keeps evolving.
 Greenpeace, contrary to scientific data, implies a static planet. Even if
 the sea level rises by metres, it is probably cheaper to address this change
 than reconstruct the world's economies."

 Does it matter if temperatures rise a few degrees? No. NO?! Astounding. If
you look at the evidence of the past several hundred thousand years, you see
that what has happened in the recent past is unprecedented. It is still
shocking to me to see such casual language used to describe anthropomorphic
sea rise of 6 meters or more in the next century or two, mass extinctions,
collapse of ocean and terrestrial ecosystems, and more addressed in economic
terms. Again, the scientific community has a very different take on what this
means. Perhaps it is because they don't see the world through an economic
lens. The changes that are already taking place are profoundly serious yet
don't seem to raise even an eyebrow for Plimer. Of course the planet keeps
evolving. And of course life will continue. It just likely will not include
our favorite dominant species - homo sapiens sapiens.

 I could write reams more about this. Suffice it to say that the facts I am
accustomed to using come from credible non-industry funded sources of
scientific study. Even the scientists operating under the suppression of the
current U.S. administration are speaking out about the crises we are facing.
It is simply not credible to deny the facts any longer, and not responsible to
delay acting in direct ways to address this challenges. The very recent Stern
Report from the UK focuses primarily on the economic impacts, but lays to rest
questions of whether this is real and serious and even Tony Blair made a
public statement that this was the most pressing challenge we now face,
requiring our full attention. I believe that there are many well-meaning
people questioning climate change but the scientific debate about climate
change is over. The question is what we will do in response to it.

 Here are some websites I recommend -

 I've recently spent time with Ed Mazria, the founder of the Architecture 2030
and Challenge 2030 efforts - see
 www.architecture2030.org/home.html for more on this. He has convinced the
American Institute of Architects and many others to sign on to an agressive
agenda to deal with climate change and he bases his work and campaign on
non-politicized sources of scientific information (as I also try to do).

 Beyond just climate change are a whole host of other impacts and affects that
require our understanding and focus. I highly recommend this website:
www.footprintnetwork.org if you are interested in seeing what is happening on
and to the planet and why. The newly released Living Planet Report based on
the Living Planet Index is sobering. The ecological footprint reports you can
download there are equally impressive in their clarity about what we're faced
with and what the sources of the problems are.

 And finally, on the subject of nuclear power, there is a good study on the
net energy and climate benefits (little if any on both accounts) that makes
quite clear that there is no excuse to go nuclear at:
 <a  target="_blank" href="http://www.mnforsustain.org/nukpwr_tyner_g_net_energy_from_nuclear_power.htm";>http://www.mnforsustain.org/nukpwr_tyner_g_net_energy_from_nuclear_power.htm</a>

 I have a close friend and colleague who is among the most rigorous
researchers I know, who knows the organization that put out this report and
told me that they do high quality work. If he trusts them, I trust them. I
would love to see that report being much more widely circulated since the
facts about the costs and lack of a clear energy benefit from nuclear power
are compellingly weighted against such a dangerous strategy. In fact, I
suggest you read it and send it on to anyone in a position to have influence
in the debate.

 There is far too much more that I could write on these subjects. Suffice it
to say that I continue to read and analyze the naysayers of global warming,
peak oil and ecological crises and their information and compare it with the
information coming from the scientific community and thus far I remain
unconvinced that they are basing their opinions on unbiased factual analysis.
We've invented a deeply flawed monetary and economic system that depends on
laws and rules that humans have invented and that exist only in our minds
through the agreements and beliefs we have made and hold. Those ideas have
profound impacts in the geo-bio-physical world, but we can change our minds
and our behavior, unlike the laws of physics, ecology, biology, etc. My
sister-in-law has a magnet on her refrigerator that says "Gravity - it's not
just a good idea, it's the law." We don't get to change those laws. We can
change ours and hopefully we see through the illusion of our belief in money
as the most important element in figuring out what the problems are, what must
be done about them and how to do it.

 No one who knows much about economics considers it a true science. That is
not the case for biology, ecology or climatology. I'll side with the
overwhelming majority of leading scientists on the planet and choose to act on
behalf of life rather than trust people who insist that doing the right thing
costs too much and we can just grow our way out of these problems through the
market-based ideology that got us here.

 With warmest regards on this Thanksgiving eve.

 David Eisenberg

 -----Original Message-----
 From: jacksflat@...
 To: GSBN@...
 Sent: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 7:57 PM
 Subject: GSBN:Re: GSBN Research to combat solar warming

  G ' day David

 Interesting information that you provided on global warming and at the
 moment our media are in a feeding frenzy re global warming and the
 politicians are jumping aboard the band wagon, elections upcoming next
 year! However our mob are looking at nuclear power stations, some 25
 or so to combat emissions and hence reduce green house warming. Even
 though we have an abundance of coal we also have a mass of uranium

 I have copied an article here from Profesor Ian Plimer a noted
 geologist down under. Ian came and spoke at our Rotary club very
 recently and he debunks in some manner that global warming is caused
 directly by mankind. He claims that there are 27 other reasons for
 the globe warming up. Mainly Mother Earth and the Sun.

 I will continue to look at straw bale building from a cost and comfort
 point of view with the bonus being the environment. However some
 straw bale homes here are costing a whole lot more than conventional
 buildings. Their on going benefits are still the same if designed
 well and save a motza on heating and cooling which is a good thing.
 The bad thing is they are costing far too much to build. Not enough
 qualified straw bale builders around for now.

 I am also told that China is building a new coal fired power station
 every week until 2012! Interesting but confusing times for us green
 builders.

 Kind regards
 John Glassford
 Huff 'n' Puff Constructions
 <a  target="_blank" href="http://www.glassford.com.au/";>http://www.glassford.com.au/</a>
 Mount Kilimanjaro Climb 28/8/07
 <a  target="_blank" href="http://www.coolamonrotary.com/kili/";>http://www.coolamonrotary.com/kili/</a>
 61 2 6927 6027

 Here is an article by Ian Plimer and I would appreciate your comments:

 Global warming a damp squib - Hot or cold

 The Australian

 by Ian Plimer

 January 05, 2006

 HEAT, bushfires. Just another Australian summer, some hotter, some
 wetter, some cooler, some drier. As per usual, the northern hemisphere
 freezes and the blame game is in overdrive. At the 2005 UN Climate
 Change Conference in Montreal, Greenpeace's Steven Guilbeault stated:
 "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean
 wetter, that's what we're dealing with."

 It is that simple! If it's hot, it's global warming; if it's cold,
 it's global warming. Demonstrators in frigid temperatures in Montreal
 chanted: "It's hot in here! There's too much carbon in the
 atmosphere!" The same apocalyptic Guilbeault says: "Time is running
 out to deal with climate change. Ten years ago, we thought we had a
 lot of time, five years ago we thought we had a lot of time, but now
 science is telling us that we don't have a lot of time." Really.

 In 1992, Greenpeace's Henry Kendall gave us the Chicken Little quote,
 "Time is running out"; in 1994, The Irish Times tried to frighten the
 leprechauns with "Time running out for action on global warming,
 Greenpeace claims"; and in 1997 Chris Rose of Greenpeace maintained
 the religious mantra with "Time is running out for the climate". We've
 heard such failed catastrophist predictions before. The Club of Rome
 on resources, Paul Erlich on population, Y2K, and now Greenpeace on
 global warming.

 During the past 30 years, the US economy grew by 50 per cent, car
 numbers grew by 143 per cent, energy consumption grew by 45 per cent
 and air pollutants declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5
 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent and airborne lead by
 97.3 per cent. Most European signatories to the Kyoto Protocol had
 greenhouse gas emissions increase since 2001, whereas in the US
 emissions fell by nearly 1per cent. Furthermore, carbon credits
 rewarded Russia, (east) Germany and Britain, which had technically and
 economically backward energy production in 1990.

 By the end of this century, the demographically doomed French,
 Italians and Spaniards may have too few environmentalists to fund
 Greenpeace's business. So what really does Greenpeace want? A
 habitable environment with no humans left to inhabit it? Destruction
 of the major economies for .07C change?

 Does it matter if sea level rises a few metres or global temperatures
 rise a few degrees? No. Sea level changes by up to 400m, atmospheric
 temperatures by about 20C, carbon dioxide can vary from 20 per cent to
 0.03 per cent, and our dynamic planet just keeps evolving. Greenpeace,
 contrary to scientific data, implies a static planet. Even if the sea
 level rises by metres, it is probably cheaper to address this change
 than reconstruct the world's economies.

 For about 80 per cent of the time since its formation, Earth has been
 a warm, wet, greenhouse planet with no icecaps. When Earth had
 icecaps, the climate was far more variable, disease depopulated human
 settlements and extinction rates of other complex organisms were
 higher. Thriving of life and economic strength occurs during warm
 times. Could Greenpeace please explain why there was a pre-Industrial
 Revolution global warming from AD900 to 1300? Why was the sea level
 higher 6000 years ago than it is at present? Which part of the 120m
 sea-level rise over the past 15,000 years is human-induced? To
 attribute a multicomponent, variable natural process such as climate
 change to human-induced carbon emissions is pseudo-science.

 There is no debate about climate change, only dogma and
 misinformation. For example, is there a link between hurricanes
 Katrina and Rita and global warming? Two hurricanes hit the US Gulf
 Coast six weeks apart in 1915, mimicking Katrina and Rita. If global
 warming caused recent storms, there should have been more hurricanes
 in the Pacific and Indian oceans since 1995. Instead, there has been a
 slight decrease at a time when China and India have increased
 greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of hurricanes might seem more
 severe because of the blanket instantaneous news coverage and because
 more people now live in hurricane-prone areas, hence there is more
 property damage and loss of life.

 Only a strong economy can produce the well fed who have the luxury of
 espousing with religious fervour their uncosted, impractical,
 impoverishing policies. By such policies, Greenpeace continues to
 exacerbate grinding poverty in the Third World. The planet's best
 friend is human resourcefulness with a supportive, strong economy and
 reduced release of toxins. The greenhouse gases - nitrous oxide,
 carbon dioxide and methane - have been recycled for billions of years
 without the intervention of human politics.

 Ian Plimer is a professor of geology at the University of Adelaide and
 former head of the school of earth sciences at the University of
 Melbourne.



________________________________________________________________________



- --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
- ---


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 2006 11:10:06 -0500
From: Derek Roff derek@...
Subject: Re: GSBN Research to combat solar warming

> Plimer says: " Does it matter if sea level rises a few metres or global
>  temperatures rise a few degrees? No. Sea level changes by up to 400m,
>  atmospheric temperatures by about 20C, carbon dioxide can vary from
>  20 per cent to 0.03 per cent, and our dynamic planet just keeps evolving.

I fear for the literacy of our society, when the above comments can
motivate anyone to be more complacent about climate change.  A sea level
rise of 400m would flood almost all major cities of the world, submerge
entirely some countries (Denmark, Belgium, Bangladesh, various Pacific
Island Nations, etc), and decrease the land area by over 50% in others.
Raising the atmospheric temperature, by 20 degrees C, would make earth's
most heavily inhabited regions warmer than the hottest deserts of today.

While the earth will survive these changes, over 90% of current species
will not.  Yet Plimer asserts that this is not a problem.

> Even if  the sea level rises
> by metres, it is probably cheaper to address this
> change  than reconstruct the world's economies."

While calculating rational estimates of the economic costs of global
warming is very complex, it is easy to imagine the staggering cost of
isolated elements of the problem.  Land/building/infrastructure prices in
coastal cities like Houston, Tokyo, Miami, Rio de Janeiro, Venice and New
York, are hundreds of millions of dollars per acre.  A rise in sea level of
six meters, on the lower end of predictions, would require relocating major
parts of most of the world's major cities.  Plimer's assertion that the
world's current economic structure can handle comfortably such a
dislocation is absurd.

I am saddened that superficial and transparently erroneous arguments such
as Plimer's are used as a basis for policy decisions and can convince
significant portions of our population to support the status quo.

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@...



----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of Digest

To request a copy of the help file, reply to this message and put "help" in
the subject.