Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
Jim wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
David Hansen wrote:

Your point is moot.

It's highly relevant to the wider issue of building expensive alternative
energy generation when half our homes aren't insulated to the the latest
standards.

The money should be spent on *giving* us the insulation for free or at
notional cost IMHO.

The money shouldn't be spent by the govt. It should be spent by the
people who want whatever it is; alt. energy, or more insulation. Otherwise,
you have a Nanny State.

Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I regret
that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.

Yes, it seems a little 'nannying' may be in order.

There is virtually *never* a legitimate reason for state nannying -
certainly not with this. If the case is compelling, then people will
implement. This is an indication that it is not.

Waiting for the case to be 'compelling' (i.e when energy costs become crippling) is
likely to mean plenty of people won't bother with a sensible level of insulation.

Building regulations exist for the thermal performance of NEW homes. I have no
problem seeing why at least some expectation of reasonable performance shouldn't be
made of older ones, especially if accompanied by grants to help..

I'd rather see public money spent on reduction of energy use than tokenist 'green
generation'.

I'm sorry, but with the average IQ at 100, most people simply aren't smart enough to
behave in their own best interests much of the time. You would apparently have the
idiots hold sway. I've seem the idiots in action and I don't want any part of it.

Graham

On 2007-10-17 08:04:11 +0100, Eeyore
said:

Waiting for the case to be 'compelling' (i.e when energy costs become
crippling) is
likely to mean plenty of people won't bother with a sensible level of
insulation.

Then it is not worth doing until the case is compelling and will happen
by virtue of the market.


Building regulations exist for the thermal performance of NEW homes.

That's fine as long as it doesn't increase the cost.

I have no
problem seeing why at least some expectation of reasonable performance
shouldn't be
made of older ones, especially if accompanied by grants to help..

Of limited value. On older properties with 230mm solid walls, a very
large proportion of total heat produced goes out through the walls.
There is very little that can reasonably be done about that.


I'd rather see public money spent on reduction of energy use than
tokenist 'green
generation'.

I would rather see a decline in "public money" and for individuals to
make their own arrangements as they choose.

I agree with you regarding most "green generation"

The better solutions would be to address generation by investment in
nuclear capacity rather than to cripple economic development via
foolhardy exercises having minimal effect.



I'm sorry, but with the average IQ at 100, most people simply aren't
smart enough to
behave in their own best interests much of the time.

That is their choice

You would apparently have the
idiots hold sway.

Idiots, some people may be, perhaps we should remove their vote also.

I've seem the idiots in action and I don't want any part of it.

Graham

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:07:57 -0500 someone who may be "Jim"
wrote this:-

In the eastern US, I was spending quite a bit more than $300 US for
propane gas. Hot water is neither free or cheap, except in Iceland.

Hot water is not free in Iceland. The hot water doesn't get into
buildings by magic and the heat exchanger in the house is not free
either. As a result the quantity of heat used is measured. I do
believe it is relatively cheap though, especially compared to the
cost of importing oil or gas.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:52:13 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

Unlike Clinton who did NOT have sex with that woman.

He did not have sexual intercourse with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
Apparently it is something to do with making words imply something
they don't mean.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:44:36 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

The money should be spent on *giving* us the insulation for free or at notional cost
IMHO.

There are plenty of such schemes. Not just free insulation but also
replacement heating systems. Your council should have information
available on these, mine does. Government has decided that they
should be directed to those in the greatest fuel poverty, which has
been defined as those on various benefits (including OAPs).

Government has decided that those who are not so badly off should
pay something themselves. If you disagree take it up with
government.

However, that does not change the fact that your point is moot.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I
regret that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.

Yes, it seems a little 'nannying' may be in order.

I don't mind 'nannying' from an intelligent nanny who understands the
issues and makes a sensible rule. Sadly this exempts every politician and
civil servant.

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:04:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Here we used zinc ? plated steel ties to hold the 2 layers together.
Your method of cunstruction is certainly cheaper but I'd like to see
comparative thermal performance figures.

Eh? Extra long bricks (matching the facing bricks) cheaper than wall ties
(which are basically large stainless-steel paperclips)? I think not!

--
John Stumbles

The clairvoyants' meeting has been cancelled due to unforseen circumstances.

On 2007-10-17 08:34:19 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:52:13 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

Unlike Clinton who did NOT have sex with that woman.

He did not have sexual intercourse with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
Apparently it is something to do with making words imply something
they don't mean.

Just like greenwash then.....

Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:

Waiting for the case to be 'compelling' (i.e when energy costs become
crippling) is
likely to mean plenty of people won't bother with a sensible level of
insulation.

Then it is not worth doing until the case is compelling and will happen
by virtue of the market.

I simply disagree.You appear to think that foresight and planning are a bad
things.

I imagine you're just another one of the ignoramuses I was talking about.
Stupidity is common, you're in the majority for sure.

Graham

Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:

Building regulations exist for the thermal performance of NEW homes.

That's fine as long as it doesn't increase the cost.

WHICH cost ? The short term cost or the long term cost ?

You don't give the impresion of being able to look very far in front of your
nose, so I'll bet you'd be in favour of poor insualtion just to save a couple of
hundred dollars on the immediate sale price. Ignorance and plain outright
stupidity of that ilk is what needs to be challenged.

Graham

Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:

I have no problem seeing why at least some expectation of reasonable
performance
shouldn't be made of older ones, especially if accompanied by grants to
help..

Of limited value. On older properties with 230mm solid walls,

A minority of properties.


a very large proportion of total heat produced goes out through the walls.
There is very little that can reasonably be done about that.

It can certainly be inproved, not least with new wall plasters believe it or
not. Dry lining can make serious improvements too.

Graham

"Jim" wrote in message
t...

"Mary Fisher" wrote
In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

I am not familiar with this term. In the US, I have always used
paper-faced rolls of fiberglass stapeled between the wall studs. What is
CWI? The same? Sprayed foam/cellulose?
Thanks,
Jim


Houses built until fairly recently in Britain have only had an air gap
between the inner and outer walls of a house. That helped with insulation
and preventing damp. It was better than earlier buildings which were single
walled.

Newly built houses have built-in blocks (usually) of insulation between the
inner and outer walls.

Those of us with empty gaps can have them filled at our own cost or,
nowadays for many people, free. Because of not being able to access the gap
solid slabs can't be inserted so loose filling is blown into the gap.

In our case (and I think it's the most usual) holes are drilled in the
mortar between bricks at certain distances from each other, a pipe is
inserted and shredded mineral fibre is blown into the gap from outside. It's
a quick, if noisy, business, a lorry stands in the street with a large bore
hose leading to the house, the pump is in the back of the lorry and can be
heard from several houses away - that's how we know when someone's having it
done :-)

Afterwards the holes are re-filled with mortar and the workmen leave. As I
said, it's very quick and if you haven't had any wall insulation before you
can feel the difference immediately - far sooner than you can with roof
insulation although the fuel savings aren't as obvious.

I'm talking about brick-built houses of course, houses built from other
materials will probably have different means of providing insulation if it
wasn't built in from the start. I say that to avoid being flamed :-)

Mary

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-10-17 08:04:11 +0100, Eeyore
said:

I'd rather see public money spent on reduction of energy use than
tokenist 'green
generation'.

I would rather see a decline in "public money" and for individuals to
make their own arrangements as they choose.

Experience shows that many individuals spent their money unwisely. Or simply
maybe they are unaware of better sensible options.


I agree with you regarding most "green generation"

The better solutions would be to address generation by investment in
nuclear capacity rather than to cripple economic development via
foolhardy exercises having minimal effect.

I agree with the idea about nuclear generation. I think it's the best, simplest,
fastest option to reduce fossil fuel based energy usage and if nothing else that
will have a positive result for 'energy security' issues.


I'm sorry, but with the average IQ at 100, most people simply aren't
smart enough to behave in their own best interests much of the time.

That is their choice

You would apparently have the
idiots hold sway.

Idiots, some people may be, perhaps we should remove their vote also.

An interesting point.

I'd make politicians have to pass an exam for intellectual competency too.

Graham

David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:52:13 GMT someone who may be John Stumbles
wrote this:-

Unlike Clinton who did NOT have sex with that woman.

He did not have sexual intercourse with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
Apparently it is something to do with making words imply something
they don't mean.

Maybe the question he was asked should have been phrased better ?

'Have sex' demands we have a universal definition of what 'having sex' is.

Graham

David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:44:36 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

The money should be spent on *giving* us the insulation for free or at notional cost
IMHO.

There are plenty of such schemes. Not just free insulation but also
replacement heating systems. Your council should have information
available on these, mine does.

I've always found such things to have bureaucratic paperwork hurdles in the past.


Government has decided that they
should be directed to those in the greatest fuel poverty, which has
been defined as those on various benefits (including OAPs).

And my point is that it should be seen as a greater priority that benefits everyone in
the long term and shouldn't be restricted to those groups.


Government has decided that those who are not so badly off should
pay something themselves. If you disagree take it up with
government.

I said 'subsidised' would be adequate. Given the grants available for wind turbines and
the like, half-price should be the maximum one should have to pay.


However, that does not change the fact that your point is moot.

No it's not.

Graham

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:07:57 -0500 someone who may be "Jim"
wrote this:-

In the eastern US, I was spending quite a bit more than $300 US for
propane gas. Hot water is neither free or cheap, except in Iceland.

Hot water is not free in Iceland. The hot water doesn't get into
buildings by magic and the heat exchanger in the house is not free
either.

And much is lost between source and destiny.

Great steel pipes run in open 'ditches' at the side of roads, they carry the
hot water. Much heat is lost to the atmosphere. Enclosing the pipes of
filling the ditches is pointless in earthquake areas, even the metalled
roads have only a thin skin of blacktop. Everything has to be repaired very
frequently ...

As a result the quantity of heat used is measured. I do
believe it is relatively cheap though, especially compared to the
cost of importing oil or gas.

It is cheaper than ours (all our energy is probably higher than most places)
but the cost of labour, machinery and import of all raw materials has to be
paid for.

Mary

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I
regret that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.

Yes, it seems a little 'nannying' may be in order.

I don't mind 'nannying' from an intelligent nanny who understands the
issues and makes a sensible rule. Sadly this exempts every politician and
civil servant.

Every ? Merely most surely ?

I think both groups should have to pass a competency / intellectual capacity
exam before holding high office for sure.

Graham

On 16 Oct, 23:12, "Jim" wrote:

Ann Coulter wrote a marvelous article some time ago about all the new
mfg plants, mining, plastics, and transport costs of the new green tech
being implemented. What a nightmare!

Would it be the same controversial, much hated neo-Nazi ultra-right
wing Jew-hating, gay-bashing racist Ann Coulter who's been disowned by
the GOP itself?
The one that says that "Jews need to be perfected by conversion to
Christianity"?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256239,00.html
http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/anticoulter/
http://www.oregonherald.com/eforums/...1&threadid=255

In that case, here are some more of her "marvelous" thoughts:
Highlights include her description of Al Gore ("total fag"), John
Edwards ("faggot"), Muslims ("ragheads," "camel jockeys," "jihad
monkeys"), her suggestion that said monkeys should stick to "flying
carpets" instead of travelling on commercial airlines, and her next-
day reaction to 9/11: "We should invade their countries, kill their
leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Is that the same Ann Coulter you're quoting? I can't actually find
that report either - got a link?
Just wondering....

John Stumbles wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:04:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Here we used zinc ? plated steel ties to hold the 2 layers together.
Your method of cunstruction is certainly cheaper but I'd like to see
comparative thermal performance figures.

Eh? Extra long bricks (matching the facing bricks) cheaper than wall ties
(which are basically large stainless-steel paperclips)? I think not!

The ties are cheaper. Galvanised steel (not stainless) isn't expensive.

Graham

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:16:15 +0000, Jim wrote:

To clear the air, I believe it is happening, slowly and inexorably,
man
has precious little to do with it, can't stop it if he tried, and every

My opinion is that
(a) the evidence seems to be that it is happening
(b) it's quite possible that humany activities are contributing to, if not
causing, it
(c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind
(d) we're socially advanced[1] enough to act responsibly and ameriorate
the effects of our actions
(e) we're just about technologically advanced[2] enough to counter the
effects of naturally-occuring processes (cf threat of asteroid strike
which we're (i) beginning to watch out for (ii) beginning to plan how to
avert).

[1] or should act as if we are
[2] or should act as if we are

proposal to prevent it basically calls for a return to the Stone Age,
i.e., the destruction of Western Civilization as we know it.

so, you are really saying that non-western civilisations == stone-age?

--
John Stumbles

Ohnosecond
Instant in time when you realise that you've just made a BIG mistake.

On 2007-10-17 09:28:27 +0100, Eeyore
said:



Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:

Waiting for the case to be 'compelling' (i.e when energy costs become
crippling) is
likely to mean plenty of people won't bother with a sensible level of
insulation.

Then it is not worth doing until the case is compelling and will happen
by virtue of the market.

I simply disagree.You appear to think that foresight and planning are a bad
things.

No I don't, but it does have to be sensible and economically viable and
not done for the sake of doing something however useless that may be


I imagine you're just another one of the ignoramuses I was talking about.


I think that you imagine all kinds of things. Whether they make any
sense is another matter.

John Stumbles wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:16:15 +0000, Jim wrote:

To clear the air, I believe it is happening, slowly and inexorably,
man
has precious little to do with it, can't stop it if he tried, and every

My opinion is that
(a) the evidence seems to be that it is happening

I agree.


(b) it's quite possible that humany activities are contributing to, if not
causing, it

Contributing to I'd accept the possibility of at least in some small part.


(c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind

Potential consequences in hundreds of years time. There is no immediate danger
and absolutely no reason or excuse for ill-considered panic action which may be
either futile or even counter-productive and will certainly damage western
economies further at a time when they are already endangered.


(d) we're socially advanced[1] enough to act responsibly and ameriorate
the effects of our actions

And how would that be ?


(e) we're just about technologically advanced[2] enough to counter the
effects of naturally-occuring processes (cf threat of asteroid strike
which we're (i) beginning to watch out for (ii) beginning to plan how to
avert).

Yet more alarmism to keep the public afraid and malleable.


proposal to prevent it basically calls for a return to the Stone Age,
i.e., the destruction of Western Civilization as we know it.

so, you are really saying that non-western civilisations == stone-age?

I'd say some 'greens' would at least like us to return at least to the era of
the mud hut and subsistence farming.

Graham

wrote:

On 17 Oct,
Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Here we used zinc ? plated steel ties to hold the 2 layers together.
Your method of cunstruction is certainly cheaper but I'd like to see
comparative thermal performance figures.

Eh? Extra long bricks (matching the facing bricks) cheaper than wall ties
(which are basically large stainless-steel paperclips)? I think not!

The ties are cheaper. Galvanised steel (not stainless) isn't expensive.

I thought galvanised ties were no longer allowed, and stainless was required
in new builds.

Maybe you know something I don't ?

At around 5p each here, there're still hardly expensive.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STAINLESS-STEE...QQcmdZViewItem

Graham

Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
Andy Hall wrote:
Eeyore said:

Waiting for the case to be 'compelling' (i.e when energy costs become
crippling) is
likely to mean plenty of people won't bother with a sensible level of
insulation.

Then it is not worth doing until the case is compelling and will happen
by virtue of the market.

I simply disagree.You appear to think that foresight and planning are a bad
things.

No I don't, but it does have to be sensible and economically viable and
not done for the sake of doing something however useless that may be

I thought that's what ** I ** was saying !

Graham

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:53:22 -0500, "Jim" wrote:


wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:

"Steve O'Hara-Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:58:06 -0500
"Jim" wrote:

So, if it's not solar insolation causing global warming, which is
not
necessarily a bad thing, why are the Martian ice caps melting? The
emissions from that damned little robot NASA has running around????

Oh now that is wonderful - do you have a cite I can hit people
with ?

I'm puzzled. Are you not aware that the Martian ice caps are melting?

They melt and refreeze seasonally; see e.g.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011206molaice.html

Have you a reference claiming a long-term trend in a significant
change in their overall size?

Uh, yeah. I was kinda under the impression that anyone who knew anything
about the subject was quite well aware of it. This is why Al Gore and the
greenies are such loons....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Remember to read the next page aswell...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...warming_2.html

--
SEE YA !!!
Trygve Lillefosse
AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:28:09 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

He did not have sexual intercourse with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
Apparently it is something to do with making words imply something
they don't mean.

Just like greenwash then.....

Greenwash is objectionable, which is why it is criticised by groups
like Friends of the Earth. See for example their criticism of the
greenwash claims of most "green" electricity suppliers.

However, that does not mean that everything which some claim to be
greenwash is in fact greenwash. For example there are some green
electricity suppliers whose claims are verifiable.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:45:09 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

There are plenty of such schemes. Not just free insulation but also
replacement heating systems. Your council should have information
available on these, mine does.

I've always found such things to have bureaucratic paperwork hurdles in the past.

That is a disbenefit of many government schemes. Given that you are
proposing a government scheme I'll draw my own conclusion.

Government has decided that those who are not so badly off should
pay something themselves. If you disagree take it up with
government.

I said 'subsidised' would be adequate. Given the grants available for wind turbines and
the like, half-price should be the maximum one should have to pay.

As I pointed out in an earlier posting, half price things are
available from time to time, including loft insulation at the moment
in big orange sheds.

If your postings didn't break the threading on my newsreader it
would be rather easier to follow. I'm tired of wading through broken
threads, as a result this will be my last posting on the subject.

However, that does not change the fact that your point is moot.

No it's not.

Proof by assertion is not convincing. I have explained why I think
your point is moot elsewhere and it would be easier to refer to if
the thread was not being continually broken.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wrote in message ...
On 17 Oct,
Eeyore wrote:



John Stumbles wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:04:15 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Here we used zinc ? plated steel ties to hold the 2 layers together.
Your method of cunstruction is certainly cheaper but I'd like to see
comparative thermal performance figures.

Eh? Extra long bricks (matching the facing bricks) cheaper than wall
ties
(which are basically large stainless-steel paperclips)? I think not!

The ties are cheaper. Galvanised steel (not stainless) isn't expensive.

I thought galvanised ties were no longer allowed, and stainless was
required
in new builds.


The ones used by magpies to build a nest in one of our trees were ss. I was
surprised because I'd only ever seen galvanised.

Mary

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

....


Proof by assertion is not convincing.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh


Simple and to the point. I'll try to remember that, it will save many words
:-)

Mary

David Hansen wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:45:09 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

There are plenty of such schemes. Not just free insulation but also
replacement heating systems. Your council should have information
available on these, mine does.

I've always found such things to have bureaucratic paperwork hurdles in the past.

That is a disbenefit of many government schemes. Given that you are
proposing a government scheme I'll draw my own conclusion.

I believe it can be done without the wasteful, pointless and excessive paperwork. Simply
giving a record of the postcode and street number to qualify ought to be enough. You
couldn't get it twice at the same address if fraud was one's concern.


Government has decided that those who are not so badly off should
pay something themselves. If you disagree take it up with
government.

I said 'subsidised' would be adequate. Given the grants available for wind turbines and
the like, half-price should be the maximum one should have to pay.

As I pointed out in an earlier posting, half price things are
available from time to time, including loft insulation at the moment
in big orange sheds.

I saw no evidence of that reduction when I was there myself FWIW. If you could let me know
what it was you saw I'd be very interested as I'm looking to replace the plasterboard
ceiling in my single storey extension and I know it has no insulation there at present.


If your postings didn't break the threading on my newsreader it
would be rather easier to follow. I'm tired of wading through broken
threads, as a result this will be my last posting on the subject.

It's not anything broken with MY newsreader for sure.

Now, if I may maintain your interest, my point is that subsidised or even 'free' loft
insulation to today's standards would provide a better 'return on investment' than any fancy
windmill projects and should be a HIGH priority since it reduces actual demand. Reducing
demand/use has to be the most sane way to deal with today's energy issues.

Graham

Mary Fisher wrote:

wrote
Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Here we used zinc ? plated steel ties to hold the 2 layers together.
Your method of cunstruction is certainly cheaper but I'd like to see
comparative thermal performance figures.

Eh? Extra long bricks (matching the facing bricks) cheaper than wall
ties (which are basically large stainless-steel paperclips)? I think not!


The ties are cheaper. Galvanised steel (not stainless) isn't expensive.

I thought galvanised ties were no longer allowed, and stainless was
required in new builds.

The ones used by magpies to build a nest in one of our trees were ss. I was
surprised because I'd only ever seen galvanised.

Magpies like shiny things of course. Maybe they were being choosey ?

Graham

Mary Fisher wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote

Proof by assertion is not convincing.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh

Simple and to the point. I'll try to remember that, it will save many words
:-)

The AGWists could learn from inspection of that statement too.

Graham

Jim wrote:
"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:01:03 -0500, Jim wrote:

Define global warming skeptic;
a person who believes it's not happening? or,
a person who believes it is happening, but mankind has nothing to do
with it and can't do anything about it?
or...?
Somebody who experiences absolutely no increase in the temperature of the
sand surrounding their head.

To clear the air, I believe it is happening, slowly and inexorably, man
has precious little to do with it, can't stop it if he tried, and every
proposal to prevent it basically calls for a return to the Stone Age, i.e.,
the destruction of Western Civilization as we know it.

Well I am half with you there.

RAPIDLY and inexorably, and man has everything to do with it, and
nearly every proposal to cure it is as ill informed as those who claim
its not happening or its not our fault.

Until you can get India and China on board to do something about it, you
are wasting your breath, IMO. =IF= it really even is something man can
affect at all......

I can assure yu if e.g. the USA developed a safe fusion generator the
size of a bicycle and gave the technology to the world, the Chines would
take it up faster than you can say 'chow mein'

Meanwhile, the Martian Ice caps continue to shrink and the sun keeps
hurling CME's at us.

Sure. I am sure the suns is not static in output.

And the reduction in smog due to using catalysts in our cars has
actually made things slightly worse in terms of global warming.

To pin all your faith on one aspect of a complex situation is the mark
of a very simple man.

There are far too many of those on BOTH sides of the argument.




--
John Stumbles

Eeyore wrote:

John Stumbles wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:16:15 +0000, Jim wrote:

To clear the air, I believe it is happening, slowly and inexorably,
man
has precious little to do with it, can't stop it if he tried, and every
My opinion is that
(a) the evidence seems to be that it is happening

I agree.


(b) it's quite possible that humany activities are contributing to, if not
causing, it

Contributing to I'd accept the possibility of at least in some small part.


(c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind

Potential consequences in hundreds of years time. There is no immediate danger

Tell that to to N Orleans.

and absolutely no reason or excuse for ill-considered panic action which may be
either futile or even counter-productive and will certainly damage western
economies further at a time when they are already endangered.


That s fair comment: Governments in the West are largely composed of
marketing people, whose function is to sell the latest load of bull****
to the electorate: faced with a complex and real crisis they are
singularly crap at coming up with imaginative and constructive solutions.

If not marketeers they are generally ideologues, who have pinned their
faith in 'principles' with a sort of religious zeal.


Anyone who HAS any real competence is to be found outside government,
where they can excercise their competence to make decent lives for
themselves and un businesses.


(d) we're socially advanced[1] enough to act responsibly and ameriorate
the effects of our actions

And how would that be ?

Any one of a million ways.



(e) we're just about technologically advanced[2] enough to counter the
effects of naturally-occuring processes (cf threat of asteroid strike
which we're (i) beginning to watch out for (ii) beginning to plan how to
avert).

Yet more alarmism to keep the public afraid and malleable.

Hah! Always the case. Just because bad men use a good cause to promote
their grasp on power, desn;t mena the cause itself is invalid.

You must learn the basic principals of logic.


proposal to prevent it basically calls for a return to the Stone Age,
i.e., the destruction of Western Civilization as we know it.

so, you are really saying that non-western civilisations == stone-age?


You would be surprised at how sophisticated stone age culture was
actually, but be that as it may, there is a grain of truth in the assertion.

I'd say some 'greens' would at least like us to return at least to the era of
the mud hut and subsistence farming.


I totally agree. Most of the religious zealots in the green movement
know as little and care less about the actual processes that keep them
alive as the zealots in the 'denial' movement.

You must rapidly come to a realisation of the massive ignorance on ALL
sides before you can actually work out what is a constructive way forward.


Graham

Jim wrote:
"Mary Fisher" wrote
In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,

I am not familiar with this term. In the US, I have always used
paper-faced rolls of fiberglass stapeled between the wall studs. What is
CWI? The same? Sprayed foam/cellulose?

Fibres blown into the walls under aor pressure mostly IIRC.

It's a fairly simple way of adding insulation to a double skinned
masonry wall.

Thanks,
Jim

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:

(c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind

Potential consequences in hundreds of years time. There is no immediate danger

Tell that to to N Orleans.

The flooding of New Orleans was due to defective flood defences.

It was pure LUCK that N.O. hadn't been struck by a 'Katrina' before and their luck
finally ran out. If you live in an area that's prone to hurricanes you're taking
risks. The poor workmanship finished the job.

Graham

Jim wrote:
"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:16:59 -0500, Jim wrote:

"Mary Fisher" wrote
In January 1993 we paid something over £300 for cavity wall insulation,
I am not familiar with this term. In the US, I have always used
paper-faced rolls of fiberglass stapeled between the wall studs. What is
CWI? The same? Sprayed foam/cellulose?
It's applicable to walls constructed of two skins of masonry (bricks or
blocks) with an air gap between them. When retrofitted, holes are drilled
in one skin (usually the outer) and fibrous or granular insulating
material
blown into the gap. In USAnia I think you generally have timber-frame and
other constructions where this wouldn't work.

Thank you; I have seen parallel brick walls with a space between, tied
together with an extra long brick every so often, in buildings hundreds of
years old. I don't know anyone in the US who lives in a home like that....
--
John Stumbles



There are methods of construction that work better/worse depending on te
climate you are in.

For example,. a typical scandinavian house will be timber framed with
massive insulation, and massive triple glazed windows facing south to
utilise thermal gain for what little winter sunlight is available.

A typical hot desert type climate house benefits from a massive masonry
constructon with huge overhanging eaves and possibly very think tiled
rooves - its not uncommon to see three or four layers of cement bound
tiles - such a hiouse can utilise cold nights to cool the whole
structure, and keep ity cool and shaded in the midafteroon heat.

In the US in the desert it merely sports a huge energy guzzling air
conditioner: energy is cheaper than masonry. Go figure.

Planting trees and parks can locally reduce the flooding problems and
cool areas of cities. Etc. Etc.

The answer to reducing energy consumption in e.g. the USA is simply to
ensure that oil prices spiral upwards - as they are doing. Once oil
becomes a rare and percious commodity, more cost effective energy
sources become competitve, and energy saving becimes plain finacial
comon sese.

The problem is that by then we will have turned the climate back into
what it was pre the carboniferous era..which was a climate suitable for
growing vast amount of primitive trees in a global swamp.

Not particularly kind to humans.

Euprope has quite accidentally had a huge energy tax for years..which is
why European cars are simply more efficient than e.g. US ones.

Eeyore wrote:

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
The genuinely sad thing is that most allegedly 'green' ideas for
alternative energy actually have a net negative impact when compared with a
more
measured scientific approach of equivalent cost. It's the classic story of
the road
to hell being paved with good intentions.
Ann Coulter wrote a marvelous article some time ago about all the new
mfg plants, mining, plastics, and transport costs of the new green tech
being implemented. What a nightmare!

Talking of which, are you familiar with the 'fallout' from the EU's demand for
lead-free electronics

Apparently no-one considered the impact of the additional tin mining. Mostly tin
mining isn't in the EU as it happens so they simply exported some new
environmental problems. Oh, except there weren't actually any 'environmental
problems' from leaded solder to begin with ! Well, actually let's say that
no-one (in the Comission) considered very much actually other than making a
supposedly 'green' statement. It's accepted that 'lead-free' will reduce the
reliability of electronics and hence its useful lifetime (which is rather
un-green to my way of thinking) but apparently that's OK as long an illusion of
'green-ness' is achieved.

And the next cracking joke is this one !

As the demand for green 'carbon neutral' bio-fuel increases, palm oil production
in Asia is being increased. To do this they BURN OFF more of their rainforest !
Carbon-neutral my ass !

So, a green political whim in Europe results in wholesale rainforest
destruction. BRILLIANT !

Yup.

Governementst should refrain from working out how to save energy:
Instead they should concentrate o making CO2 production an extremely
expensive option worldwide, and let the market sort out what happens next.

If the tax on home fuel and gas and on industrial fuel was te same as
that on road fuel, no one would accept a house that was anything else
than insulated to the sort of standard you might see in central Canada.



Graham

Eeyore wrote:

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:10:11 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

I've yet to see any example of 'alternative energy generation' make as
much as an ounce of financial sense for anyone 'on-grid'. Every single
time, it'll
be massively outperformed by equivalent energy efficiency and insulation
measures when total energy requirements are examined truthfully.
I have yet to see a publication by say Friends of the Earth on
energy which does not say that one must first reduce energy
consumption by things like insulation and only then consider
"alternative" methods of generation.

Your point is moot.
It's highly relevant to the wider issue of building expensive alternative
energy generation when half our homes aren't insulated to the the latest
standards.

The money should be spent on *giving* us the insulation for free or at
notional cost IMHO.
The money shouldn't be spent by the govt. It should be spent by the
people who want whatever it is; alt. energy, or more insulation. Otherwise,
you have a Nanny State.

Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I regret
that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.


The average joe CAN in his sphere of influence: No one would e.g.
actually burn expenisve furniture if they could e.g. sell it and buy
more fuel than is in the furniture.. global warming is a bit like
that..we are burning the global furniture because it is plentiful and free..

We don;t need legislation, we need taxation.

If the trip to Tescos cost £50 you would think twice about getting in
the car to do it.

Heck, you could afford to pay a *rickshaw* to do it for you, at that price.






Yes, it seems a little 'nannying' may be in order.

Graham

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I
regret that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.

Yes, it seems a little 'nannying' may be in order.

I don't mind 'nannying' from an intelligent nanny who understands the
issues and makes a sensible rule. Sadly this exempts every politician and
civil servant.


Usd not to when we had career civil servants drawn from top educational
establishments: Sadly they had a habit of pointing out politically
embarassing things. Kelly? Who was Kelly...