[Strawbale] Straw bale building for cold weather?
mark at lowenergydesign...
Fri Mar 2 18:58:56 CET 2007
NB: This is a one-off posting. Donald McHardy's post (quoted below)
cannot go unchallenged, but I do not wish to enter into long debate on
global warming on what is supposed to be a strawbale list.
I'm always curious as to why some people choose to take disproportionate
notice of the tiny minority of climatologists who doubt climate change
theory. And ignore the vast majority of climatologists who endorse the
theory because they are familiar with the piles and piles of
painstakingly-accumulated and assessed evidence for it.
So, Donald, what's the reason in your case? My initial hypothesis is
that you are basically ignorant on the subject - don't get me wrong,
that's not an insult - it's a specialist subject, and most people are
deeply ignorant about it because they have never had the opportunity to
study the science behind it and don't have enough mathematical skills to
understand how climate modelling works. There are very few people who
are not ignorant in the way I am using the word. For myself, I have
experience in a related area of mathematical modelling, and I have a
reasonable understanding of the underlying science, but I still consider
myself ignorant because it is not my specialist area.
But you can maybe disprove that hypothesis by answering the following
questions. Have you read the IPCC reports which represent the
scientific consensus on the issue? Or just the apparently-plausible
output of the climate change denial industry? When you have read the
latter, have your researched it to find out (a) who is funding it, and
(b) what the credentials of the author are? Have you attempted to get
beyond the popular media treatment and learn some of the science? If
you have read the IPCC reports, can you present a coherent critique of
the findings set out in them? Which parameters in the mainstream
climate models do you think are being handled inadequately, how would
you change them, and why? Which of the historic data used to test and
refine the mainstream models is unreliable, and why?
Maybe you will demonstrate that you are not as ignorant as I think you
are, Donald. But if you are, I have to ask why you think you have a
right to disagree with the overwhelming weight of expert opinion on the
I also don't see what being a government employee has to do with this.
Governments have no vested interest in taking the action required to
mitigate climate change, as is shown by the lacklustre efforts of
virtually every government in the world. Your argument on this issue is
unclear, Donald - no logical structure to it at all.
But in any case I have never heard of university researchers being
pressured to take a line in favour of climate change theory. What I
have seen is reliable reports of the denial industry attempting to bribe
them to cast doubt on the consensus, and of pressure by a senior US
government official to the same end. The denial industry (just like the
tobacco and asbestos industries before it) is well-funded, thanks to
Exxon and a few other companies (and well-connected in US government
circles). It is able to buy a few scientists over to its point of view,
and fund a few others who were outside of the consensus anyway. It also
has a highly effective media operation, which has successfully taken
advantage of the lack of scientific understanding of numerous
journalists to get carefully-spun stories out in the public domain. Now
I think that their scepticism probably does some good in ensuring that
mainstream theory is even more carefully examined and checked than it
would otherwise have been. And as a scientist I am all in favour of
scepticism, but for goodness sake apply your scepticism to this
massively funded financially- and ideologically-motivated operation, not
just to mainstream scientific theory.
I will not post again on this subject on the list, which should be about
strawbale, and quite honestly I have better things to do with my time
than argue with climate change deniers. But, Donald, if you can give
good answers to my questions above, I will be genuinely interested to
donald mchardy wrote:
>> "Promotion of Straw Bale Building for the Climate Change Mitigation".
> Is this climate change warming or cooling?
> people, people, people...
> We all have to realise that if there is any global warming, it's
> likely due to the sun, not humans.
> But in any case, the earth may be cooling rather than warming (and
> those old enough to recall have to remember that the "big threat"
> 30-40 years ago was global cooling)
> and many, many, many others
> If we are to discuss and talk about thermal properties wrt strabale or
> anything else, we ought to have a working knowledge of the facts *as
> they are known*.
> What we do have is imminent peak oil and a global resource grab for
> what is left. Either government can educate the populace about peak
> oil and precipitate strong social "activity" or babble about global
> warming, promote pliability and leave avenues open for even greater
> population control and erosion of personal freedoms, all in the name
> of eg "fighting terrorism"?
> Remember any meteorologist/scientist who works for a university is a
> government emplyee. Any meteorologist/scientist who works for a large
> media/news organisation is effectively a government employee. ergo
> they will tow the line for fear of losing their job. It is happening
> Straw-bale has great thermal properties, it is beautiful to live in,
> it's even fun to build and can forever be extended, changed around or
> whatever. But we are not building these things to prevent global warming.
> Rates near 39yr lows! $430K Loan for $1,399/mo - Paying Too Much?
> Calculate new payment
> European strawbale building discussion list
> Send all messages to:
> Strawbale at amper....muni.cz
> Archives, subscription options, etc:
More information about the Strawbale