Global Warming Stuff

[_sabotage_]

What a whole thread of fuckwits and not one single rope to hang me with? Come on, any? I linked direct papers with direct quotes, I guess I'm just eccentric that way and you guys don't need evidence.

You might be wondering, WTF is METS on about...that's right. There are key elements that need to exist to substantiate AGW. But in all those key elements, they have failed. They have searched extensively for a hotspot, which would verify their model. No success. Must suck. We've heard the ice cap predictions and about those climate scientists getting stuck in the ice, too bad they didn't understand weather. Rising temperatures with increased CO2 levels, sorry, didn't happen.

They got nothing.

[Metsfanmax]

You might be wondering, WTF is METS on about...that's right.

If so, it simply means that you haven't given sufficient thought to the idea of how scientific hypotheses are verified. sabotage's question is the equivalent of asking me to point out the studies that prove the key ideas of evolution by natural selection. One would not even know where to begin. Our massive confidence in that theory has been built up by 150 years of study of many independent lines of evidence. The best I could do when asked a question like that is to tell the questioner to get a biology textbook, read it, and then follow the references for more information. The very form of the question implies that the questioner is not sufficiently prepared to receive an answer.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

you sound like my wife,

Your wife is a wise woman, hang on to her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TsFwsyn97U

This structure was designed to provide fast construction of houses which are resistant to accidental loads. They are very clever and solve a massive problem in providing mass accommodation to certain parts of the world.

Earthen structures, the traditional techniques in these areas are more sustainable, so its very odd that you post this in a global warming thread.

If you want to question my credentials to discuss this, my personal tutor at university designed the ecoshell's rival. I have am not nitpicking, I just prefer to discuss the future of construction with my peers who also know what they are talking about.

[_sabotage_]

It's odd that you post nothing in a global warming thread when you have credentials to do something.

It's like a table of folks sitting around saying a rocks rolling at them and no one suggests moving out of the way.

You my dear little bullshiter are the kind of guy that people have to wrestle away to stop from congesting a site.

You brought up reinforced concrete. I brought up a wide ranged vastly accessible lightweight, stronger than steel alternative. Now you're complaining about me suggesting it. How was that dick you ate?

"Hempcret doesn't fit into my solution, but I don't have a solution." Sit down.

NPR has a thing which tells you your chance at being iroboted out of a pay check,
Yours just says "yes" and you're mistaken enough to think you can shit on, just by virtue of the sheer wide ranging access, some of the key raw materials they'll be using without you.

[_sabotage_]

Mets, in the 90's you had me, 2000's you had me, but then you never had the evidence, still don't and don't give a shit. Way to science bro.

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, in the 90's you had me, 2000's you had me, but then you never had the evidence, still don't and don't give a shit. Way to science bro.

I didn't even graduate college until 2010 and I certainly didn't have a scientific opinion on climate change before then. So I think you must have me mistaken with somebody else.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

It's odd that you post nothing in a global warming thread when you have credentials to do something.

I have no power to do anything until clients are motivated by something other than cost. I have posted in this thread to agree with Mets suggestion that there needs to be monetary incentives.

When have I complained about your suggestions? I merely explained the difficulties with the options you put across. This was to point out that they all require capital investment for further research. They wont get this capital investment unless there is an economic reason to do so. AND were back to the idea of monetarily incentivising carbon reductions. Funny that.

To be honest it doesnt really matter what you say anymore. One of is responding politely and engaging in a discussion, the other is throwing out petty insults because he lacks knowledge. Conversation is over.

[Phatscotty]

Funny how science can never be wrong. That's the danger of Atheism. Fundamentalists, even though not religious, remain.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Funny how science can never be wrong. That's the danger of Atheism.

What is that comment related to? Engineering isnt science, we assume that the science has errors, otherwise things would fall down.

[Phatscotty]

Funny how science can never be wrong. That's the danger of Atheism.

What is that comment related to? Engineering isnt science, we assume that the science has errors, otherwise things would fall down.

related to people like Metz who make comments like 'science says this...' and the attitude that no dissent can be legitimate. Kinda like how religious people cannot legitimately believe homosexuality is a sin

[Metsfanmax]

Funny how science can never be wrong.

Of course science can be wrong. I just don't believe that you or sabotage are capable of figuring out when it's wrong, and so I ignore your pronouncements when you say that it is wrong. This shouldn't be insulting or offensive; it should just reflect the fact that you are not scientists.

[Phatscotty]

May be off as I haven't read all the post. At any rate, people want to change things for a reason. Some of those reasons some people believe and some don't. People will disagree if it's man made or not, or if it's even happening. Many will say to change for no reason is stupid.
I say really? Look at the pictures of some of the most polluted places in the world. We DO KNOW that is man made. And if it's not happening, and we try to prevent it anyway, what is the worst that could really happen? I think it's safe to assume we can all agree that fresh air to breath and clean water to drink is a GOOD thing.

I guess that depends on exactly how something is going to be prevented. Is the prevention giving up auto-mobiles and airplanes? Or is it a government filled with lawyers possessing hearts of gold who only want to help the people and in no way are going to try to help themselves? What if a government is corrupt and has other primary concerns like expanding it's own power along side granting favors to special interests and political donors?

Example of what's wrong with your statement: 9-11 happens. We try to prevent more 9-11's, right? So we invade Iraq. Even if invading Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11 or preventing another 9-11, at least something good will happen because Saddam killed his own people. I think it's safe to assume we can all agree that removing Saddam Hussein was a GOOD thing.

[Phatscotty]

Funny how science can never be wrong.

Of course science can be wrong. I just don't believe that you or sabotage are capable of figuring out when it's wrong, and so I ignore your pronouncements when you say that it is wrong. This shouldn't be insulting or offensive; it should just reflect the fact that you are not scientists.

well, clearly you are not capable of listening to reason or understanding the many times I have flat out told you when it's wrong. Yes, I know you ignore stuff you don't like, and that is the EXACT reason I called out fundamentalists in the first place, especially concerning atheists.

I repeat for the 10th time that I don't have to be a scientist to figure out something is wrong when scientists predict the sky will fall because of global cooling in the 70's and 80's, and then scientists predict the sky will fall because of global warming in the 90's and 00's, and then scientists have to change the name to 'climate change' because the scientific based prediction the arctic shelf would disappear in 2014 did not happen, and neither did any of the sky is falling predictions scientists have made in my lifetime. This is just to say, any normal person possessing olfactories is capable of smelling bullshit. One doesn't have to be a scientist to have the credentials to smell bullshit properly. In fact, history shows the person who is usually the most full of shit is the one who builds an exoskeleton of specialized education around their steaming pile, and whenever someone says they smell your bullshit, you demand to see their phd in science to confirm whether they truly do smell the shit or if you can claim your shit really smells like roses and they are just too stupid to know the difference

[_sabotage_]

Yes, because all solutions cost more.

http://imgur.com/eJdWdJM

Here's the hempcrete house my friend built. Just showing off his joining, sorry about the picture. What about hempcrete is more expensive? Canada has lots of the very material. There's a guy not too far who has 600 acres worth just being stored. He can't find a buyer. Since you know everything, I'm sure you are aware that the hemp stalk, which we mainly just throw away, just requires shredding and a binder.

My friend wasn't aware of that because he listened to folks like you. He assumed you need to decorticate the hemp first. This has been Canada's big excuse, we could do lots of things with hemp, but the processing facilities cost so much. Well, it's just not true. Australia has lots of hemp houses, all using the entire stalk. Several international studies prove that it isn't needed. But then there are folks like you who don't suggest anything and shit on everything and my friend takes you on your word. He imported his hemp from Europe at 8 times the cost of buying from this guy who has no customers because of the same bullshit.

So yeah, he ended up paying more, not due to any intrinsic cost, but due to people who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

He won't be paying more in the future.

So I had a professor interested in doing a study on hemp. He ties it to global warming and gets a 25k grant, the same sort of grant that is provided for my current work. Grants been given, so he tries to get access to some material. Most hemp stalk in Canada is laid to waste. We grow hemp for seed, it's sewn more sparsely than seed plants and harvested later. The fibre is not the intended product, although some interesting products have come out of it: .

So you have a lot of material laid to waste, a grant to study it, facilities, private parties backing it, and a farmer with a product taking up space.

I bought an ounce yesterday. It's pretty easy to get weed in Canada. You can order online, I know many folks with a license, I know many folks without a license who grow. It's not legal like some people have been lead to believe. It actually carries a mandatory minimum sentence. But if you want it, it's cheap and available.

Industrial hemp is that which contains less than 0.3% THC. It can't get you high. You must buy from a breeder and pay for testing to ensure that your plants comply. It would seem that should be enough. But it isn't: you need a license to research, transport, store, process or package hemp.

To get the license, you need to apply before hand for a specific harvest. That guy with 600 acres can never legally sell it. No one can ever be licensed to transport, or research it.

So my professor has begun his application process. With luck, he can find a farmer willing to grow and undertake the application process. He can hope to find a trucker willing to apply for a transport license to make a single shipment. If licensed, he can then start research with luck after 18 months.

Meanwhile, we need solutions that are cheaper. We have them, we just can't access them due to the same kind of fucks who will be overseeing carbon taxes.

You essentially are saying that solutions must cost more. You are a dumbass.

Fly ash is a waste product. It was dumped. A friend of mine, retired now, was the first person in Nova Scotia to start collecting it and using it as a material. The government caught on and issued exclusive rights to the biggest company around. I contacted them for weeks trying to get some. I got the runaround. Another extremely cheap product that could help localize the materials industry which only existing major players who have no interest in doing so can access it.

Yeah, it's good but...

But eat a dick. The Chinese are printing buildings out of sand. We will see all wide ranging materials become ink, but not with the help of folks like you or folks intent on the idea we can't handle any of our problems or who can only point out the downfalls without looking for ways around them. For being an obstacle to humanity: eat a dick. Have a dick buffet.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

No I cannot get excited about Hempcrete, the future replacement of the humble clay brick. I have no desire to build houses.

Try reading

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Fly ash is a waste product. It was dumped. A friend of mine, retired now, was the first person in Nova Scotia to start collecting it and using it as a material. The government caught on and issued exclusive rights to the biggest company around. I contacted them for weeks trying to get some. I got the runaround. Another extremely cheap product that could help localize the materials industry which only existing major players who have no interest in doing so can access it.

I have indeed specified Fly Ash for use as fill material. There is an environment agency regulation in the UK which allows its use as long as certain measures are taken. We specify it a fair bit for embankment constructions if we cannot achieve zero fill material importation for the scheme.

Oh I'm sorry, this doesnt fit your narrative does it.

[_sabotage_]

Mets

NASA: CO2 is one of the most efficient coolants in the upper atmosphere.

John Hopkins: water vapor mitigates cooling.

Water vapor is 12000+ times more emitted than man-made CO2. It goes up and comes back down. That is, between ground and cloud, it passes CO2 on the way up and down.

Since AGW theory suggests that CO2 receives positive feedbacks from things such as water vapor, how have climate scientists adjusted their theory based on these discoveries?

This isn't sabotage or PS, these are your scientists. I guess they can't figure it out either, so just ignore their "pronouncements".

[_sabotage_]

Yeah, I read your shitty comment, the humble clay brick.

http://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/insigh ... ty-awards/

Guess the ability to breath and passively regulate humidity while conserving energy with excellent thermal properties, not off-gassing equals, being carbon-neutral and a renewable resource equals humble clay brick.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Thats a steel structural frame building with hempcrete cladding. Its replaced the clay brick. I fail to see your point. My comment was valid.

[_sabotage_]

Did I say we don't use flyash? What I said and the entire point of the post, is that regulation and the promulgation of existing business models acts to obstruct competition. The same shitty companies which have polluted the world are the ones which are allowed to guide it's development.

We have no interest in losing GDP and in no way intend make things cheaper and longer lasting. But you will be displaced regardless. So instead of being a punk, maybe you should get on board.

Let me try: we have a hemp house in Nova Scotia, so obviously it's accessible, that doesn't fit my narrative either.

Narrative still fits. People still can't access basic, cheap materials and experiment. When we do, such as the the Earthship, we put regulation in the way. Never hear a climate scientist discussing Earthships. While Mike Reynolds spent years fighting bureaucracy to be allowed to develop a zero energy housing solution, where were the climate scientist? Where are they now? Don't hear them supporting, promoting, aiding, publishing or funding it. When an inspector claimed it wasn't stable, he drove a dump truck up its back to prove its structural integrity. Didn't mean shit.

Why would we expect anything to change? Here, there you go, there's your carbon tax, now will you let us develop ideas to avoid paying? I don't think so.

The future will look very different from today. It will be slightly held back by folks like you, but when Chinese companies are printing with sand, hemp, basalt, taking advantage of environment and natural passive processes, your industry will cease to exist. You are an expert at hunting dodos.

[mrswdk]

The sceptics can say what they like, but it's 40C in Beijing today and it was 40C yesterday.

Your move, deniers.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Ironically, I'm writing a study that will assume climate change as given and the reason for the study. It has nothing to do with climate change, but has a lot to do with efficient use of resources. So, yes, I guess I'll do anything for money.

This genuinely concerns me.

[mrswdk]

Nah, it means sab has his priorities straight. Money > boring climate nonsense.

[_sabotage_]

You fail to see my point.

Does clay brick breathe? How well does it insulate? Is it carbon neutral? Is it cheaper? More recyclable? Is it a renewable resource? Can it be grown pole to pole? Does it require skilled labor? Heavy complimentary industry? How are they comparable?

Would a fairer statement have been, hempcrete offers a wide ranging resource that revolutionizes the green building interesting while cutting cost, decentralizing resources, easing processing requirements and possessing potential for development?

It's not cladding. The archives were housed in a steel building and an inner building was pre-fabbed and erected within it. Archives are quite interesting. Seems for thousands of years, engineers have understood methods of maintaining temperature using natural passive methods. And yet industry somehow managed to ignore them while building shitty houses that they will be rehired to replace when they fall to pieces.

I wonder if folks like you had a hand in it?

[_sabotage_]

Snow in June here, back to you, Mrs. (Weather is not climate!)