Subject: Re: HELP NEEDED SUSTAINABLE LIVING IN IRELAND
From: alansch@zip.com.au (Alan Schneider)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:17:00 GMT
Aoighlaigh Ni Bucaillaigh wrote:
_>Amazing, I post an honest question and apart from some nice
_>folks who e-mailed me I get attacked????!!!
_>I am amazed by the sheer miserable, negative and vicious
_>elements in cyberland.
_>Bollox to technology if this is what it leads to.
I sympathise, but don't blame technology. You are always
going to find minorities of low-lifes who get their jollies from
upsetting other people. The best response is to ignore them
completely (often difficult, I know). [Possibly even better is
to make a big joke out of it and make the whacko look
totally ridiculous - that really tends to get them where they
live.]
People who do this sort of thing face-to-face often finish
up with bruises and other miscellaneous contusions for
their efforts. They either reform, or get to like being
black-and-blue. Unfortunately the Internet does not provide
for such corrective actions.
Cheer up though, Aoighlaigh. Not *all* netizens are bad.
Alan
======================================================
Quantum Mechanics: The Dreams that Stuff is made of.
- Michael Sinz
======================================================
Subject: Re: Some books about earlier EVs v ICVs wars.
From: tjebb@srd.bt.co.uk (Tim Jebb)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 10:27:42 GMT
In article <329b1084.414006235@Newshost.grace.cri.nz>,
B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz says...
>This is more of a brief pointer to some of the historical data on EVs.
This is a very interesting post.
>Most sci.energy, sci.environment readers will know that I doubt that
>EVs will be a significant transportation option for the next couple
>of decades, and so I'm going to leave you with a quote from chapter
>12 of Taking Charge, entitled Prognosis for the Electric Car. I've
>enjoyed reading the above books, but more than anything they've
>reinforced my opinion that until there is a battery that can provide
>cost-effective storage of energy ( when compared to gasoline ), and
>vehicles that can provide performance, range, purchase and operating
>costs that match or exceed ICV in existing transportation roles, then
>EVs will remain a niche player, whether regulated into existance or
>not.
At the risk of asking you a question which you may well have been asked n
times before where n is a number between 0 and infinity minus one, and
possibly even by me, What do you think about electric cars powered by
fuel cells? I'm interested in the detail of your opinion rather than a
one liner.
Subject: Marketing in the Internet Survey
From: hblim@gamma.ntu.ac.sg (Thylacine carpe diem !)
Date: 27 Nov 96 09:47:03 +0800
Hi!
Though this is not directly related to this newsgroup, I hope you can bear with
me for a while (I don't know how else to get enough traffic volume).
I'm doing a Masters thesis on Marketing in the Internet. From the project, I
hope to find out what YOU as a consumer/user, feel about certain issues
regarding the use of Internet. This is a personal project, and is not related
to any commercial company.
For the compiled data to be useful, I need to get as many responses as
possible. So could you _please_ help me out and fill in a form on my web page?
There are altogether 50 questions and it'll take about 20 minutes to complete.
Please also pass the address to as many friends and colleagues as possible too.
This survey is international, so you don't have to restrict it to local friends
only.
The WWW address is
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/~hblim/usersurvey.html
The closing date is 31 Dec 1996. But do check it out earlier so that I can
start the tedious compilation process as soon as possible.
What you can get out of this survey:
If you fill in your email address, I WILL send you the results of this
survey, probably sometime in April to June 1997.
Thank you very much.
Lim Huey Bing
hblim@ntu.edu.sg
Marketing in the Internet User Survey
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/~hblim/usersurvey.html
Personal web page (under construction) http://www.ntu.edu.sg/~hblim
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (was Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!)
From: jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 11:54:18 GMT
Jeremy Whitlock (cz725@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
:
: William Royea (royea@cco.caltech.edu) writes:
: >> http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/thisweek/preview/chernobyl/concls17.html
: [snip]
: > I don't know how many people died as a result, but I'd bet my life it
: > was a lot more than 31.
According to an article on page 84 of the may issue of
Spektrum der Wissenschaft (I fell accross this today)
'Immediately after the accident 187 people were struck
with accute radiation poisoning. 31 of them died. Most
of these early victims were firemen, helicopter piolets
and workers at the power plant who fought the fire
which started immediately after the explosion.'
further on..
About 30,000 of the 400,000 so called Liquidators who
worked on cleaning up the most dangerous remains and
building the sarkophagus are sick. 5000 have syptoms
which are so bad that they cannot work.'
The article was written by Juri M. Schtscherbak who is
ambassador to the US from the Ukraine, but at the time
of the explosion was an epimediologist (published) and
traveled to the site at the time of the explosion.
:
: And many people believe that TMI contaminated thousands of square miles of
: land i
that Chernobyl did, unfortunately.
josh halpern
and killed hundreds. People are entitled to think what they wish,
: but when a good industry is threatened because of misinformation, then
: it's time to get involved.
:
: --
: Jeremy Whitlock
: cz725@freenet.carleton.ca
: Visit "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ" at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/
--
Subject: Re: Heidelberg Appeal
From: jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 12:03:38 GMT
D. Deming (ddeming@geophysics.scif.uoknor.edu) wrote:
: In article <5756a0$fk3@service3.uky.edu>, TL ADAMS
: wrote:
: > ddeming@geophysics.scif.uoknor.edu (D. Deming) wrote:
NIP,,,,,
: Its enough that my future is being stolen from me now by
: social security, medicare, welfare, and medicaid recipients--
: to name just a few of the freeloaders in our society.
:
Well, they gave you your present and future, so what
the hell. Or did you spring full grown from the ocean?
Josh Halpern
--
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 12:57:49 GMT
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> hblask says:
>
> >That's not the implication of the statement at all. Think of >capitalism
> >as comparable to the scientific methohod. Both are seeking results >which
> >improve on previous results. Occasionally, they veer off into the
> Interfering with an experiment is the antithesis of science. The
> scientific method is an approach to exploring and interpreting nature,
> not a means of interfering with ro controlling it. It would be more
> true to say that capitalism is a set of constraints on the distribution
> of wealth and hence is closer to an experimental apparatus or a set of
> boundary conditions, continually adjusted while the experiment is
> underway in order to force a desirable result. There's really no
> comparison between capitalism and the scientific method.
The search for truth under science is similar to the search for
"improved standards of living" or "value" under capitalism. Neither
defines what the end result will look like, but define a flexible
framework so that each can proceed toward their goal in a trial-and-
error manner. Capitalism doesn't declare "person X should have $Y"
or "Product Z should succeed now". It says "let each person determine
what is of value to themselves, and pursue that, and those that are
best at creating value will succeed", in the same way that
science says "let each person decide what truth is to them, and those
ideas which work best in the real world will succeed."
I'm not explaining this well. I understand the objections to my
original post, and they are well taken, but they miss the point.
>
> Furthermore, most of those who extol capitalism have already decided
> that capitalism is the economic system of choice, so they are really
> asking no questions about it at all. It is a dogma, not an hypothesis.
> It's proponents are strident and rather shallow-minded priests, not
> scientists.
Serious scientists do not question the scientific method, only whether
the method has been followed properly. Trial and error is the best
method we know for solving problems in this world.
hblask
PS - another post by you with blatant, irrelevant insults. I win!
Subject: Re: HELP NEEDED SUSTAINABLE LIVING IN IRELAND
From: jcallan@tcd.ie (John Callan)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 10:37:57 GMT
>
> This is the purest invention. There is no reference to or even
> suggestion of "laziness" in any of my posts. Nor is there any
> suggestion of anything but sympathy for the victims of the potato
> famine. My only point was that it was an unproductive technology.
>
> Everything els that people are attacking here is in the minds of the
> attackers -- as can easily be seen by scrollig back to my posts,
> immediately above.
>
> -dlj.
>
I am not making attacks, or anything of the sort, but the tone of your
comment and what it may have implied, could cause some people to be
offended. The correct causes of the famine have already been mentioned
here already, so I will not repeat them. I will repeat my request of you,
and others like you, to be more aware of people's sensitivities in the
future. We are not talking about some trivial matter here - our country
was decimated by the events of the 1840's, and the repercussions are still
felt today. Our population was cut almost by a two thirds - TWO THIRDS -
and has not recovered in the 150 years or so since. Whole counties became
'ghost' counties in the space of a few years. People were forced to be
removed from the places and people that they loved. I hope this
illustrates the devastation the effect of the Famine has had on this
country.
John Callan.
Subject: Re: The Netherlands Fallacy (was: Christianity and indifference to nature)
From: andrewt@cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 00:32:17 +1100
In article <57ggsd$on5@nntp.interaccess.com>,
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>For some reason this did not prevent you from presenting your opinion
>on the issue, and concluding Prof. McCarthy was incorrect. I wonder
>how you reached this conclusion (meditation? flipping a coin? simply
>from personal dislike?)
Paul Dietz has misread my postng, I didn't conclude John McCarthy
was incorrect about thermodynamics. I concluded he was incorrect
in an old statement regarding conservation of mass and trophic levels.
As John McCarthy more recently made the opposite claim, I think I'm
on safe ground.
But don't worry, after visiting the library I've concluded John McCarthy
was wrong about thermodynamics too. Paul Dietz can criticise my more
recent posting instead.
Andrew Taylor
Subject: BIPHOREP-www
From: jrinne@hera (Janne Rinne)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 09:29:12 GMT
URL of BIPHOREP-pages changes from http://www.fmi.fi/~biphorep/
to http://www.pub.fmi.fi/~biphorep/ on 28.11.
There are also two posters in the pages presented in
Venice, October 2.-4. 1996:
*Biogenic VOC emissions and photochemistry in the boreal regions of
Europe, Laurila et al.
*Concentrations of biogenic VOCs and ozone at a North European site,
Laurila et al.
--
Janne Rinne | e-mail: janne.rinne@fmi.fi
Ilmatieteen laitos, Ilmanlaadun tutkimus | puh: 09-19295511
Sahaajankatu 20 E, 4 krs., 00810 Helsinki |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projekti: http://www.fmi.fi/~biphorep/
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:06:23 GMT
Matt Kennel (mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu) wrote:
: Brian Carnell (briand@net-link.net) wrote:
: : On 22 Nov 1996 05:58:18 GMT, sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis) wrote:
: : >Are we supporting the population of today?
: : No, largely because of governmental policies and civil wars in the
: : Third World which prevent those nations from producing as much food as
: : they could. We've got too many Zaires and Sudans.
: I agree with this, but one must consider the possibility that the
: screwed up governmental policies and civil wars are significantly exacerbated
: by existing local overpopulation.
Not a possibility, but a certainty! This is so obvious that only a
complete ideological fanatic will fail to see the connection. Fanatic
with a hidden agenda...
Yuri.
--
Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
------------------------| is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
Toronto ... the Earth | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
-------- A WEBPAGE LIKE ANY OTHER: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----------
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 23:34:12 +1100
Paul F. Dietz at none wrote:
>eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>
>>Once more it is springtime, and the Antarctic ozone hole begins to
>>expand. And yet again the same old ignorant clap-trap is rolled
>>out through the media.
>
>Now, which is more likely:
>
>(1) That an entire scientific community has published results that
> appear to conclusively show that anthropogenic chlorine and bromine
> are the cause of the Antarctic ozone hole, but it's actually just
> grand conspiracy,
>
1. The 'entire' scientific community does not agree. That synthetic
organochlorides are involved is not in question. But whether they are
the sole or even the major CAUSE ...?
>or
>
>(2) you're a fool.
>
> Having read enough of the primary literature, I know where I'd
>cast my vote.
Anyone who believes everything they read is a fool.
My viewpoint on this matter comes from extensive investigation. I
find nowhere any conclusions to scientific studies which discount
the idea that ozone depletion is a natural phenomenon, and I find
plenty of reasons to suggest that it has little or no importance
consequences as a biological hazard.
...Greig
Subject: Re: Sting: Another enviro-moron
From: Peter Stroot
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:58:41 -0500
Scott LaRoche wrote:
>
> It's good that wealthy rock star, noted scientist and environmental spokesperson Sting
> is so environmentally-sensitive. It's really important that Sting, who luvs the
> rainforest (not jungle!) and birds and wetlands (not swamps!) uses his private jet to
> flit between concerts.
>
> Gosh, we can't have Sting slumming it on commercial flights with the rest of us. He's
> worth that extra 20,000 gallons of jet fuel every day because, well, he's
> environmentally-sensitive.
>
> Same with noted environmental scientist Woody Harrelson. We should all be so glad they
> care about the world we live in.
wasn't sting the one who believes in population control?
i recall that his wife has squeezed out a few puppies...
actions speak louder than words....
could someone list the enviro-stars' credentials?
neil young is another one....
love his music, don't want to hear his views.
yet another one.....rem.
went to a concert to hear music and all i got
was a bunch greenpeace and amnesty international crap.
to all entertainers:
entertain, don't lecture.
i'll go to school for a lecture.
scrood
the engineer formerly known as stroot
to hell with the path of least resistance,
i'm on the path of greatest interest....
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: scotterb@maine.maine.edu
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 96 09:58:45 EST
In article <329B9AC2.1DDC@ix.netcom.com>, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>> That's because markets are not perfect. To claim they are would be to
>> compare capitalism not to science, but to magic. It's not a utopia,
markets
>> work better than planned economies,
>
>I ask:
>
>What makes you think that the economy we're calling capitalism isn't
>planned? It always struck me as being planned quite well and for a long
>time. The time came to implement it and it was implemented. If so, I
>am very interested in finding out who in particular planned this
>economy, because I have a very long list of grievances to nail to their
>collective foreheads.
"Planned economy" is a specific term used to describe government planning of
production, prices, etc. It is inferior to market economies because price
can better communicate demand; planners often become mere bureaucrats
protecting their own turf.
However, pure markets don't work all that well sometimes due to greed for
short term individual gain, miscommunication, misinformation, and
psychological factors such as panic, fear, uncertainty, and over-confidence.
The result has been a mixture of government involvement and market economics.
The type of mix varies from the relatively liberal capitalism (liberal = less
government intervention) of the US to the Social Democractic/corporatist
capitalism of Sweden and Austria (and other West European countries).
In the third world, esp. SE Asia and the Newly Industrializing countries,
states are very involved in the markets to (so far rather successfully) try
to build a comparative advantage for themselves.
If there is a better system than some state/market mix, I'd love to hear it.
I'm not sure what the right state/market mix is, though by comparing
evidence I'd lean towards a bit more social democracy.
-scott
Subject: Re: Hanson's latest and Yuri's added errors.
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 15:55:41 GMT
David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: On 26 Nov 1996 16:35:05 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >Scarcity is not just something that happens to "them" out there in
: >Africa. The real wages have been dropping steadily in the US and Canada
: >in the last 20 years.
:
: This is not correct.
What is not correct, Dave?
: The real wages of working class families in the US dropped from 1981
: until the second quarter of this year.
This is so lame, Dave... You actually contradict yourself two lines later!
So you agree that the wages have dropped?
: There were two reasons for this: the reduction in the sizes of such
: families through the multiplication of single person and sigle parent
: families,
This is an obvious non sequitur. Dropping real wages have NOTHING AT ALL
TO DO with the above.
: and the right wing policies of the Reagan and Bush
: Administrations which reshaped the distribution of income sharply in
: favour of th wealthy.
Here you may actually have a point. Unusual -- for dlj.
: Total wealth, however, grew over the whole of
: this period.
Per capita wealth? Whatever this means...
You have to actually start THINKING, Dave, before you leap...
I will post here some actual stats in the next post, for you to deal with.
Yuri.
--
** Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto **
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Subject: Re: Hanson's latest and Yuri's added errors.
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 15:55:41 GMT
David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: On 26 Nov 1996 16:35:05 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >Scarcity is not just something that happens to "them" out there in
: >Africa. The real wages have been dropping steadily in the US and Canada
: >in the last 20 years.
:
: This is not correct.
What is not correct, Dave?
: The real wages of working class families in the US dropped from 1981
: until the second quarter of this year.
This is so lame, Dave... You actually contradict yourself two lines later!
So you agree that the wages have dropped?
: There were two reasons for this: the reduction in the sizes of such
: families through the multiplication of single person and sigle parent
: families,
This is an obvious non sequitur. Dropping real wages have NOTHING AT ALL
TO DO with the above.
: and the right wing policies of the Reagan and Bush
: Administrations which reshaped the distribution of income sharply in
: favour of th wealthy.
Here you may actually have a point. Unusual -- for dlj.
: Total wealth, however, grew over the whole of
: this period.
Per capita wealth? Whatever this means...
You have to actually start THINKING, Dave, before you leap...
I will post here some actual stats in the next post, for you to deal with.
Yuri.
--
** Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto **
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Subject: Re: Hanson's latest and Yuri's added errors.
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 16:11:53 GMT
Here's some info about the falling real wages in the US. They come from
the preface to the following book. The complete preface is available on
the Web.
Regards,
Yuri.
Reclaiming Prosperity:
A blueprint for progressive economic reform
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Preface by Lester Thurow
Edited by Todd Schafer and Jeff Faux
from M.E. Sharpe Inc., Publishers
Series: Economic Policy Institute
Publication Date: February 28, 1996
________________________________________________________________
Preface
by Lester Thurow (exerpts)
The success or failure of an economic system is easy to measure. Does
the system raise the earnings of most of its participants? If this
measure is applied to the American economic system, we see a clear
failure in the past two decades.
In 1973 real wages started to fall for males with high school degrees
or less, and this decline has spread since then to affect males at
all educational levels including those with Ph.D. s. A decade ago
real wages started to fall among America's least-educated women, and
these declines have now moved up the education ladder to affect all
women except those with college degrees. One can argue about the
exact percentages, but something on the order of 80% of the workforce
is now experiencing falling real wages. That is failure on a
monumental scale.
At the same time, real per capita gross domestic product has risen by
a third. All of this extra income has gone to the top 20% of the
population, and most of it to the top 1%. Probably no country has
ever had as large a shift in the distribution of earnings without
having gone through a revolution or losing a major war.
...
Credibility has to begin with policies that will run the economy with
tight labor markets. Although the official unemployment rate is now
between 5% and 6%, if one adds in those not officially measured as
unemployed (i.e., those who are too discouraged to look often enough
for work to be considered officially unemployed) and those working
part time who would like to work full time, at least 15% of the
American workforce is looking for more work. With this reserve army
of the unemployed, even Marx would not have had much difficulty
explaining falling wages. In capitalism real wages go up only if the
demand for labor exceeds the supply.
--
** Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto **
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Subject: Re: "'Haze' by any other name is 'smoke'"
From: Tom Turton
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:24:09 -0800
Claire Gilbert wrote:
>
> From September 1996 Blazing Tattles*
> All rights reserved.
>
> "HAZE" BY ANY OTHER NAME IS "SMOKE"**
>
> "Airline pilot Walter Guthrie calls on the National Weather
> Service to stop saying that `dust, pollen and pollution' are the
> `chief causes' of `haze.' He feels that "[t]he dominant cause of
> this obscuration is `industrial smoke or pollution' and that dust
> and pollen play a very small part -- the Weather Service should
> call it `smoke.'"~
> **"Hazy Weather Report [Letters]." New York Times, 26 August
> 96, 14. Provided by Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
> (OPPT) Library, U.S. EPA OPPT NEWSBREAK Current Awareness Service.
What about humidity? When I flew in New Jersey (many moons ago)
it was in the central part of Joisey, near the coast. We had no
major industrial complexes nearby, but summers gave many days of
just above VFR due to hazy conditions.
The short time I flew out in the Los Angeles Basin area of California,
the skies seemed a lot clearer in that you could generally see farther,
but the air did have (at times) a distinct brownish tinge (smog).
Smoke is smoke - a product of burning and obviously coming from
a source such as a smokestack or forest fire. Haze is a more
general widespread reduction in visibility with no discernable source.
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: tigger@bnr.ca (Jeff Skinner)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 16:10:22 GMT
In article , bg364@torfree.net (Yuri Kuchinsky) writes:
_]Matt Kennel (mbk@caffeine.engr.utk.edu) wrote:
_]: Brian Carnell (briand@net-link.net) wrote:
_]: : On 22 Nov 1996 05:58:18 GMT, sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis) wrote:
_]
_]: : >Are we supporting the population of today?
_]
_]: : No, largely because of governmental policies and civil wars in the
_]: : Third World which prevent those nations from producing as much food as
_]: : they could. We've got too many Zaires and Sudans.
_]
_]: I agree with this, but one must consider the possibility that the
_]: screwed up governmental policies and civil wars are significantly exacerbated
_]: by existing local overpopulation.
_]
_]Not a possibility, but a certainty! This is so obvious that only a
_]complete ideological fanatic will fail to see the connection. Fanatic
_]with a hidden agenda.
_]Yuri.
_]--
_]Yuri Kuchinsky | "Where there is the Tree of Knowledge, there
_]------------------------| is always Paradise: so say the most ancient
_]Toronto ... the Earth | and the most modern serpents." F. Nietzsche
_]-------- A WEBPAGE LIKE ANY OTHER: http://www.io.org/~yuku -----------
Fanatic with a hidden agenda. Its good, I like it. How about
adding it to your sig, yuku ?
Subject: Re: HELP NEEDED SUSTAINABLE LIVING IN IRELAND
From: George Monner
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:35:08 -0800
Thomas Sheridan wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I have a small farmhouse in the west of Ireland that sits on an 0.5
> arces of good land. I an very new to sustainable living and I am very
> interested in fnding alternatives to 20th century wasterful
> lifestyles. I suspect there are many experts in green living out there
> who could give me a few pointers in the folling subjects:
>
> Insulation
> Reduced Utility Bills
> Vegtable Gardening (is it possible on 0.5 arces?)
> Solar HeatingInsulation: I built a house with R30 in the walls and R60 in the
ceiling. It has a vapour barier that doesn't allow any air leakage. At
temperatures down to -10 C my wife complains about it being too warm
during the day. The heat is not on, so it must be heated by the various
motors in the house and sunlight through the windows. (fridge, printer,
photocopier etc.) We tend to leave windows open all summer and at least 1
window open in the winter. The insulation levels may be a bit high for
Ireland but our temperatures get down to below -40 C in the winter.
Utility bills: A farmer near here got pissed off at the power company
and his bill so he went 100% solar. He says he can pay the added cost of
solar by his reduced utility bills over an 8 to 10 year period. He uses
propane as a backup source of heat when it gets too cold. The contact he
used to get the equipment was Bob McCormick, who also publishes a
magazine called Canadian Renewable Energy News. He can be reached at
P.O. Box 14
Pink Mountain, B.C. Canada
V0C 2B0
Ph:(604)774-1088
Vegetable Gardening:
I have a small U pick strawberry orchard on the side. We keep getting
asked if we use chemicals. Our answer has always been: "We use as little
chemical as we possibly can and we will quit all together when our
customers will pay for blemished fruit and not leave it. The hardest
part of the whole organic thing is keeping the weeds and insects out. If
you decide to go organic expect to put in a lot more hours controling
these pests. Also select varieties that are resistant to insects and
diseases that are prevelant in your area.
Hope this is of some help!
George
PS ignore the quacks that tend to complain about everything!
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 08:58:07 -0700
hblask says:
>
> The search for truth under science is similar to the search for
> "improved standards of living" or "value" under capitalism. Neither
> defines what the end result will look like, but define a flexible
> framework so that each can proceed toward their goal in a trial-and-
> error manner.
I note:
Your statement above is wrong on two counts. First, 'value' and
'improved standards of living' are defined by society - hence are
variable depending upon how society chooses to define them at any given
moment. Science studies natural law which is invariant regardless of
what society does or doesn not want to think. Different as peas in a
pod. Secondly, there is nothing in capitalism that makes improved
standard of living or value desirable in any general sense. The
objective of capitalism is to improve the value of >your< possessions
and perhaps, but not necessarily, improve >your< standard of living, at
any cost including lowering these things in others. There is no
'search', except for a way to achieve this objective.
You continue:
> Capitalism doesn't declare "person X should have $Y"
> or "Product Z should succeed now". It says "let each person determine
> what is of value to themselves, and pursue that, and those that are
> best at creating value will succeed",
I note:
'Best at creating value'? Power and wealth allow you to create wealth.
In capitalism wealth is the key to everything. Your implication of free
will regarding what an individual can pursue ignores the reality that
when you have no resources you have few options. Your last statement
above is also loaded - those best at creating value are typically those
who have the most extensive resources, the abilities of others be what
they may.
You continue:
> in the same way that
> science says "let each person decide what truth is to them, and those
> ideas which work best in the real world will succeed."
I note:
Science doesn't say or imply this at all. What can be observed is the
closest we can get to truth and "hypotheses non fingo' is the name of
the science game. 'Success' has nothing to do with science per se -
science is the observation and study of nature.
You continue:
>
> I'm not explaining this well. I understand the objections to my
> original post, and they are well taken, but they miss the point.
I note:
You should probably settle back and organize your thoughts. If you are
unable to explain clearly it often, not always, means that you are
mistaken.
You continue:
>
> Serious scientists do not question the scientific method, only whether
> the method has been followed properly. Trial and error is the best
> method we know for solving problems in this world.
I reply:
Serous scientists seldom even think about the scientific method. But
how about this: let's try a form of socialism without a pre-existing,
powerful, and antagonistic, capitalist society. Isn't this what trial
and error is all about?
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: "Sam McClintock"
Date: 27 Nov 1996 17:00:41 GMT
Greig Ebeling wrote:
> >Sam McClintock (scmcclintock@ipass.net) wrote:
> >This thread does not belong in sci.environment ->
> >you have yet to use any real science. When you
> >feel up to reading research, or even per chance
> >posting a reference to one or two articles, let
> >us know.
> I happen to think Ralph Cicerone and Sherwood Rowlands are good
> referees. But if you insist, I have references to back up
> everything I claim, which I excluded for brevity.
>
> Which part of my post do you think requires clarification?
Nothing you posting needs clarification because there was
nothing of substance. If you wish to post something of
substance, again please let us know. All you have to do
is post one reference of actual research (within the last
decade to keep it simple), and we can discuss/debate
all you want.
Regards.
Sam McClintock scmcclintock@ipass.net
Director, En-Vision Inc. Raleigh, North Carolina
(919) 847-3688 (919) 847-6339 (fax)
Subject: Re: Entropy (was Re: the economist/elephant joke)
From: Don Libby
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:11:40 -0800
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> In article <57g02u$o9n@sloth.swcp.com> snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) writes:
> >
> > In article ,
> > John McCarthy wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > >There are other lessons from Biosphere 2. The idea that having enough
> > >species would produce a stable ecology didn't work out. Most of the
> > >species died out. A designed system with few species and human
> > >adjustable parameters could have worked.
> >
> > What do you mean by "human adjustable parameters?"
>
snip
> The inhabitants need to be farmers, not just another species.
snip
About that lesson from Biosphere 2 regarding the assumption that
ecological diversity leads to ecological stability. I found this
amusing, having read theory/research presented at the Cold Spring Harbor
Symposium in the mid-70's (author's name escapes me, but I believe it
was Hutchinson) disputing this common notion in favor of the alternate
hypothesis that stability leads to diversity.
Perhaps Biosphere 2 could be considered a critical experiment with the
outcome supporting the latter rather than the former hypothesis,
however, it was a terribly uncontrolled experiment. According to the
cover story in Science News last week, the humans almost died because
they didn't realize the cement foundations would undergo significant gas
exchanges with the atmosphere. Not exactly "controlled conditions".
-dl
Subject: Re: THE SUPPRESSION OF IDEAS/Wake up NOW - PEOPLE!
From: swanton@river.gwi.net (george p swanton)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 12:36:09 -0500
In article <329BE95D.6F9A@cydonia.org>, Josh Olaf wrote:
>Steve Shelton wrote:
>> Josh Olaf wrote:
>> > John McCarthy wrote:
>> > > I unsuccessfully tried the recommended site on two successive days.
>> > Interesting. I just read your message and then tried the address
>> > again. For some reason or another, that site is now down.
The government attempting to suppress the 'evidence'? ;-)
>> I just got into the site , some great info that looks like it deserves
>> some looking into.
>Great! I'll post the URL again for those who want to visit the link
>but missed the original post:
>Energy Info
>http://www.digitalnation.com/byronw/
Summary:
Conspiracy, perpetual motion, water as fuel, etc.
fully documented, but the only copy was lost or stolen.
The laws of physics are not a government conspiracy.
The burden of proof that a 'discovery' 'trancends'
such laws is on the claiment. Lacking substantiating
evidence, such claims cannot be taken seriously.
gps
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:06:27 -0700
scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>
> "Planned economy" is a specific term used to describe government planning of
> production, prices, etc. It is inferior to market economies because price
> can better communicate demand; planners often become mere bureaucrats
> protecting their own turf. etc.
I reply:
Thanks for the info, but you make a mistake when your differentiate
between planned and (limited) market economies which ours appears to be.
In our economy the price of many commodities, from bread to oil, is
controlled. The tax structure strongly affects which aspects of the
economy are favored. The distribution of wealth determines who are
active players in the economy. Control is everywhere in our economy,
and appears to be following the South American plan implemented way back
when.
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 18:34:12 GMT
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> You should probably settle back and organize your thoughts. If you are
> unable to explain clearly it often, not always, means that you are
> mistaken.
>
Sigh. I can't believe I was led astray defending a mediocre metaphor :-(
(it wasn't all that bad). The main point is that the best way that we
have found to happiness is trial and error and letting each person
define their own happiness. Central planners are no smarter, and,
as a whole, much dumber, than individuals acting on their own behalf.
This is because the information necessary to make intelligent decisions
is dispersed too thinly and the cost of collecting it to the extent
necessary for intelligent decisions is prohibitive. So why not let
the people with the information about their own happiness make the
decisions?
hblask
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: mdv@shore.net (Mark D. Vincent)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 13:05:22 -0500
In article <329C650F.13F6@ix.netcom.com>, wrote:
>hblask says:
>
>>
>> The search for truth under science is similar to the search for
>> "improved standards of living" or "value" under capitalism. Neither
>> defines what the end result will look like, but define a flexible
>> framework so that each can proceed toward their goal in a trial-and-
>> error manner.
>
>I note:
>
>Your statement above is wrong on two counts. First, 'value' and
>'improved standards of living' are defined by society - hence are
>variable depending upon how society chooses to define them at any given
Only in socialist systems is this truly the case. While our system
has socialist components in it (most of which function to limit
freedom and punish success) it is still primarily capitalist and
under that system 'value' and 'standard of living' can indeed be
determined by the individual. The word 'society' is usually used in
this sort of context as a nice sounding way of saying 'government'.
Society does NOT determine my standard of living. I do, through my
own efforts. If 'society' (read: government) determined it it would
probably be quite a bit lower.
>moment. Science studies natural law which is invariant regardless of
>what society does or doesn not want to think. Different as peas in a
>pod. Secondly, there is nothing in capitalism that makes improved
>standard of living or value desirable in any general sense. The
There isn't??! Actually it does not make it "desirable" (human nature
does that) but it makes it possible by the individual without seeking
some sort of permission from 'society'.
>objective of capitalism is to improve the value of >your< possessions
>and perhaps, but not necessarily, improve >your< standard of living, at
>any cost including lowering these things in others. There is no
>'search', except for a way to achieve this objective.
>
Here you make your biggest logic error. Your assumption is that an
improvement in one person's living standard results in a corresponding
decline in another person's standard. This is patently false. Wealth
CAN be created. A rising tide lifts ALL boats. If I get a 15% raise it
does not necessarily mean that someone else gets a 15% cut. But it may
mean that someone else does not get as high a raise but as long as it
is because my performance is better than there is nothing wrong with that.
The other person sees a higher standard to aspire to and also sees by
example that the extra effort will be rewarded.
>You continue:
>
>> Capitalism doesn't declare "person X should have $Y"
>> or "Product Z should succeed now". It says "let each person determine
>> what is of value to themselves, and pursue that, and those that are
>> best at creating value will succeed",
>
>I note:
>
>'Best at creating value'? Power and wealth allow you to create wealth.
Ah yes, but risk taking and effort also create wealth. I know first hand
of people who had little power and little wealth taking big risks and
putting in incredible effort and it has resulted in wealth being
created (as well as jobs). It does happen, it can happen. Also, the
examples I speak of also in the past resulted in some failures too. But
they were not detered from attempting it again. This is the nature of
the system. It is based on freedom but requires effort and
responsibility. The less of these two one is willing to put in, the
less results one will get. Those at the lowest levels of these items
usually are the ones who demand that 'society' provide for them.
>In capitalism wealth is the key to everything. Your implication of free
>will regarding what an individual can pursue ignores the reality that
>when you have no resources you have few options. Your last statement
>above is also loaded - those best at creating value are typically those
>who have the most extensive resources, the abilities of others be what
>they may.
>
You are sliding further and further away from the truth. While one has
one's health and freedom one has many options. If one is also living in a
free market system the options are unlimited. To have the view you describe
above is perhaps the largest limitation one can ever put on themselves -
the feeling that "I can't make it, I have no options". This view results
in poverty and crime. It is this view that must be eliminated from as many
people as possible. Value can be created by IDEAS you know. These days
most new successful companies are built on nothing more than IDEAS and
people willing to take risks based on these IDEAS. I hate to once again
dredge up the now cliche examples of MicroSoft and NetScape, they are
good examples.
>You continue:
>
>> in the same way that
>> science says "let each person decide what truth is to them, and those
>> ideas which work best in the real world will succeed."
>
>I note:
>
>Science doesn't say or imply this at all. What can be observed is the
>closest we can get to truth and "hypotheses non fingo' is the name of
>the science game. 'Success' has nothing to do with science per se -
>science is the observation and study of nature.
>
>You continue:
>
>>
>> I'm not explaining this well. I understand the objections to my
>> original post, and they are well taken, but they miss the point.
>
>I note:
>
>You should probably settle back and organize your thoughts. If you are
>unable to explain clearly it often, not always, means that you are
>mistaken.
>
>You continue:
>
>>
>> Serious scientists do not question the scientific method, only whether
>> the method has been followed properly. Trial and error is the best
>> method we know for solving problems in this world.
>
>I reply:
>
>Serous scientists seldom even think about the scientific method. But
>how about this: let's try a form of socialism without a pre-existing,
>powerful, and antagonistic, capitalist society. Isn't this what trial
>and error is all about?
Ah yes, the typical reasoning of the frustrated socialist. "IF only they
would do it the RIGHT way" they always say. When someone like me says
"Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried". Someone like you says
"Well let's try it this way....". Your vicitm mentality is the problem.
Socialism is advocated by those who do not wish to put in the neccessary
effort to succeed in the capitalist society. Or by those too cynical to
believe success is possible and thus resort to class-envy and seeking
refuge in a system where individual effort is not required or
rewarded. It is sad. As for trial and error - go trial that failed system
somewhere else.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Vincent | -- Insert profound quote
mdv@shore.net | or clever phrase here --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: "R. Bailey"
Date: 27 Nov 1996 17:56:55 GMT
eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>
>Paul F. Dietz at none wrote:
>
>>eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>>
>>>Once more it is springtime, and the Antarctic ozone hole begins to
>>>expand. And yet again the same old ignorant clap-trap is rolled
>>>out through the media.
>>
>>Now, which is more likely:
>>
>>(1) That an entire scientific community has published results that
>> appear to conclusively show that anthropogenic chlorine and bromine
>> are the cause of the Antarctic ozone hole, but it's actually just
>> grand conspiracy,
>>
>
>1. The 'entire' scientific community does not agree. That synthetic
>organochlorides are involved is not in question. But whether they are
>the sole or even the major CAUSE ...?
>
>>or
>>
>>(2) you're a fool.
>>
>> Having read enough of the primary literature, I know where I'd
>>cast my vote.
>
>Anyone who believes everything they read is a fool.
>
>My viewpoint on this matter comes from extensive investigation. I
>find nowhere any conclusions to scientific studies which discount
>the idea that ozone depletion is a natural phenomenon, and I find
>plenty of reasons to suggest that it has little or no importance
>consequences as a biological hazard.
>
>
>...Greig
WHAT INVESTIGATIONS? Do you have experimental data that refute the
commonly held views? Can you show explicitly where the chemistry or the
numbers are wrong? Wishing doesn't make it so.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 20:08:32 GMT
Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: Raymond D'Antuono wrote:
: >.. Anyone familiar with chaos theory knows that just merely a
: > small change on a minute scale can have an impact on the entire system.
: > If I understand correctly, it was the first computer model for weather
: > forecasting that gave birth to the chaos theory, as it was observed that
: > minute changes to the initial conditions of the model produced entirely
: > different results in the long-term forecast.
: Simply because a chaotic system refuses to converge, does not mean that its
: behaviour is unbounded. In short, a butterfly flapping its wings in China
: may well cause rain two weeks later in Iowa.....but it won't raise average
: world rainfall by two inches.
Thanks for making this point so succinctly. I have tried to explain this
in the past, but invariably end up getting much too verbose. This answer
captures the answer to the naive application of pop chaos theory to
the climate prediction question very well.
mt
Subject: Re: Sting: Another enviro-moron
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:33:45 -0800
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Scott LaRoche wrote:
> It's good that wealthy rock star, noted scientist and environmental spokesperson Sting
> is so environmentally-sensitive. It's really important that Sting, who luvs the
> rainforest (not jungle!) and birds and wetlands (not swamps!) uses his private jet to
> flit between concerts.
I see you believe that wilderness is a wasteland. Sad.
> Gosh, we can't have Sting slumming it on commercial flights with the rest of us. He's
> worth that extra 20,000 gallons of jet fuel every day because, well, he's
> environmentally-sensitive.
And? Should all small jets be grounded (or helis) because mileage/personm
is low? What have you done to preserve indigenous people and the
rainforests they live in, something that will benefit all people?
>
> Same with noted environmental scientist Woody Harrelson. We should all be so glad they
> care about the world we live in.
"Hemp can help save the world" -- trite, but true on closer examination.
Have you chosen to get arrested lately, to bring attention to a silly and
destructive law?
Dave Braun
