Archive for December, 2007
Global Warming “Man Made”?
Friday, December 21st, 2007The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works just threw cold water on the fire-storm of assertions by everyone from former Vice President Al Gore to CNN to the Associated Press that the entire scientific community agrees that we humans are the cause of global warming.
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
And when this block buster Senate report says “prominent”, they do mean prominent!
We’re talking scientists that hail from: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
“Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore,” the report claims.
Even more fascinating, scientists are finally beginning to open up about the fear they’ve felt about speaking out against the popular position that we’re the cause of the warming trend:
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote.
[Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation --- LINK]
But now that they are speaking up, these scientists are saying they’re not happy about the universal drum beat claiming all scientists agree with the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) position on the subject. In fact, one scientist, a former IPCC “expert reviewer” was frustrated with the peer review process used to publish the UN IPCC’s latest report:
To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.
—IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Canada
It’s important to note what these scientists are disputing, and what they’re not. They’re not disputing that the planet is warming. They are are also not disputing that we humans are having an increasingly negative impact on our environment through our activities. They’re simply and solely disputing why the world is warming, and the unceasing proclamations of cataclysm and gloom and doom.
Day after day, the same mantra — that ‘the Earth is warming up’ — is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in [sic.] bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. . . . Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God . . . fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!
—Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon
I urge you to go read at least the introduction to the report, if not the entire report. (Warning, the whole report is a very big web page.) I know doing so has certainly opened my eyes to the minds and thoughts (and frustrations) and the science of the larger scientific community on the global warming issue.
Technorati Tags: global warming, greenhouse gas, U.S. Senate report, climate change
Picking the Right Remodeling Bid
Thursday, December 20th, 2007We just got some bids on a remodeling project and the bids are all over the map! And even the lowest bid is much more than we expected we’d have to pay for our project.
Why are the bids so high, and why is there so much difference between
them?
Well, there are two different things going on here.
First let’s address the scatter in the prices of the bids: The National Home Owners Association says you should expect a difference of about 20% in the bids you receive for a home improvement project. Under normal circumstances, I assume. But we haven’t had “normal” circumstances in the residential housing industry in years! During the boom builders could pretty much name their tab (within reason, anyway). And now, during the bust, they’re bidding jobs outside their regular field of work, and doing so in a highly competitive market. Both extremes lead to a wider variance in bid prices than you’d expect to see for any given job, but for very different reasons.
Now to the second question: Why are the prices so high?
Repair and remodeling is a very different animal than new construction. Repair and remodeling loses all the advantages of the economics of scale that new construction enjoys, both in the purchase of materials and in labor.
Consider: In a new construction project the doors are purchased as part of the bid package by the supplier for the entire project. So while a door might cost $200 each, by bundling that door into $150,000 worth of materials for the whole project, the contractor is able to buy them for only $135 each. When the laborers install them they have the advantage of brand new square framing and many doors to install. As a job is repeated time is saved. So installing 10 doors is cheaper (per door) than installing 1 door.
Now over to the your remodel: Your whole project probably doesn’t total just the materials in the new construction. And, you may have only one or two doors that need to be changed. So the economics of scale are lost both in purchasing power and in labor savings. Then, your doors are going to be installed in old frames that are probably no longer square. They might not even what we refer to today as a “standard” size. All these factors increase the cost of installing the door.
Multiply this example out to the size of your project and you can see why remodeling is a very different animal than new construction. According to Building News International the national average price for a remodeling project is $86 per square foot — almost the same as for new construction.
Finally, let me give you some suggestions about which bid to choose. Obviously I can’t be specific as I know neither the details of your project nor the contractors in your area, but in general:
- If you have a bid that’s disproportionately low, throw it out. “Low balling” is a bidding tactic that some contractors use to get jobs that is, in my opinion, dishonest. Basically the contractor deliberately under bids the real price of the job in the hope of being the lowest bidder. Then, after s/he’s gotten the job and the work has started, s/he finds reasons to get you to sign Change Orders that progressively raise the price up to what the bid should have been in the first place. In some states I understand a contractor can be disciplined for using this type of tactic
Another reason a contractor might submit a low ball bid is because they have no intention of doing the work! They take your money and disappear with it. Believe it or not, it happens a few times every year.
In either case, this isn’t the kind of person you want to hire.
- If you have a bid that’s disproportionately high, throw it out unless you can find a darned good reason for the high bid.
- That leaves you with a pile of middle bids that are all worth your consideration. All other factor’s being equal, I recommend picking the contractor you get along with best, not the lowest bidder — though the two may be the same. Because remember, this individual and his or her crew is going to be around five or six days a week for months on end! You don’t want the industrial version of your mother-in-law!
Good luck with your project!`
Technorati Tags: remodeling, contractors, bids
Book Review: The Self-Sufficiency Handbook
Saturday, December 15th, 2007Okay, so it’s finally come down to this for you: You’re tired of the rat race; you’re tired of the pile of bills; you’re tired of the consumption mentality. You want off the corporate wheel, so to speak; you want to live more simply, get back to basics, sustain yourself and your family and tell the gas companies, the electric companies, and the oil companies to go hang! The question is: How? What does it take, and how do you do it?
 |
Enter Alan & Gill Bridgewater’s new book The Self-Sufficiency Handbook. This new book by Skyhorse Publishing, will provide you a good overview of what is involved in transforming your current life style into one that blends your needs (career, time, money, etc.) and your desire to live a more healthy and sustainable life style.
Now, it’s probably just as important to know what this book is not as what it is. It is not just a book about “greener living” — though it is that. It is also not a “how to book” — though it is that. And, it is not a “gardening book” — thought it is that too.
This is a book that attempts to deal with the practical questions people and even governments are now asking about, as Alan puts it in the introduction: “How do we go off-grid? How can we heat our homes without gas and oil? How can we grow food without using chemicals? How can we maximize our recycling?” In that sense, what Alan & Gill are really doing is exploring the different paths an individual, and therefore society itself, might take on the road to pollution free sustainability. They explore options for the suburban home owner, the rural home owner, and the renaissance folks who want to return to the living style and standards of a hundred years ago.
I found it very interesting that in the the gardening section there’s no mention of draft animals. In fact, Alan & Gill are pretty plain that they not only prefer a tractor, but an old tractor. “The cheapest and most efficient solution for most small set-ups is to get a 1950s-type tractor. These tractors are winners on many counts — they were built to last a lifetime, there are lots of them around…” Strange advice to buy an oil leaky, gas guzzling old tractor rather than a good draft horse! The fact is, if you’re working enough land to need a full on “1950s-type” tractor rather than the walk-behind variety, you’ve got enough land to support a team. They’re much cheaper to operate, and more reliable than an old tractor. And, as folks found out after Hurricane Katrina, they can be mighty handy to have around:
Following Hurricane Katrina, with the phones and power out and the roads strewn with trees and abandoned cars and trucks, the Russels set to work cleaning up their farm with their horses. When they had finished, they helped a neighbor whose truck had gotten stuck.
“When it got dark, we went to bed tired — but a `good’ tired from working the horses,” Kenny Russell says.
—The Old Farmer’s Almanac 2007, p. 216.
But this is a minor quibble in an otherwise excellent and comprehensive overview of the possibilities for living partially or totally not only self-sufficiently, but perhaps with enough surplus to help your neighbor.
Reading through The Self-Sufficiency Handbook will give you the information you need to make a game plan for how you want to implement self-sufficiency. And based on that game plan, you’ll know what books you need to buy and classes you need to attend to expand your knowledge base. For many, many of the subjects covered in this little book are, in and of themselves, the subject of entire books, and people’s careers.
Technorati Tags: book review, self-sufficiency, organic gardening, raising livestock, alternative energy, eco-friendly home improvements
Don’t Use Permatex®!
Friday, December 7th, 2007WARNING! Permatex® is not a suitable pipe dope! It is especially not suitable pipe dope for potable water! This is so critically important, let me repeat it:
Permatex® is not a suitable pipe dope for potable water! It’s toxic!
Okay. Now that I have that out of my system, let me explain:
Permatex® is a gasket sealant designed for use on engine gaskets. There are two types: Type A which is “hardening”, and Type B which remains pliable. Both types are made of highly toxic chemicals designed to withstand the heat and pressure and contact with engine oil and engine oil additives. It was never designed to be a thread sealant of any kind, never mind household water supplies.
Why am I carping on this? Because I just returned from a job where someone had used Permatex® Type A as a pipe dope on the main water line running into a mobile home. Obviously, the pipes would not come apart the way they’re supposed to. So, I applied heat from a torch. And what did I smell? The distinctive odor of Permatex® gasket sealant.
I suppose the former owner of the mobile home thought he was being clever in getting troublesome galvanized pipe to seal by using it. In reality what he was doing was A) poisoning his family and B) making it impossible to re-plumb without taking that connection completely out of the system. Permatex® Type A does not come back apart once it hardens! I ended up destroying the pipe trying to get it apart. (Hey, I figured I had nothing to lose by trying.)
Anyway, in addition to “Teflon tape” there are two pipe joint compounds suitable for potable water supplies: One is TFE paste, available usually under the hardware store’s label. The other is called Rectorseal®. The latter is better for sealing troublesome pipes that are going to be under high pressure, and for gas applications. (In fact, in some jurisdictions, you have to use Rectorseal® or “yellow dope” on gas lines. Regular TFE paste is not “code”, so check with your local building department before choosing a dope for gas lines.)
For regular water lines TFE tape or paste works just fine. And if you have some old threads that you expect you’re going to have trouble getting to seal, “double dope” them. First, wrap the threads with your tape (one or two wraps, depending on how bad the threads are), then smear a good even coat of TFE paste over that. If the threads are good enough to pull up tight, that puppy will seal!
So, no more Permatex® on the potable water pipes, okay?
Okay!
Technorati Tags: Permatex, Rectorseal, pipe dope, Teflon tape, TFE tape, TFE paste, pipe thread compound
