Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)


Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!

powered by Surfing Waves

Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.

    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2018
    Grim reading; are there ANY signs that policymakers are making the substantive changes the panel are calling for?
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2018
    Long awaited, just out - Charles Eisenstein's 'Climate: A New Story'
    a salutary look at how self-defeating the approaches to it have been - especially of worthy climate activists.
    Hopefully a game-changer.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2018
    Isn’t weather random and so it is extremely difficult if not impossible to blame climate change for severe weather events. Sometimes wild fires are started deliberately so how can they be blanked on cc.

    All seems scaremongering to me, but we should be reducing everything including emissions not because of CC but because we should have already been reducing waste, overuse and pollution anyway.
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2018 edited
    Posted By: tonyIsn’t weather random
    Yes but its wide randomness is nevertheless constrained, with extremely steep probability, within boundaries, or constrained to vary about a central mean.

    It's the gradual movement of those boundaries, or that central mean, that IPCC tracks.

    If weather was truly, freely random, we'd be dead long since, from extreme variations. The fact that we're not dead proves that those variations, though dramatic, are steeply probability-constrained within those boundaries, or about that central mean.

    IPCC says that the mean is definitely moving. Why should that be disputed? Certainly, weather being 'random' doesn't contradict that at all.
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2018
    It isn't just the weather they are referring to. It's randomness is just one stick that deniers like to beat the IPCC with.
    Global weather patterns, this year in particular, do seem to have focused minds. It's the knock on effect of rising mean temperatures that is the scary bit. Those same deniers would point to historic climate fluctuations to reinforce their belief, as if the IPCC were incapable of factoring that into their modelling.
    Sadly, history teaches, it's the Human way to first take things to the brink of destruction or extinction before applying the brakes and then spend a fortune trying to mend it.
    The majority from the top down simply have N.F.I. in changing one iota of their behavior, if doing so impacts on their lifestyle. Re-cycle a bit here, change a few light bulbs there; OK they'll live with that. Making the real changes however, I don't think will happen, until other factors force it on us, and it's too late.
    Fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind.
    From someone who lives very moderately,
    I believe that Western Governments are merely using the data as an excuse to raise tax revenues.
    Anyway since we have had recurring Ice Ages and interglacial periods, long before fossil fuels were an issue, most probably a large stinking red herring.
    Plus, focussing on CO2 instead of Population growth, truely the elephant in the room.
    So much hypocritical politics, based on scant evidence.
    And lastly, from a consideration of how our current human society happened to be fortunate enough to evolve, and perhaps most likely due to a frighteningly short freak alignment of a period of benign climate and fertile soils to exploit.
    Which we have taken for granted.
    At our peril.
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2018
    Posted By: orangemannotI believe that Western Governments are merely using the data as an excuse to raise tax revenues.
    Here we have the problem.

    Everyone seems to want to hang their own pet peeve off the hook of climate change.

    Apparently it's all to do with overpopulation.

    No, wait, capitalism has to be replaced.

    No, wait, it's all to do with eating meat.

    No, wait, it's a global Leftist conspiracy.

    No, wait, it's pointless doing anything because of India and China.

    No, wait, economic growth cannot continue forever, we have to change our economic models.

    The only chance we have of getting something done is putting all the utopian promised land bollocks aside and just concentrating on a narrow definition of what metrics we need to change. But even that is going to be very difficult. I tend to think it's only going to happen when incentives are aligned sufficiently and we just haven't got anywhere near doing that yet.
    I disagree with most of the above statements.
    The solution requires human beings to change their mostly innate selfish short-term wasteful behaviours.
    And Governments to move beyond their eternal Ponzi scheme economic funding model, bolstered by short term opportunist tax-grabs, given any excuse.
    (Which is simply a reflection of the people in Government, using their hubristic power to magnify their mostly innate selfish short-term wasteful behavouir.)
    I cannot see either of these happening.
    • CommentTimeOct 10th 2018 edited
    And Charles Eisenstein disagrees with both the above, in his brand-new book 'Climate: A New Story'
    like a ray of illumination - read it, really.

    The response of those who would be the 'good guys' around the environment, which is to Fight the bad guys (whoever you consider to be at the root of it all) - is to join in on their terms, hence to reinforce their dominant way of being, and to lose before you've begun.

    Charles thinks that humanity is in slow process of transition from 'every man for himself' to what he calls Interbeing - the awareness that what I do ultimately comes back to me in full force. If I harm Nature, I cut off my own right hand, because I am Nature.

    He sugests The Bomb was humanity's first great lesson - super-clear that any use at all would destroy the bomber's own country too - hence miraculously so far it's never been used.
    The Environmental crisis is humanity's second great lesson - but being slow-acting it hasn't got super-clear yet.
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeOct 10th 2018 edited
    The Bomb's potential for total destruction, and the lessons, only came into sharp focus after the small-ish, (in comparison to later models), carnage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    By comparison, the environment is something we all take for granted. It's abuse is far less immediate and visible when compared to the Bomb. It would seem obvious therefore that it's lessons will take much longer to learn, and if IPCC is correct, by the time they are learned, it'll be too late.
    Tom, I haven't read Eisenstein, but I agree with your resume therefore regarding the conclusion, about the speed of learning, but it seems like nothing really new, after all homo sapiens is evolving and sure we'll eventually learn lessons. We are all animals, however sophisticated we like to think we are, but Nature takes no prisoners.

    Regarding the IPCC report I'm amazed, and puzzled, how, (and I'm guessing here), from a point of ignorance how many people are prepared to diss. the IPCC report as if they alone possessed some knowledge that the IPCC and all the thousands of independent, worldwide, multi-disciplined, researchers were unaware of.
    To suspect them of some Almighty conspiracy in their interpretation of that raw data is incredulous. The way I see it the report is holding a behavioural mirror to each of us and for some the reflection is too hard to bear, so they lash out, change the subject, or insult the source. We wait for someone/thing else to make the change for us.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeOct 11th 2018 edited
    Have a look at the IPCC directive - it is too focused and blinkered

    Not sure we understand properly

    A quote :- “........ the core premises of AGW theory that the climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarised in just one variable – the globally averaged temperature change – and that it is primarily controlled by the 1-2 per cent perturbation in the single variable of carbon dioxide. This, he says, is “an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking.” Former top meteorologist at MIT

    I would say unscientific and illogical thinking and it underpins climate modelling!
    Thank you Tony for neatly expressing my deeply held "gut" feeling.
    Driven by the funding available to "prove" anthropological causes for our current possibly changing climate.
    I also despair, and it is significent in this context, at the impossibility of watching any natural history/wildlife show, without some/recurring mention of climate change "impacting" the wildlife.
    Because one must be seen to to attuned to the zeitgiest.
    I also loathe the use of the word impacting rather than affecting.
    • CommentTimeOct 11th 2018
    tony, that quote is ridiculous - it's true that the media focus on warming and CO2 almost exclusively, but IPCC reports on a zillion other factors and makes no attempt to encapsulate it in just those two, for its serious audiences. What it provides to the media may be more simplistic.

    So, if you want to be more than a mere typical media consumer, swallowing what the media give you, become a 'serious' reader of IPCC, even if only of its Exectutive Summary.
    • CommentTimeOct 11th 2018
    Posted By: tonyHave a look at the IPCC directive - it is too focused and blinkered

    Which directive is that, Tony? As usual, you give no reference and too little information to understand what you are talking about.
    I also bear in mind that aphorism beloved of the Accounting profession,
    that when presented with a set of figures, or indeed data, the only question is;
    what do you want these statistics to prove?
    yes or no,
    black or white,
    positive or negative,
    good or bad.
    Like for instance the recent volte face re saturated fat consumption on human health, or that eggs were a poor dietary choice.
    I am still waiting for the connection or corrolation between increasing incidence of Asthma and overuse/exposure to antibiotics, or indeed the overly sanitary conditions that most of the Western world live under.
    Again, purely a gut feeling, having grown up under that country wisdom that "clean meat never fattened a Pig", but also based on our disgustingly healthy 26 year old Son, who was "diagnosed" as being chesty/Asthma prone as a mere infant, and would need/was prescribed Antibiotics, of which he only ever reluctantly got the one dose.
    Not perhaps pertinent to this discussion, cept for the zeitgeist, or sticking with the Herd opinion bit, re our likely climate change causes.
    Because, as far as I could establish, most everyone dosed their children with antibiotics at every sniffle or cough, just to be sure, without any thought or consideration re the likely consequences or longterm affects.
    But again pertinent in respect of the likelyhood of getting the general population to buy into more moderate sustainable lifestyles.
    Well this thread appears to have devolved into a general melting pot of opinion and anecdote rather than the critical thinking we're normally capable of.

    Not sure there's much to add except to suggest reading Alex Steffen on what he calls 'predatory delay':


    and generally on the Nearly Now:

    "I hate what I’ve come to think of as the “doom dump.” That’s the long passage enumerating our ecological woes, explaining in chapter and verse what we’re losing and how much we’re certain to lose soon, and how terrible an ecological tragedy the dirty economy has become.

    Partially, I hate the doom dump because I think it is not enlightening, but dispiriting...Despair is never good for us...Nor is it helpful. It’s obvious that the minority who bristle at the call to planetary action will not be convinced by more truth, and most of the rest of us already know things are falling apart.

    We can no longer assume that staying within our carbon budget is by itself sufficient action...climate action can no longer be orderly, gradual or even continuous with our expectations"

    Time to stop debating and get on with changing things for the better!
    • CommentTimeOct 12th 2018
    Posted By: Doubting_ThomasTime to stop debating and get on with changing things for the better!
    But how? Step up the fight, dirty and ruthless if debate and persuasion doesn't work? (because it's time to get real?)
    Doubting Thomas,
    I not unreasonably suspect you mistook minority for majority in your comment, third from last paragraph, deliberately or otherwise.
    Are you advocating Uncle Joe Stalin knows best, type of dirty and ruthless policies, because that is what your statement smacks of, thus leading to hubris driven catastrophies.

    • CommentTimeOct 13th 2018 edited
    Posted By: orangemannotI not unreasonably suspect you mistook
    my ironic question - 'is this what you mean by
    Posted By: Doubting_ThomasTime to stop debating and get on with changing things for the better!
    for my own call to action.
    Exactly the opposite - as you say
    Posted By: orangemannotsmacks of ... hubris
    • CommentAuthorfinnian
    • CommentTimeOct 13th 2018
    I think it is worth keeping in mind that the discussions on these kind of comment threads are not representative of the actual spread of opinions in the community: you are always going to have the most bombastic and opinionated segment of community basking in the outrage of of everyone else at their extreme views.

    Those who think that climate change is some kind of world-government conspiracy, and are contemptuous of science and scientists in general are not really going to be convinced. Pretty sure that in most places there is at least a grudging acceptance that sometimes people who have spent their lives studying a topic might have something useful to contribute. The conspiracy theorists have managed to largely take over one wing of politics in quite a few places, though, which is a bit of a worry. There are a lot of challenges where governments need input from science to make good decisions.
    I do not in the least believe this is any kind of World Government conspiracy.
    Nor believe in the "illuminati".
    Nor believe that "Big Oil" bought up and suppressed loads of inventions promising free energy.
    I do however, having never quite fitted in with most any group I met yet, despair at the general subservience to group opinions, in the somewhat limited company I admit I meet.
    I also respect Scientists, but Scientists are humans too, and most need to earn a living, therefore a significent percentage of them will simply follow the money, grant money that is.
    Never mind seeking to be first with whatever cutting edge research news.
    And statistics, especially using human gathered data, and then choosing to manipulate the bits that dont fit, is basically unsound.
    Those employed by NASA or CERN, or the ESA or chasing down successful Nuclear Fusion, are perhaps less susceptible to finding the results they think they ought to find, another all too human failing.
    Plus, regardless of "the science" I have the innate sense to realize that the Earth's climate has always been changing, humankind most likely "struck it lucky" in the particular period/epoch they happened along in.
    It is more than hubristic to imagine we can manipulate the Earth's climate to suit or particular selfish human needs, are we going to suppress Volcanic eruptions?,or stop the release of seabed/sub-seabed hydrates?
    So, hey I agree our climate is probably/almost certainly changing, but what percentage of this change is anthropological is very very debatable.
    And the chances of effecting any tangible changes, in a Democratic society, even more so
    I just realized what I was attempting to express.
    The IPCC naming is perhaps an indicator, but I then checked with Wiki, and to quote;

    The IPCC has adopted and published "Principles Governing IPCC Work",[6] which states that the IPCC will assess:

    the risk of human-induced climate change,
    its potential impacts, and
    possible options for prevention.

    Not my words.

    So essentially it is my belief that the Scientists so employed are searching for the smoking gun.
    Plus, I no more trust or respect the UN and its very political decisions, than I trust most of the blokes down the pub.
    • CommentTimeOct 13th 2018
    Posted By: orangemannotwhat percentage of this change is anthropological is very very debatable
    Who says that, with any authority?
    • CommentTimeOct 13th 2018
    Posted By: orangemannotThose employed by NASA or CERN, or the ESA or chasing down successful Nuclear Fusion, are perhaps less susceptible to finding the results they think they ought to find, another all too human failing.

    Why do those people also believe in anthropogenic climate change then? Basically, why do the vast majority of scientists believe in it? You think they are all follwing the money or otherwise deluding themselves, despite having no vested interest in the outcome? (Other than all suffering the consequences if it is true, of course.)

    Personally, I find the overall CO2 graph pretty convincing. Here's NASA saying the same thing: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and their illustration of temperature rises: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/139/graphic-global-warming-from-1880-to-2017/
    Posted By: djhhttps://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and their illustration of temperature rises: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/139/graphic-global-warming-from-1880-to-2017/

    Oops - link failed.........
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeOct 13th 2018
    To pick on Marcus’s point about us changing the climate back again — this always reminds me of King Canute.

    We are almost talking about terraforming here.

    I don’t hold with the popular theory of AGW, I can’t see “us” turning back the tide that all the models predict.

    It is more likely that the models which were written by “believers” are not predicting the real situation and in my view the climate will change back without our help. It is going to be just as difficult to prove that as it to prove AGW.

    We come back to, “the core premises of AGW theory that the climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarised in just one variable – the globally averaged temperature change – and that it is primarily controlled by the 1-2 per cent perturbation in the single variable of carbon dioxide. This, he says, is “an extraordinary pair of claims ...”
    • CommentTimeOct 13th 2018
    Posted By: tonythe climate will change back without our help
    like in 20,000yrs
    • CommentTimeOct 13th 2018 edited
    What did you think of
    Posted By: fostertomtony, that quote is ridiculous - it's true that the media focus on warming and CO2 almost exclusively, but IPCC reports on a zillion other factors and makes no attempt to encapsulate it in just those two, for its serious audiences. What it provides to the media may be more simplistic.
    • CommentTimeOct 13th 2018 edited
    Tony, this is just outrageous.

    If you are wrong you contribute recklessly to badly damaging my kids' futures. You won't have to bear the consequences, they will. "I'm alright Jack" is how that sounds to me.

    Being bloody minded and choosing not to "believe" the best efforts of many talented people who would DEARLY like to be WRONG, is not at all like taking a path where you rationally balance risks and the costs of those risks happening vs the (possibly wasted) effort that goes in if the risks aren't really there.

    And as to your earlier/elsewhere points about waste, yes, we should reduce all sorts of waste, but it matters critically what we focus our efforts on to have a chance of dealing with climate breakdown.
    • CommentAuthorowlman
    • CommentTimeOct 14th 2018 edited


    The 1/2 million square mile garbage patch in the Pacific; it's a myth.

    The thousands of plastic Nurdles and detritus washed up around our beaches; it's a myth.

    The deteriorating air quality in our cities; it's a myth.

    The global species extinction rate, far in excess of historic background rates; it's a myth.

    The hole in the Ozone layer; it was a myth.

    Over-fishing, de-forestation, topsoil erosion, etc. etc. etc..

    None of it has anthropological origins,- it's all "fake news" a conspiracy.

    If, it's not fake news and we've got all this visual evidence before us, if we can open or eyes, look at our shorelines, our streets and highways, smell the aroma of pesticides and hydrocarbons. If the discarded trash of our pathetic greedy Human existence is not enough to convince you, then there really is no hope.

    If you too see it and yet still believe that amidst all this visual affront, this sea of Human detritus, the paving of the planet, that the Atmosphere alone is somehow immune, and if by some miracle it has the capacity to quickly repair itself,- which seems to be what you're saying,- why do you even bother with Insulation, electric car, recycling, waste reduction, pollution reduction; after all it doesn't matter, except for saving a few quid here and there in fuel costs.
    Surely, common sense must come into your thinking somewhere. I for one don't need to wait for some absolute scientific proof before I'm convinced that prevention is better than cure.
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   

© Green Building Press