Where do you stand on environmentally friendly woodworking?
- I don’t think hobby woodworkers can save the rain forests
- I try to buy FSC or Green Tag certified lumber
- I try to use locally harvested wood or found materials
- I’d like to learn more about sustainable wood products and where to buy them
- Other (please post a comment)
You will not be able to change your vote.
Replies
Dear All,
I say cut down all the trees. All of them. They are simply in the way. They do make nice tables and firewood, however. Environmentally speaking, I have noticed a phenomena in my local area. There are very few large trees, although there are an abundance of smaller trees, say less than 100 years old. It is apparent that this area, at one time was almost devoid of trees. Say again....... farmland. There are rock walls that lace themselves through what is now woods, and the old property lines are plain to see. Now some things are apparent:
1) Forests will grow back.... all by themselves..... without our help..... no studies needed.... so get over it.
2) The above mentioned forests grew back during this disastrous period of "Global Warming". How could that be? Oh, wait a minute, that's right, it was "Global Cooling" in the 1970's!.... the scientists were SURE about it............ hmmmmmm Do you think that we are being lied to?
I have to go burn some old tires now..........
Best,
John
While you're burning those tires, cut the coolant lines on your old refrigerator and let the Freon out. Then change the oil on your car and tump the old oil the alley in back to keep down the dust. Living was so much easier before the enviro-loonies appeared.
Edited 3/2/2007 10:04 am ET by Dan1120
Edited 3/2/2007 10:11 am ET by Dan1120
Why not? that's what I do! (kidding, of course).
As a born-again tree hugger, I must say that I and others like me are severely offended by someone who assumes he can label us as "enviro-loonies." But I must thank you for encouraging me to donate more generously to the environmental causes which I support because I know that is the best way to offend someone who makes such remarks.Cadiddlehopper, enviro-loony, tree hugger, and supporter of Science
cadiddlehopper,
One of the hallmarks of the tree hugger/enviro-looney is the inability to see anything past there own viewpoint. Apparently this also applies to sarcasm, as your response to Dan1120 illustrates superbly.
Rob
Sarcasm is more polite than name-calling and being judgmental, as you are, in my humble opinion. If you know what "born again" means, you would understand that other viewpoints have been considered by me. I have no idea how you develop an opinion.Cadiddlehopper
I wish I had the source for this, but I know I read that the U.S. has far more trees now than 100 years ago, (obviously the trees are not as big). If you look at photographs of natural forests from back then, they are denser now than before. There are more trees planted in residential areas as well. I think everyone's heart is in the right place to try to go green. But if you use your brain instead of your heart, you may realize that it's an unnecessary hardship you are placing on yourselves. And, here's a trivia question for you, what is food for a tree? CO2! (But don't tell those global warming alarmists!)
When you think of trees think of lumber. There might be more trees but when you go to buy soft woods like doug fir or Redwood what passes for lumber now is mostly garbage in comparison to what was common construction lumber 50 years ago. I do think there might be more good hard wood now than a long time ago though. Anyway a complicated issue an stupid jingleisms from either sides. We need wood, energy ect. but global warming ect. is real.Troy
Dear Troy,
Let's say that you are correct, that "Global Warming" is real. Let's ignore the fact that the "Globe" is NOT getting warmer. Temperatures are NOT climbing evenly all across the world. Some go up, some go down. The weather changes..... gee, who would of thought? But, let's ignore the FACTS and address this "Global Warming". If CO emissions were really an issue, don't you think that volcanos would of killed off all life as we know it? Go check out what one eruption throws in the air and compare it to what the evil Wester world throws off. Ever notice how the five day weather prediction are... on occasion.... WRONG! Do you really think that weather and temperature can be accurately predicted 50 or more years into the future? I'm not convinced. Not even close. Science requires EVIDENCE, not " studies suggest..." I remember the lies of the environmentalists (Anti- capitalists) that were taught to us in grade school in the early 70's. I wasn't convinced as a kid and I'm not convinced now. Show me some PROOF and perhaps I'll change my tune. But until then, Al Gore and I will be using as much power as we can afford...... as it should be.Best,John
Hi John,
I'm happy to read your opinion on this matter because I've never actually met anyone with your specific understanding of the issue. You said "show me proof and perhaps I'll change my tune." I'll take that at face value, and recommend reading "The End of Nature" by Bill McKibben -- if you really want to have a strong argument against the fact of global warming, it would help you to gain an actual understanding of the science behind it, rather than just the summaries from news magazines etc. Who knows, perhaps you'll alter your opinion somewhat, because that book outlines much more of the proof than you've summarized. It also includes an explanation about how there will be extreme cooling in some areas as well, based on changes to the jet stream (if I recall correctly). I'm not arguing against you; it just seems that your position is based on impressions that you have from the rhetoric used by environmentalists or ecologists, and you demand to know the science behind it -- this book gives a pretty good summary (although it is more than 10 years old at this point).
Best regards,
Andy
P.S. You mentioned weather prediction and compared its inaccuracy to global warming predictions. Here is a link describing the difference between weather and climate; it should clarify the matter for you:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
At the very least, there is much more data backing a prediction of climate change than individual 5-day weather forecasts.
Dear VT,
Hey! Actual Data! I appreciate it. I will check it out. Thanks!John
Dear VT Andy,
I expect in time you and I and everybody else will discover that Global Warming has been the worlds largest inconvenient truth, that the whole issue has been a complete scam.
I hope all the jobs have not gone by then our economies and national security in tatters.
If you wish to find out what is really going on check into what has been going on at the UN for years, here are some of the issues;
A push for an international hourly wage due to displeasure at the UN with wages in the developed west compared to developing countries, enter Kyoto the redistribution of wealth tool, so brazenly corrupt its amazing people seem to be unable to see through a system where we send money to other countries for credits. Nothing changes, emissions remain the same, we just send money to other countries, or shut our industry down so developing countries can send emissions into the air unabated.
Consider electric trains and cars are not actually clean at all, most are run on coal fueled low tech power stations.
Consider that if we replace all our water heaters and furnaces for high efficiency ones we will never save enough energy to manufacture the new ones or compensate for the steel made in steel mills in developing countries devoid of emissions standards.
Sometimes it seems it is forgotten we as humans have a right to be on the planet, some international activists, members of the UN would like to see our numbers limited or reduced.
You will also note almost all environmentalists are leftwing activists trying to redistribute wealth while living very high on the hog themselves, Al Gore for example.
I am surprised the unions are not taking action, its their jobs being given to China and India to name but a few.
The global warming has been taking place since the last ice age, before humans were on the planet, we will not stop it, China and India will not play ball at the risk of not developing or slowing the economies that they are hoping will bring them regional or global domination.
Our only sensible path forward is to learn to adapt and make good choices.
I am sure some will think I do not know what I am talking about, so that's fine, research it yourselves, read about the goals of the UN and be prepared in your lifetimes to find that Global Warming was the biggest international redistribution of wealth ever.
The impact of Global Warming hugely overstated.
The largest ever international deception.
Hopefully by the time the truth is out we wont all be too poor in the West to salvage what we had.
We should all know by now that the most dishonest among us usually choose to work for the major political parties, a world wide tendency sadly.
Blackbird
Edited 3/10/2007 11:01 pm ET by blackbird
Blackbird,
I re-read your post to try to find at least one piece of information or fact, and all I found were cynical opinions pointing toward doomsday. Talk about Chicken Little!Well, I'm learning one thing from this thread. There are a variety of opinions represented by the contributors to Knots. Many of them fall on the reactionary and cynical side of the equation. A few fall on the informed, ecologically minded side. The disagreement is not resolvable here. I'm going out back to saw some birch. At least then we'll know that at least one of us did some woodworking today.-Andy
Dear VTAndy,
No not Doomsday actually, time will show the problem is minor and beyond our ability to control. Humans being just a component of life on this planet fortunately are not able to control it, probably a good thing.
I really am not looking for a dispute, I am sure most people mean well but really research the issue yourself if you care, don't believe what others say, you look into the energy required and resources required to make replacement items that are so called Green products. Research out who the people are that have articles printed who they work for and the type of life they lead and the resources they consume.
Most of us don't by tools just because someone else said they were good, we research the topic.
Surely a topic like the environment is worth the time required for some personnel research.
Its always fun to kick the anthill buy bringing up global warming. All of the information I have seen show an up hill climb in tempetures world wide. You might be able to argue that it is not man made but it does not seem to be likley. Troy
Dear Troy,
OK, again, let's assume that Global warming is true. That is, that entire Earth is getting warmer. What could cause such a phenomena? What could possibly warm the entire Earth? SUVs?........ no ............... S-U-N? Wow! what an idea! Check out :http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977NASA article about the warming of Mars. Better tell the Martians to switch to ethanol!Best,John
Everyones worried about global warming,emissions control and governing what we do here on earth but I have to wonder just how good is it on the atmosphere to have spaceshuttles,rockets,and satellites punching holes in it. But ask a governing body and they'll tell you the above mentioned don't have a thing to do with it. Alls a person has to do is fill a balloon with water,gas or anything that won't puncture it and you'll see that it takes a small puncture that causes the balloon to deflate or LET WHAT'S IN IT,OUT.
Remember: be gentle with your responses for this is just an old woodworkers 0.2 worth.
Sincerely,Jim at Clark Customs
High, Jim
The differance is that in a balloon the natural state of things is for the pressure inside to be realeased, (and once released it never seems to want to go back in and do it's job <G>)
Our atmosphere on the other hand has gravity to continue to hold it in place and thus it won't "leak out to space"
For those who claim global warming is bunk, Don't bother to challenge them, to them it;s apolitical issue and they simply cannot deal with issues their party has told them how to answer. Ask them instead, why they want to waste anything?.. Didn't they grow up hearing waste not want not?
I mean the waste of anything should be a cause the conservatives would get behind. Look to the hog slaughter industry as an example. They use every single part of those pigs except for the squeal (and they're working on that<G>) by selling off previously unusable parts they've increased the profit.
Industry should be looking at that example and decide that for example gases can be captured and market found. Once that market is developed demand will be there and profits will increase..
It really doesn't matter if you accept the phrase global warming or not.. Waste is something that only short sighted people accept.. (the old ones mans trash is another mans treasure applies here)..
An excellent example of a place that is clearly more forested now than 100 or more years ago is the State of Vermont. I believe the current figure is close to 97% forested. All you have to do to verify the change is to go for a hike virtually anywhere in the state. You will run across old fuondations, rock walls, etc. In fact if I recall correctly, official Vermont state documentation states the change as a low of 17% to the current level stated above. How is this possible? Well, lot's of farmers heard about the "Great Plains" and moved. Why farm a rock strewn mountainside when you can enjoy virtually flat, awesomely fertile land somewhere else? I know from my own experience with a personal garden in the "Rocky Marlowe" of Vermont vs a similar garden in the rich farm land of Iowa. :)
RickMarPhoto,
Minnesota is another example.. in the 1950's Minnesota had about 7 million trees over 24 inches in diameter today that number is closer to 17 million.
I don't know the numbers for Wisconsin but Wisconsin in my youth seemed to be as treeless as Iowa is today. Drive thru Wisconsin now and it seems well forested.. many many old dairy farms have been let go
There is definatly more forests but not old growth timber a big differance. I am sure that some of the logging restrictions are to much but that might be a reaction to having none it the past. No doubt it is much more complicated that most people think.Troy
What is the definition of "old growth"? Is a 100 year old oak tree old growth? 200? 1000? This is a BS Alert term if ever there was one.
RickMarPhoto,
That's simple. Old growth is a forest that has never been harvested. Less than 2% of our forests remain old growth.. they should remain.. America can afford not to harvest the last old trees..
There are some real reasons to save them.. Biodivesity is one of those reasons.. Another is that the old growth rewards large big trees where replanted forests reward standardised trees. Old growth forests have less underbrush and competition than replanted forests so deer and other creatures can flourish.
These are all solid economic reasons not namby pamby feel good stuff.
I completely understand that trees normally are a crop that needs to be harvested when ready. However there are always exceptions.. Just like freedom of speech has limits our forests have limits and those limits should be respected.
Never been harvested?? LOL So the idea is that an old growth tree is infinitely old? No lifespan?
–noun
1.
forest growth consisting of mature or overmature trees.
2.
virgin timber.
[Origin: 1880–85View Image]
------------------------------------
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."---------------Samuel P. Huntington
RickMarPhoto,
I'll give you credit for not being deliberately obtuse. Never been harvested does not mean it has no natural life span, but rather it means that it hasn't been harvested. Trees do die and when they do I see no compelling arguement for not using it even in old growth forests.. You can remove the bole and leave the limbs and leaves and most of the stuff used to grow that tree will remain in the forest..
That method does require care in extraction to not damage the eco system for a few bd.ft. of wood. So the usual approach his been helicopter harvesting. Although I think a case can be made for either mule or horse extraction.. Remember we are speaking about 2% of the forests here.. Old growth forests are simply 2% of the nations forests.. that leaves the other 98% available..
For softwood such as redwood and doug fir in the west I think it means trees that were around before widespread commercial logging. And of course it is a vague term. I think calling it a bs term is a little bit extreme, If you were serious about learning the difference the US Forest service might have a definition.
The globe is warmer now than it was 30 years ago, so yes, there is global warming right now. The temperature is about the same now as it was in the 1930's. And it's a heck of a lot warmer than when glaciers covered large parts of the U.S. The earth had gone through global temperature changes throughout its existence, and it will continue to do so. What I call global warming alarmists are those who believe that if they don't make drastic changes in their lives and force everyone else to do the same, our children's children are doomed! There is no scientific data that supports that catastrophic scenario. In fact, many of the predictions that these global alarmists put out just a few years ago have been scaled back. What happened to the increased and more deadly hurricanes we were supposed to get this past summer? Did you know that while some glaciers have gotten smaller is some areas, others are growing? Did you know that global ocean temperatures went down in the last few years?As for our forests, I don't know a lot about where the wood from my local hardwood dealer comes. I do know that a report recently came out that organic foods use more in natural resources and energy to grow than regular foods. Doesn't it follow that the same could be said about forested trees? I would find it hard to believe that the native grown wood I buy for making furniture comes from forests that are not regulated and managed efficiently and responsibly. If you know differently, my mind is open to real facts.
Hi handymom,
You said: " I do know that a report recently came out that organic foods use more in natural resources and energy to grow than regular foods. Doesn't it follow that the same could be said about forested trees?"
This is somewhat out-of-context. The whole story is that many consumers of organic foods are buying them at very long distance --- if you are in Albany, NY, for instance, your conventional apples from August through the winter would come from NY orchards, only a few dozen miles away, while your organic apples come from over 1000 miles away. The resource usage changes dramatically when there is significant organic farming locally. If people join an organic CSA or buy from local farmer's markets, the carbon footprint is vastly decreased. I realize that for many, it is not possible to buy organic except at significantly long distance. From the perspective of impact on watersheds, buying organic is environmentally correct (reduce neurotoxins in water supplies); from another perspective, this benefit is mitigated by fossil fuel use unless the products are local.
Buying locally from a small-scale conventional farmer whom you know and trust is more important to me than buying organic, but I consider myself fortunate in that most of my local food sources are organic as well, and that because of the CSA system, and my food coop, I can obtain these things at reasonably low prices.Here in Vermont, deforestation is not an issue, but the real reason I buy locally harvested wood is that less fuel is used from the stump to my workshop. The added bonus is that I have a sense of connection to the place where the wood came from. Last month, I made a mallet with an oak handle from a friend's property in the Adirondacks and an ash head from a farm about 5 or 6 miles from my house. I like the appearance of tropical wood but I don't feel connected to it. So for me, I'm more interested in getting wood from nearby, even if it doesn't have some kind of special certification, than wood from Costa Rica that has certification. But if I did buy exotic wood (or bananas), I'd like to be sure that it came to me through some variety of sustainable process, since I have no personal tie to the source.
-Andy
Feeling a connection to the wood you use to build projects is pretty cool. I've been fascinated by posters here who have made furniture from trees in their own back yards. I remember one project where a furniture maker made a full wall unit from one tree that he personally harvested from his back yard. Another fascinating article I read was about trees harvested from the bottom of rivers and lakes that fell over a hundred years ago. If you have resources available to you, it makes perfect sense to use them. I just don't believe that buying standard lumber from a hardwood retailer is hurting our earth or is somehow irresponsible.
Hi Handymom,The wood-from-the-backyard thing interests me, too. There is a lot of patience involved because of the amount of time needed to dry wood like that.I have one (farm) source of wood that really amazes me --- a barn-full of neatly stickered, flitch-cut wood, stacked by log. You can look at a stack and see the relation of every board to the others. Some of the wood was cut as far back as the late 70s. I bought some individual boards, but what I'd really love to do, when I'm ready (with more finances and skills) is to buy an entire log and make a set of matching pieces, all from one tree.
-Andy
Andy,
Where in Vermont is this wood available? Is this someone that sells to the general public, or is this a private arrangement that you've been able to work out with the seller? I ask because I would love to be able to "buy the log" but don't have a source and Vermont is close enough for me to drive.
Michael
Hi Michael,
It's a private arrangement, but if you go through this organization, they should be able to find a match for you:
http://www.familyforests.org/
Also, you could speak with Tom Lathrop of Lathrop's Maple Supply in Bristol -- tell him what you are looking for and perhaps he can hook you up.The thing about Vermont is that there is a lot of small-scale forestry going on, so theoretically it should be possible to get into with someone with a portable mill and let them know what you want. I've only been here for 3 years and am just starting to make the connections. That "Vermont Family Forests" organization probably has the information you need. The contact info for a number of sources is on the site somewhere, and you can also email the organization itself for assistance.One of the mysteries to me is how to negotiate a fair price on rough-sawn green lumber, especially by the log.
I hope this was somewhat useful for you; good luck and let me know what you find if it works out for you,
Andy
Hey Andy,
Thanks so much for the info! I live in upstate NY, in the heart of the Adirondack high peaks area so Vermont (depending on where in VT) is close enough to drive if the price is right. There is a significant volume of small scale loggers/sawyers in my area as well -- I just haven't located any that sell flitches. I have a good source for KD lumber -- good wood at good prices, but it is doubtful that I will find more than two boards from the same tree. Anyway, I will pursue the link you provided. Again, thanks!
Michael
Hey Michael,
I tried to email you off-list but you have it de-selected. If you click on my user profile you can get in touch with me. I'm not sure who is more off-topic here, us or the people who are arguing against global warming based on personal observations of the weather!
-Andy
Amen!John
Could you provide just a few references to all of these claims you are making?
I'd be happy to. If you read through this thread, I have posted quite a few. Which in particular are you interested?
Mmmm, yeah, I just read the thread and I see most of your "references" are from highly biased monied interests, despite the claims by some here that the scientists supporting climate change (the majority by the way) are the ones w/ the monied interests. Funny that the oil industry is actually offering up big payment to scientists to write material opposing the climate change concensus. I guess that majority that doesn't believe in it isn't willing to offer up anything. Maybe the climate change equivalent of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority (which is neither).
Funny that logic AND research debunks your claim that organic farming uses more resources. Let's see, organic uses natural materials, often waste byproducts such as manures, doesn't use chemicals (maufactured w/ petroleum and utilizing energy to create them), and are typically shipped shorter distances than corporate farm products, etc (as a bonus, can you tell me where we get most of our apples in America now? As a hint it isn't here in VA, that industry is drying up). And funny that you would even introduce the issue of organic farming. Smells like just one more attempt to bash the "enviro-loonies" since it has little to do with the discussion at hand.
You might want to read some of those articles and not just the headlines. The ocean temperature issue fits with climate change. Sorry. The majority of glaciers are shrinking, some absurdly rapidly. Again, sorry to dissappoint. And for those that are increasing; mmm yeah, again the brief reading turns up more info that actually supports the climate change theories.
This forum most likely is not populated by Ph.D.s from the fields of biology or physics, but the ANTI-environmentalism expressed is rather upsetting. At our level in the wood consumption process there is not much we can do either way. Fact is: we are dependent on the Big Boys to avoid destroying or depleting our resources whether we want to make a table or preserve air quality or harvest wood sustainably. Most forest destruction has little to do with woodworking anyway; rain forests are being cut and burned for agricultural purposes and urban sprawl. As a resource, the wood is wasted. We WWers don't even have a chance to put it to good use. A good historical example of this was a project funded by one Leopold Ludwig* to grow trees for the sole purpose of manufacturing computer punch cards. He wiped out over 500 square miles of jungle, destroying native economies in the process, only to abandon it because punch cards became obsolete. There was a movie on PBS about the debacle. I found a brief article about it in an encyclopedia. Within the borders of the US, the mining industries have created some equally difficult problems for future generations to deal with. The corporations responsible can't be held responsible because they are broke or extinct. It makes me wonder if too much money in too few hands is not equal to or more dangerous than excessive political power. Perhaps power corrupts and absolute power corrupts no matter what kind of power it is.Threads such as this one are depressing. We are reminded of our individual insignificance by them.Cadiddlehopper*Correction: Daniel Ludwig
Edited 3/11/2007 6:59 am ET by cadiddlehopper
I guess the reason most of us on this thread feel the environmentalists views are so suspect is because we are practical people.
If we just think for one minute what could influence climate change that humans do we would have the answer. We continue to breed in ever increasing numbers, and we try to make sure that in developing countries where the number of births are high to compensate for death from disease that we HELP them by providing medical aid so they all live, live to stave?
Compare the world population growth over the last 500 years, the animals we keep for food, the heat we all dissipate and the methane gas we emit.
So its easy then right, reduce the population, you say where we should start, which country, which race.
Or we could act like big boys and girls and learn to live with a changing planet as it always has done since before humans were on the planet, and will do after we have gone.
Blackbird
Edited 3/10/2007 10:58 pm ET by blackbird
"I guess the reason most of us on this thread feel the environmentalists views are so suspect is because we are practical people."To quote Tim Allen's sidekick, Al, "I don't think so." I also hope that you are wrong in using the phrase "most of us."Your point about population and such is not quite clear to me, but it should be easy to see that burgeoning human population is the root problem for environmentalism. Any voice trying to enlighten us on the subject has been very effectively stifled by civilization's more conservative institutions. The question is: What percentage of Earth's biomass can humanity become before there is nothing else to eat?"act like big boys and girls and learn to live with a changing planet..." "... will do [change] after we have gone."It would certainly be an act and one of futility. Really big boys take action to solve problems. Geological history shows that environmental changes can be so severe that many species cannot possibly adapt to them. Humanity is not immune to such conditions. I would sort of like for the human race to continue to exist for a long time and even manage to populate another celestial body. On a personal level, I hate to see others suffering, which would be universal. I think that answers your final cynical remark.Cadiddlehopper
So you would like to populate another celestial body?
My point exactly most on this site are practical but obviously not all of us.
Before you jump into your space ship don't forget you will be invading that planet where humans currently don't exist and upsetting its delicate balance.
Do make sure your rocket does not burn a greenhouse gas as you leave.
I have worked in the US space program which, incidentally, has been the source of an enormous amount of our knowledge supporting the environmentalist ethic. My support for that ethic is based on many years of study and interest concerning the topic. I would wager that you are the person who is short on information.As to populating a celestial body: I know that such a thing may be millennia away. Our president has more immediate plans which probably aren't practical.I don't know why I'm trying to reason with someone who is probably only watching for another opportunity for a sarcastic response and may very well be suffering from cranial density. This is my last post on this thread.Cadiddlehopper
My last response too,
Only someone living on the rest of the populations tax dollars could be so out of touch.
It shows because you are rude and threatened when met with an alternative view or the mere suggestion that personal research can reveal many interesting details previously not considered. Of course research is pointless if you have your mind made up prior to the research.
Obviously your one of those that consider them selves to be an intellectual elitist, best able to tell the rest of us what we need to do so your life goes according to your plan.
In Britain they called it the class system, in India the cast system but whatever way you slice it a connected minority in favour of controlling the masses for their own benefit.
The good news is that in a free country your funding can be cut at the next election.
Good luck with your solar powered rocket trip.
I know that for many who haven't heard an opposing view, challenging the global warming alarmists seems ridiculous. It was the same in the '70s with the consensus of scientists who warned us of the ice-age that was just beginning. More and more scientists are stepping up to challenge the theory with real science. At the same time, many of the predictions that the global warming alarmists put out in the 1990's haven't come close to reality.Chemicals used in farming serve a purpose, and not all chemicals are dangerous. Just like drugs are bad, unless they're lowering your cholesteral. The chemicals used in farming create more produce with fewer problems from insects, etc. The same resources are needed to plant, maintain and harvest the crops. It's like driving a car that gets higher gas mileage.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you might simply be the mirror opposite of these "global warming alarmists" you keep mentioning? That you could be every bit as fossilized in your views and resistant to alternate explanations as you perceive them to be? That you filter everything through your own set of heavily biased glasses too?
Edited 3/10/2007 12:10 pm by Kevin
Kevin, Could be. However, I trust the scientist who have debunked Gore's claims, even though Gore did invent the internet, for which I am deeply grateful.
Edited 3/11/2007 7:25 pm ET by handymom
"...even though Gore did invent the internet..."handy-That's a well-aged myth of the right and one that they have gotten a lot of miles from. Just for kicks, I challenge you to come up with a credible source documenting that Gore ever claimed to have invented the Internet. You know you can't.He's patted himself on the back many times for being an early supporter of the Internet and voting as a Congressman to fund the initial DARPA research that eventually led to the Internet. And the cousin of a neighbor has a friend whose wife's boss actually heard Gore claim to have invented it, right?But it makes a good story, so pass it along.
DonaldCBrown,Oh my! My comment about Gore inventing the internet was meant as a joke. Cool off (by about half a degree!).
"My comment about Gore inventing the internet was meant as a joke."handy-And which of your comments are meant to be taken seriously?
All of the rest!
It's all "yada,yada,yada" and"Yakkity smackity" or does "blah,blah,blah" sum it up best? because until big corporations start to worry about the environment first and profits second it's not going to do anyone any good what so ever to complain. So lets hit em where it hurts, IN THE BANK ACCOUNT.Jim at Clark Customs
Hi Clarkcustoms,
You are of course correct, as long as companies have shareholders like us, investors looking for a return so we can have retirement income, profit will be what most of us look for in making a decision on where to invest.
Secondly and sadly in democratic countries long term planning or actually dealing on a realistic and practical basis with issues cannot happen very easily because politicians need to get re elected usually between every three to five years.
As we have all seen little else matters to a politician than being elected, coming in second does not count and most would sell their Grandmothers.
Fortunately we are all free to do our bit however we are able, and that's probably the way it should be otherwise we would not be free.
Blackbird
If all you folks who are so worried about global warming, just what the heck are you doing on the internet and using electricity to run your computer to post to this site?
Or is it more likely that you want to be like the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm?
Soothsayer,
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you were actually asking a question:
Not all electricity comes from the same source! And not all household electricity use is equal. And not everyone buys as much food and other goods (or the same quantity of goods) that are shipped halfway around the globe or even across the continent. Not everyone uses inefficient vehicles (under 40 mpg) to the same extent. So, depending on choices that are made or not made, some of us can leave the computers on all day and still leave a smaller carbon footprint than others.
BTW, you can easily charge a laptop battery with an alternative energy source -- such as an exercize bike.
The assumption that supporters of the global warming thesis would be hypocrites for using electricity, driving cars, etc., is based on an unrealistic picture of who they are. For the most part, they are people who wish we would scale our consumption back to a reasonable and sustainable level.
-Andy
Efficiency is defined as the amount of work done on the fuel burned. A pickup that delivers a husband and wife to work, takes the kids to a ball game on a shared basis with other families, picks up the lumber for a project on the way home, lasts in excess of ten years and pulls the family RV on holiday is more efficient I would challenge you than a fleet of smart cars driving around, going to the landfill every five years and as for the lumber a five tone diesel from the hardware store has to deliver it for you and travel back empty.
As for the comments on energy production, is your table saw powered by your exercise bike, or your water heater, washer, dryer etc.
If you have all this personal energy to contribute I suggest you sign up with your local utility to sell back to the grid and get pedaling or perhaps harness the hotair.
At the end of the day I am happy you are free to do as you feel you should do for the environment, but strongly believe you have no business telling others or even lobbying to have others do what you think they should.
Intellectual elitism is a disgrace well beyond the environmental issues of this article, who honestly has the knowledge or the right to tell others how to live their lives.
Blackbird
Blackbird said..."At the end of the day I am happy you are free to do as you feel you should do for the environment, but strongly believe you have no business telling others or even lobbying to have others do what you think they should."
By far the most logical and meaningful sentence written in this thread. Nothing else really needs to be said. Or are there some who would like to argue that we should no longer be free to make our own choices because they believe that they know what is best for their life, as well as yours. And after all "It's for the children!!".
Rob
Blackbird,First of all: Tablesaw! I won't be caught dead with one, but not for reasons that have anything to do with electricity use; mostly because I am also a musician, so I don't use one for the same reason you won't find too many ballerinas on the ski slopes. All you'll find in my shop are handsaws, powered by me, powered mostly by food from within 30 miles of my house. We do have a jigsaw for some home improvement tasks, but it doesn't see much use.I never said in my post that it is how others should live their lives -- it is how I choose to live mine. It would not hurt if more people considered the broader impact of their choices, not just environmentally, but also in other domains. Still, you sound a bit defensive of your pickup truck. You assume that I would not call it efficient; perhaps you have assumed too much. My point is, proponents of the global warming theory are not all who you think they are. Where I live, you'll find people on both sides of the political aisle who are concerned, people with various lifestyles and looks. Give human beings credit for being more complex than you think they are. I think it is a shame that anyone would look at anyone else's choice to live with less environmental impact and believe that it is done out of a spirit of elitism.
-Andy
You wrote: "If you have all this personal energy to contribute I suggest you sign up with your local utility to sell back to the grid "Again, what makes you think that I am not already doing so?
I trust the scientist who have debunked Gore's claims
But apparently not the scientists who agree with Gore's claims. Which means that their respective academic credentials are a red herring. You filter based on which ones are saying what you want to hear. They could be certified dermatologists for all that it'd matter to you.
Don't get me wrong, I'm skeptical of some of Gore's claims and have never taken anything he says at face value. It's just that it's much more obvious than I suspect you realize that you've got every bit as much of an axe to grind as Gore does. The Gore quip at the end was a dead giveaway for those who hadn't already caught on.
Lastly, I'd like to suggest the Golden Rule to you. You want Gore to be upfront about his bias. Do the same about your bias. Otherwise you're nothing more than the counterweight to whatever you say about him. Same, same.
Kevin,Gore and the global warming alarmists do have some real science in their arguments, most of it cherry picked. They also add a lot of speculation and have used scientific models that just haven't stood up to reality. All together it just doesn't rise to the state of crisis that they are trying to create.
I personally am all for learning to deal with issues and problems that we have created... I think having lived in Korea for several years that if we curb our industry to reduce global anything we are in reality going to be the only ones on our planet (with a few European allies with declining economies and populations) to do so. They are worried more about getting a job that will provide them with one of the color tvs they make all day for Wal-Mart than about their carbon emissions. I believe that the earth is warming... I am not convinced that it is due to people... I am even more not convinced that the solutions pressed on us by politicians like Gore but not excluding our president who I did vote for and would again... are actually in the best interests of my family and our country as far as they pertain to this matter...That being said. I grow a garden... I have a big huge diesel truck to pull my 5ver with but have a fuel efficient car to drive to work... (The intent was not to save some cash) I like supporting windpower... but I like supporting Nuclear power and hydropower as well.I think the biggest issue we really should be dealing with in the world is the problem we have with invasive species like SARS, Brown Tree Snakes, Killer Bees, Oak Tree Fungi, Japanese Beetles, Aids, hydrilla, Rats, Yellow Star Thistle, West Nile Virus and a zillion others - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasive_species...Right now... due to whatever reason the environment is changing... This and humans having the ability to travel as easily as we do create opportunities for these organisms... And this is going to have a broader effect on a larger cross section of our Earths population than the climate warming a bit in our immediate future. We don't pay any attention as it perceptibly happens so slowly and one invasive species (Say the Japanese Bark Beetle in the western states or Formosan termites in the south) alone are not creating big enough impacts on our lives to make us change as a group... but all together when you look at "Invasive Species." or Non-Native species... it is going to ultimately be the biggest challenge in our worlds future... Even for those who don't care much about preserving our biodiversity.Drew
You make some excellent points.
Hi drew1house,
Its nice to see an open minded balanced practical approach as opposed to a political Ideology based on redistribution of wealth camouflaged as environmental activism.
Blackbird
Old growth timber is off the market, but we have engineered products that are arguably better. Laminated beams can span far greater distances with much less weight and they are made from waste products or trash trees like fast growing poplar. MDF is made from sawdust and scrap. I remember wigwam burners smoking 24x7 at mills around my home town in Oregon, now they make beams, trim, counter tops out of it. Plus we have PVC lumber now. Plastic wood isn't that an oxymoron? Any way, I just replaced the framing around my back door with it. Machined well, drilled well, is light, straight as an arrow and it takes paint and caulk well. Bugs don't like to eat it either. Wood rots quickly or is eaten here in Florida so it worked well for me. As far as I know a few milk jugs I recycled are in that trim. Also, Trex is a good product for decking, thought I don't know if it will last longer than redwood or cedar, I'll walk on it barefoot without a care.
Regards,
Ken
"Do as you would be done by." C.S. Lewis
no doubt the engineered lumber is a great product but when you want a beautiful product there is no substitute and the old growth lumber is was a finite resource. If you question the value of it take a look at what salvage companys pay for it when an old warehouse is demolished.Troy
From:
handymom <!----><!---->
Mar-1 4:30 pm
To:
Ruth <!----><!---->unread
View ImagePoll (3 of 18)
34798.3 in reply to 34798.1
I wish I had the source for this, but I know I read that the U.S. has far more trees now than 100 years ago, (obviously the trees are not as big). If you look at photographs of natural forests from back then, they are denser now than before. There are more trees planted in residential areas as well. I think everyone's heart is in the right place to try to go green. But if you use your brain instead of your heart, you may realize that it's an unnecessary hardship you are placing on yourselves. And, here's a trivia question for you, what is food for a tree? CO2! (But don't tell those global warming alarmists!)
I would like to see your source also. That is the kind of misleading tripe that Rush Limbaugh likes to quote. It is possibly true, but is so absolutely misleading as to have nothing to do with the health of the North American eco-system or the planet.<!----><!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
It is very true that plants respirate CO2, but it is also true that the geologic record shows that warmer times were accompanied by a rise in atmospheric CO2. It is a concern that industrial gasses are raising the global temperature, and soon (if not already) will disrupt weather patterns. How this will affect the world is unknown.
Most of your so-called “alarmists” are highly educated atmospheric scientists, who are very aware of the gaseous needs of plants. Your whole tenor is smug.
Edited 3/2/2007 11:53 am ET by McMarky
For all of the highly educated scientist that are pushing global warming alarmism, there are many more who are skeptical if not fighting back against it. What I find smug is posting a question that implies that simply buying hardwood from your local dealer is somehow environmentally irresponsible.Here's a source: Peter W. Huber and Mark P. Mills have written a book, The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, The Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy"When the Pilgrims landed (1620), our 48-State area had an estimated 1,045 million acres of forest. By 1920, only 720 million; today we have 740 to 800 million and replant about 3 million acres per year (30 times the logging rate). "Within a generation, if current trends continue, America could return to levels of forestation last seen by the Pilgrims."Also, climate research Professor Jan Veizer demonstrated that, over geologic time, CO2 and temperature changes are not linked at all.
"CO2 increases don't precede, and therefore don't cause, warming. Rather, they follow temperature rise by as much as 800 years."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef
Edited 3/2/2007 1:58 pm ET by handymom
That is really good information...I have been trying to get some numbers on the efforts to reforrest or replant or renew
Thank you
I agree and in addition --I went to the weyerheuser booth at the IWF and they had pics of Mt St. Helens- one side owned by them and reforested and the other side owned by gov't and left to "nature". The weyerheuser side was completely covered by 6-8 foot trees. Total green and lush. The gov't side looked like Hiroshima after the bomb, barren desolate and eroding. The "greens" are against restoration and they are against thinning older forests which would prevent numerous acres lost from fire caused by lightening.Also on a visit to the Cape Cod National Seashore I remember an exhibit showing that before the Pilgrims, the forest went right up to the ocean. All that wood went for heating without the slightest thought of the future. So we now have reversed the tide.Then you have the various blights that have also taken a tree-mendous toll.And we worry about a little hobby use?
Your absolutely right about the amount of wood used buy hobbyists and fine woodworkers. But I would not be to complementary about large lumber companies some like Pacific Lumber what used to be a great company were taken over buy crooks like leverage buyout kings and bleed dry that forced them to log in such an irresponsible matter it gave the tree huggers all sorts of ammunition.Troy
It seems that we all hear only what we want to hear. If you want proof to support your point of view, it is out there. But it also seems that the indisputable proof that many of you are looking for is irreparable harm. When we have damaged our earth so badly that you (and our current administration) finally say, "oh yeah, maybe that wasn't so good," will we be able to correct it? Why take that chance? We are gambling with our children's earth for our own temporary gain. Pretty short sighted in my opinion.Proof enough for me is the incredible shrinking of the glaciers. This is not a long term event like natural climate change. There is no shortage of data and pictures of this loss happening before our eyes. We are losing a huge aquatic habitat that when lost will impact all oceanic life around the globe. Add that the fact that drinking water is now an industry required in so many communities because the ground water is contaminated and I am sold that we are doing considerable damage.As for the enviro-loonies, I am glad that we have them, even if they do sometimes go too far. It at least balances out the anti-enviro-loonies. If we didn't have them companies would still be dumping toxic waste in our drinking water. Plants would be belching out choking smoke into our air. Lake Erie would still be flammable. Unchecked capitalism is not a good thing. It just takes one bad one to contaminate many. I see it as a great big swimming pool and just because one person has the desire to go, that does not mean that they should be able to do as they please in the pool. We all have to swim here.My take on how it impacts woodworking is that there is a balance in the world. Mahogany grows where it does for a reason. We don't have it. Others do. We do however have oak, maple, cherry, apple, birch, hickory... We can't complain about not having beautiful woods to work with. But is this what is causing all of the damage? Of course not, but it forms our mentality and our approach to overall material consumption that together with other parts of our lives (transportation choices, home energy consumption, the amount of garbage we create) does impact the environment. I think these choices are as important as the choices we make when we vote. Our vote makes a statement, some loudly some quietly, but a statement nontheless. Not one of us (most likely) has ever swung an election by ourselves, but I would hope that we all continue to vote. We can vote with our purchases as well, and I will continue to purchase (or find for free) locally.
Joby,"Proof enough for me is the incredible shrinking of the glaciers."
Glaciers are shrinking in some areas and growing in others.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092203CDo you think there isn't an "industry" behind global warming alarmism?
"... never acknowledges the special-interest motivations of those whose research grants, direct mail income, industrial policy privileges, regulatory power, prosecutorial plunder, or political careers depend on keeping the public in a state of fear about global warming." http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfmI'm not saying we shouldn't be responsible.
>I personally have chosen a car based upon it's better gas mileage;
>I use water-based finishes on my furniture;
>I walk when I can and have my kids walk to school while most drive;
>I recycle as much as I throw out in regular trash (except for wood scraps);
>I set my thermostat a little lower in the winter/higher in the summer;
>I try to reuse as much as possible;
>My form of exercise is walking my dog, not going to a gym to use their treadmill;
>I eat leftovers;Blah, blah, blah! I can pat myself on the shoulder and feel good about myself, too. The term "cheap virtue" comes to mind.These are all choices that I can make. They aren't the choices that others are able or would want to make, just as there are other things I have chosen not to do. Choosing to make changes is a lot different than being forced to change based upon hysteria from unproven dire predictions. Too many people spread this hysteria to feel good about themselves without understanding the full picture.
I don't doubt that human activity is having an effect on the climate. I suspect (as a layperson) that scientists have got some good hypothesise and can point to strong evidence that supports their case. In the long term (from the world's point of view) I'd guess the human race is a mere pimple irritating the earth's backside.
If there should be some sort of cataclysmic event that wipes out all life on the globe I bet the earth will continue to spin around the sun for a few years yet and will recover in its own way, much as it has done for the last few hundred million years. Whether or not the recovery will include life forms I'm sure matters not a jot to our solar system, nor to the universe. Frankly, I don't think humanity is very important in the whole scheme of things. We just think we are important because, well, we think.
As I mentioned in another thread I find the following snippets interesting.
The last Winter Fair held on the Thames in London was I believe somewhere between 1810 and 1820-- these winter fairs occurred regularly for about 100+ years in the late 1600's, through the 1700's and on into the early 1800's. The Thames hasn't frozen over once since the last Winter Fair.
Perhaps even more surprisingly it's believed that between about 800 to the late 900's AD (or thereabouts) the weather was warm enough to support viniculture in the Scotttish Borders. There is supposed to be a strong suggestion that this is the case through archeological research undertaken at the site of the ruins of Melrose Abbey.
Why do these significant and recent variations in the climate (over only roughly the last 1200 years) never get discussed in the climate change debate? What caused these variations? Could it happen again, and have our knowledgeable scientists forgotten that the British Isles only became islands something like 8,000 years ago? Prior to that the British Isles was part of mainland Europe.
I suspect any legislation dreamed up by our collective governments to prevent climate change will do nothing to alter any 'climate disaster' that might, or might not occur. And anyway, as I said earlier, I don't think the the World really cares a hoot about us-- it'll just keep spinning away, whether or not we're here. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Well said!
Hi Richard,
You wrote:
"Why do these significant and recent variations in the climate (over only roughly the last 1200 years) never get discussed in the climate change debate?"They actually DO get discussed in the climate change debate. The other week I was sitting in our teachers' lounge and two of the science teachers were discussing this, and they were referring to articles that they recently read, I just don't remember which journals. If I recall correctly, there were climate changes resulting from major deforestations in Europe during the Middle Ages? I'm not an expert on this, but it seems to me that a lot of people here are claiming that certain things aren't discussed (like why there is cooling in some places and warming in others) when in fact they are, just not in the popular press, which gives the simplest accounts. If you are truly interested in the intricacies of the debate, then some more in-depth reading is called for!
-Andy
Perhaps Andy, what's really going on is that there are factions, e.g., lobbiests, scientists and politicians, that see climate change as a means to make money, extend a career, gain influence, and in the case of politicians, to be seen to be doing something, even if it's ultimately pointless and futile.
After all, politicians more than anyone (it seems to my cynical nature) to be mostly vote seeking, self preserving, self regarding, self important, windbags. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Hi Richard,
I'm sorry you feel that way. Anyone paying close attention to politics in the U.S. (I don't expect you to; I know next to nothing about British politicians other than that they are as ugly as ours, with equally poor taste in ties, but perhaps better educated) knows that this has been an unpopular issue to take up on either side of the aisle; Al Gore found little support for it in his own party and it certainly isn't what got him elected as Senator from his own state.Anyhow, I don't know how old you are, but I'll check back with you in 20 years if we're both still around. Don't let that cynicism catch up with you!
-Andy
Edited 3/4/2007 8:26 am ET by VTAndy
and in the case of politicians, to be seen to be doing something, even if it's ultimately pointless and futile.
isn't that the very definition of politics..?
save the planet.. recycle the politicians...??Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Andy, by coincidence I happend to watch a programme a couple of nights ago here in the UK, The Great Global Warming Swindle produced by a company called Wag TV. It did discuss the issues I mentioned in my earlier post.
I found the programme fascinating, for if the scientists and others that were featured in the documentary are to be believed, CO 2's causative role in global warming is incorrect. CO 2 forms only 0.03%-0.06% of the earth's atmosphere, and their postulation is/was that carbon dioxide levels rise in response to rises in temperature, not the other way around. They reckon, rather plausibly I suppose, that the main driver of atmospheric temperature on earth is a nearby star called The Sun, coupled with the amount of cloud cover! Who would have thought that The Sun had anything to do with climate on the earth, ha, ha.
Anyway, if anyone wishes to do a bit of digging on Google or some other search engine, highlight, copy, and paste the following phrase in and see what you get. Slainte.
Wag TV The Great Global Warming Swindle
Richard Jones Furniture
Edited 3/10/2007 8:14 am by SgianDubh
<<Frankly, I don't think humanity is very important in the whole scheme of things. We just think we are important because, well, we think.>>Exactly. A very small part of a huge puzzle -- a sentiment perhaps best expressed by National Lampoon's Deteriorata:You are a fluke
Of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not
The universe is laughing behind your back.
A Man Said to the UniverseA man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
I don't want to get the thread too far away from how do we as woodworkers stand on the issue, but both of the articles you provided are from sources that openly state that their slants are towards free enterprise and would be expected to dispute anything and everything that has any impact on their idea of free-enterprise. Two articles from very slanted sources would only seem to only show that we can find whatever evidence we want to back up whatever we want to think. I think you would be hard pressed to find many such articles from more balanced sources.As for environmentalism being an industry, that is a good thing. I find it strange that a pro-business group like the above would be condemning people for finding business opportunities. Pro-business advocates should be embracing ways to make money off of this. Getting back to the woodworking angle, I think we as wood workers should be embracing how to make this happen in our shops. We should be finding ways to make the most out of resources that we have locally. The walnuts, hickories, oaks, maples, and so many other beautiful speces have produced so much absolutely fabulous work, I don't see why why we need to expend such huge amounts of natural resources to ship around the world what we have in our backyards.
Balanced media sources is a whole other subject. Not really wanting to go off on a tangent to a tangent, I'll just say that these were the scientific articles referenced in what I consider more mainstream sources. What you might consider balanced probably would reference scientific articles from sources that I would consider extreme on the other side. You may believe one side has sold out, I believe the other has.None the less, these articles are from scientist who have differing opinions, and they don't represent some inconsequential minority. My father was a scientist, and rather liberal in his political views, but he was incredulous in the 1970's when there appeared to be the same kind of consensus view that we were entering a mini-ice age. He could tell that the science behind it was questionable. The theories, and that's all they are at this point, that Al Gore and the scientist who push global warming alarmism have put out there are coming under increasing scrutiny. He's stopped answering questions from even the "balanced media".As far as woodworking, I have only used domestic hardwoods. I agree that they are beautiful. My only source of wood for furniture making is from local hardwood dealers. I have no way to harvest my own wood or go to local, independent farm that does. The original poster asked a question that implied unless I was using Green Tag wood or harvested or found materials, I was not doing enough. The companies who supply Green Tag wood, harvested wood, or salvaged materials would all benefit from all of us believing that theirs is a more responsible choice. Good for them, but are they really more responsible choices. I believe that the major suppliers can bring us wood efficiently and responsibly.
Joby,
Upon reading your post two things jumped out at me. The first was this sentence..
"Unchecked capitalism is not a good thing."
Hmmm.... How did capitalism enter a discussion on the environment? Could it be that the people pitching the global warming theory subtly tie the two together in an effort to disgrace capitalism in favor of socialism? As far as I know an economic system doesn't produce any pollution on its own. As a matter of fact towards the end of your post you give the reason why capitalism is the only system that allows the people in it to prevent pollution individually when you make this statement....
"We can vote with our purchases as well"
Exactly. In a free(or unchecked) capitalist system if people don't like the way a company does business for whatever reason (they pollute to much, they don't hire minorities, whatever) they simply choose not to purchase their product. If enough people feel that way then the company will either have to change its practices or go out of business. The only time this doesn't work is when the government steps in and creates conditions that make competition impossible. No monopoly can exist without the government. Now in a socialist system if you have a problem with the way a company does business, tough. They are the ones that the government has chosen to bestow the right to produce whatever product they produce and the only thing you can do is ask the gov. to make them stop whatever it is they are doing that you don't like.
Now out of those two examples which sounds like a responsible adult who values using their own intellect to make decisions would thrive under and which sounds like the kind of person who never grew out of running to an authority figure (mom, dad, teacher, etc.) with every little problem real or imagined would prefer. I know which person I would like to be and which system I prefer to have. So please keep the government the hell out of my life in as many ways as possible. Even if others think that they should be in it.
Rob
Edited 3/3/2007 12:59 pm ET by Rob A.
>>For all of the highly educated scientist that are pushing global warming alarmism, there are many more who are skeptical if not fighting back against it. I wonder about the source for this information.
Among Global Warming deniers, it seems to be popular to suggest that many scientists are in their ranks, or that Global Warming is nothing but "junk science" or even a hoax.
I'm skeptical of THOSE claims.However, there's an Early Bird Special down at Woodcraft today, so I better get off this topic, hop in my 15 MPG pickup truck, and move!
It's interesting that you have skepticism for one side and not both.Here's something about Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" which, unfortunately, has become gospel to far too many."Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect."That claim was based on a search of research papers where the researcher claimed that all papers found support the "consensus view", however
"... only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909Just trying to help with a few facts from the other perspective.
>>It's interesting that you have skepticism for one side and not both.It's not that I never am skeptical about dire, Chicken Little claims of impending environmental disaster. I do believe that, even if the worst predictions about GW turn out to be true, human beings will adapt.But Global Warming, like Evolution, is a scientific issue. There may well be ulterior motives among some non-scientists for supporting either side of these issues. However, among working scientists worldwide, there does appear to be broad consensus for one point of view, and not the other. You can go to the web site for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and observe that its representaion comes from all over the world. It is not just a few liberal American politicians and Hollywood types. I think the most imortant thing about woodworkers, for this issue, is that they are problem-solvers who know how to build things. We can try to be a good example of ordinary people who are able to step back from a problem, mull it over, and work toward a sensible non-hysterical approach. I'll put a solar hot water collector on my shop roof when the price comes down and I conclude the technology works for me, just becaue I think it's a cool idea, not that I have any illusions about it stoppiing ice bergs from melting.
Thanks for your last reply. You don't sound like you are part of the global warming alarmists that really raise my hackles. I don't dispute the real science behind the fact of global warming. However, I will politely disagree with you that there is an overwhelming consensus of scientist who believe that humans are largely responsible and that we must all change our ways.BTW, I think solar power for residential (or shop) use is a terrific idea.
Check this out:http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Lets see, in the 1970’s the “experts” said we were going into the next ice age (no joke, it was big news at the time). Now about 30 years later man is supposedly causing the globe to warm. 30 years in the life of the earth is comparable to the time it takes a person to blink their eye one time in their life. I think a lot of well meaning people are being sucked into what seems to have become a religion of sorts. Even one of the founders of Green Peace has said the concept of man causing the globe to warm is ridiculous.
steveky,
Forget Global warming, I know it's a political issue with you and I won't bother to challaenge you on that. let's just say that we differ and let it go at that?
But what is the real problem? Well man is letting gases go into the air that previously weren't there.. that's not global warming, that's waste!
WHATEVER THOSE GASES ARE, THEY HAVE VALUE.. IF YOU DOUBT LOOK TO THE HOG SLAUGHTER INDUSTRY AS AN EXAMPLE.. Previously only the meat had value, the rest was waste..
Today they use every part of a hog except the squeal (and they're working on that<G>) and their profits are up accordingly. Let's figure out a way to capture waste gases and reuse them.. The old one mans waste is another mans treasure should apply..
If we're too short sighted to see the use for waste gases it's our weakness . Some clever individual will figure it out and profit from it and we'll all slap our collective foreheads and say, I should'a thought of that! Look at methane gas from dumps for an example.. previously it was either left to drift off leaving those who lived near a dunp with the stink or burned off.
Today there are a lot of methane generators operating at town dumps capturing and reusing that methane to generate electricity..
The issue is not political with me - it’s common sense 101. All you have to do is look between the lines at the characters pushing this warming issue. Credibility does not exist among these people. Follow the money. Their livelihoods depend on continued funding for the research of a non-existent issue.
So what your saying is that we can continue to dump all our waste into the atmosphere, oceans, and land and we will suffer no consequences? Or are you saying we shouldn't do anything because scientist made this up to make money?
To deny that humans have an effect on the environment is odd at best. To claim that because scientist believe something different than they did 30 years ago, that they must be wrong now is logically incorrect.
Give me a break. I’m not suggesting that you go out and pour poison in a stream. What I’m saying is that every 5 or 10 years they come up with some new scare to make us all think the world is coming to an end. Some of it comes from the left, some comes from the right, and some comes from who knows where. Remember the first gulf war? The scientists said if Sadam set Kuwait’s oil fields on fire it would be the end of the world’s climate. Well he did it and two or three months later the fires were put out and everything was fine. Remember new years eve 1999-2000 when all the computers were suppose to set off the worlds nukes because they had been programmed long ago with two numbers representing the year? Well I woke up just fine on Jan. 1, 2000. I could give you a dozen more examples going back decades but for some reason I don’t think you’re interested in listening. Just remember one thing. In 1980, the eruption of Mount. St. Helens put more garbage into the atmosphere than mankind has created in the last 100 years. With the exception of nuclear war, mankind could not destroy the world’s climate by the time your grandchildren’s grandchildren have grand kids, and to think we could is arrogance beyond belief.
Okay... I don't know where to begin. You will not pour poison into a stream, but releasing poisons into the atmosphere is okay? That example is a little over the top.With the exception of nuclear war, mankind could not destroy the world’s climate by the time your grandchildren’s grandchildren have grand kids, and to think we could is arrogance beyond belief.
Clearly you have some insight into the future that no one else has. What are the long term effects of increased CO2 into the atmosphere? How about various other gases we realease yearly? Arrogance is claiming to know the future. First global warming and cooling isn't necessarily about the destroying climate it's about longer term change in climate.
I think you're placing the blame on the wrong people. Most scientist are not so motivated. Why bother making stuff up, when there is so much real science left? Beyond that it would be difficult to really fake good science. The examples you gave are examples of media hysteria, and a lack of understanding in science or in the topics discussed. It's one of those things, we like to precive ourselves in danger. It's not some scientific conspiracy, or some government conspiracy... just what we want to believe.
In the end scientists may not agree on the consequences of our actions, but the do agree that there will be consequences. To sit around saying it's all lies and conspiracies, and ignore common sense is the real danger.
Finally, you should really check your sources. The USGS states that on average we put 150 times the amount of CO2 that volcanoes do into the atmosphere each year, so Mt Saint Helens was 100 times larger than the average of all volcanoes... (Check here it links to the USGS: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html ) This is a good example of a little knowledge not helping.
Have a nice life.
Scientists are not so motivated? What do you suppose they are motivated by? Do you think it might be... wait for it... funding? And what if the people doing the funding want a certain outcome? Possible?
You seem to be comparing all scientists to hookers, when in reality unethical scientists make up a very small percentage. Every job has a few bad eggs. Scientists that work for tobacco companies, The Discovery Institute… These are people with other agenda’s. In reality funding is not that hard to get.<!----><!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
The problem with a politically motivated scientist is that he still has to work within normal science channels. He still has to have his work peer reviewed and critiqued to get published. Unpublished work is essentially worthless, and different journals have different degrees of credibility. Attempts to get around the system (creating your own journal to publish your work) are easily spotted and are essentially worthless.<!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
The problem is to a non scientist these things are irrelevant. Most people get their science information from the media, which unfortunately is more interested in the headline than the substance. Junk science makes good headlines. In the end you’re trusting someone with a journalism degree to tell you about science.<!----><!---->
steveky,
who cares?
I mean the fundamental issue with me is waste.. pollution is waste, pure and simple.. There are economic benefits to be gained from not wasting stuff. Just because something is cheap or free doesn't mean it has no use or value. it simply means that No one has focused on it yet..
Look to the coal industry for an example.. they can extract all sorts of valuable products from seemingly worthless by products of making coke (the fuel not the drink) Those by products are actaully more valuable than the resulting coke.. plus the benefit is the enviornment. It's nice to not dump the stuff in the rivers and lakes the way they used to do. The benefit of that is our drinking water gets less pollution.
Yes some people will profit from global warming.. Heck, some people profit from the fashion industry.. So what! I still wear jeans as I have my whole life. They aren't fashion brands but then I don't pay $125.00 for a pair of them.. It's my choice.. treat the enviornment the same way, it's fashionable right now to give it a lot of media hype.. not that maybe the underlying issue doesn't have merit, I mean you do agree with me on the subject of waste don't you?
Of course I agree with you on waste. Why would anybody want to waste anything that is realistically usable? My concern on the global warming business is these people want to turn our lives upside down over an issue that is about a thousand miles away from being a proven fact. Remember the 11th commandment - “Follow thy money, it shall lead one to the truth”. As I recall, you mentioned gases created by pigs or some such business the last time we talked. Here is an idea! Figure out a way to harness my daily gas and I’ll heat a home for a year.
steveky,
You joke, but during WW2 in London taxi's etc. were run by gas from pigs,..
dumps today use the methane gas to drive generators making electricity. LESS POLLUTION MORE ELECTRICAL POWER!
etc..
As I said, who cares about the money? What tiny little stipend most scientists get is an extremely modest percentage of the value of all the waste..
To my mind they are focused on the wrong end of the equation.. make the waste product valuable and you'll be amased at all that's done to capture that value.
By focusing attention some clever person will solve the problem..
Here's another example..
At the turn of the century a fortune was being paid to street sweepers who's job it was to remove horse shif from the New York city streets.. somebody invented cars and the problem went away..
Same with pollution.. right now some clever person is thinking about a solution.. That solution may happen quickly or it may happen slowly. Just like cancer was solved..
Cancer in the 1950's was a death sentence.. Today you stand a good chance of living thru it!
nothing over night and A LOT OF GOVERNMENT MONEY WENT INTO THE RESEARCH BUT IT'S BEING SLOWLY SOLVED..
Very, very well said, Frency. I couldn't agree more.
BTW, on the mule or horse logging you mentioned in your previous comment... I watched a very interesting segment on the local PBS station a few years ago about a guy here in Oregon who is horse logging on a selective basis (i.e., no clearcutting) on a sizable tract owned by some Catholic Convent. His background was as a commercial logger. I forget how he stumbled upon horse logging but I do remember that he was deeply skeptical that he could make much of a profit at it. Turned out that he not only could make a profit at it but his profit margin was actually higher than it had been with the roads and tractors and all that. Granted, he still uses a chain saw. He's no environmentalist. He's just an average guy as motivated by $$$ as the next guy.
If you can figure out how to make my vehicle run on poo, please pass along the secret. I have lots of it to go along with my gas.
steveky,
It's well documented on how to run vehicles on methane. Methane is the gas produced by ,.. poo. It's just about the same conversion as running vehicles on natural gas.
Well said!!John
It's too hard so why bother? Although I'm sure a few hardcore environmentalists would want to seize every SUV on the road, I think it's not what is intended.
Proven fact? This is a logical falacy, if it's not 100% proven it must be wrong? No science will ever be completely proven. Science is a culmination of our knowledge to date, the theories are based on facts and tested hypothesis.
Since you seem fixated on money, here is the challenge. Find a couple of papers on climate change, see who wrote them and see who funds them. If you've actually followed you'd already have some good examples.
You win! Everyone involved in global warning research has a pure heart and if we don’t change everything quickly we’re all going to die. This conclusion will all be backed up by the fact that this spring we’ll have some tornadoes, this summer we’ll have some 90 to 100 degree heat and of course there will likely be a couple of hurricanes. These things have never happened before and can only indicate one thing - we’re on a path to a slow, hot death. God bless you for your knowledge, your insight, and your extraordinary caring nature! Now please leave me alone.
I apologize for upsetting you.
Buster
I’m not upset. It’s just a never ending conversation and I broke my own rule of getting involved in a non-woodworking subject.
Ok so from looking around it appears we have global warming. By this I mean that in general the world seams to be warmer today then it was in the 60s.
Now the real question is why? Ok we have more CO2. Ok why? Because we have more cars? How about because in the 1940s to 1950s sometime (I forget the exact dates) we had about HALF the population of the world that we have today. So if we took the average vehicle (car, truck, bus, train, ship, plane, and submarine) and cut it's admission of CO2 (and other gases) in half, and we did the same for all the electricity we make and the sources of heating and everything else would we have kept the levels from back in the 50? No we would not have, as the population has doubled. It stands to reason that this would double the amount of vehicals needed/used by them so cutting the emissions in half will only hold it own, then when you add in that we have twice as many peaple breathing so the output of People (we do make CO2) has doubled. Thus to keep the levels from back then we would have to have cut ever other source by more then 50%.
It is nice to sit and talk about how this or that has caused this or that problem, but we seam to always look at the same issues. If you want to do something to save the world how about passing a law saying that all office buildings that are not is use from 1 in the morning until 6 must have their lights off in the building and the parking lot? This would cost nothing and we could do it in about a week. But no we are going to try and force a fix that we have no idea will work into things and hang the costs. It is nice for rich people to have the idea that they can use all the power they want because they are buying "green" power but that just goes to prove that those with the money can do what ever they want.
I will be a lot more sympathetic to the global warming issues when I see someone talking about something besides electricity generation and cars. How about we put all the long distance shipping back on rails? Trains take less energy to move a pound a mile then trucks do, and with the new engines they burn cleaner to boot. Add in that we could (if we wanted to) power the trains with electricity and that we could use passive generated electricity and we would really have an impact. Oh but I forgot the truckers have a big lobby to protect them.
If the global warming people want to be taken seriously they need to look at everything and all the possible fixes. Not just at one or two things that a LOT of people equate with environmental wackos. (right or wrong when you say we should outlaw the internal combustion engine but don't have a working replacement you get labeled as a wacko) And right or wrong if your make vissable spokesman has a rep for being an extreemist you and your cause will get painted with the same brush.
So you want my support, then show me what we can do NOW with little effort. Once we start doing that then you can talk to me about doing the harder thing. But lets do the simple ones first. As long as you insist we go strait to the hardest thing to do from a tech and cost point of view while ignoring everything else you will find it a hard sell. And while a lot of facts have been tossed around a lot of these have little proof connecting them.
Yes the boat may be sinking, and yes building a pump may be needed, but while we are figuring this out maybe we should use the buckets we have to start bailing instead of telling me i am a bad person because I can not either figure out how to make a pump I can build or how to afford to build on I can make.
My local Lowes store has (or had) over 20 red heads working at it. Out of the number of employees it had this is a HUGE amount of red heads. So I guess that proves that Lowes causes red heads? Just because A is happening and at the same time B is going on they may or may not be related. So I say lets do the simple things we can while you (those that believe in G.W.) get all the data put together.
And yes the fact that you can not tell the weather today, and the fact that I was taught buy everyone when I was little (in the 70's) that we were going into a new ICE age is justification to be a little questioning of the so called proof and the experts that state said "Facts".
Doug Meyer
VERY well said Doug. The only things I would add are, what exactly caused the warming and cooling cycles the planet went through before man and his evil machines were around? If it is a foregone conclusion that we are the cause of global warming why is it that it's most vocal proponents refuse to listen or respond to dissenting opinions? e.g. The woman who is the head meteorologist at the weather channel is making it grounds for dismissal to hold the opposing view, and Al Gore will no longer let reporters or anyone who might dissent into his lectures to avoid those embarrassing moments in the Q & A period when the "expert lecturer" cannot answer a question.
I also wonder just what it is that causes some to favor public transportation over the automobile. They have been trying to come up with ways to curtail it's use since long before global warming became an issue. Global warming is just the latest weapon in the arsenal. Could it really be the unhindered freedom of movement that the private auto provides?
Rob
I do not believe in the notion of Global Warming. However, if you do believe it what do you think you can do to actually fix anything. I don't know if you were paying attention or not but the scientists from all over the world who recently came out and said that Global Warming is a possibility also said that there isn't anything that people can do to fix it. So why is it that you believe these scientists on the issue of Global Warming but think that you and your politicians know better how to fix the problem. Do you think of yourself as being smarter than they are. If so does'nt that put you in the same category of those whom you are judging?
Do you think of yourself as being smarter than they are. If so does'nt that put you in the same category of those whom you are judging?
This kind of post just ticks me off. It's a complete logical mess.
Probably all the wood consummed by hobbist and commissioned or on-spec fine woodwork made in a year is statistically insignificant compared to the amount of wood consumed in the 'curb' furniture sold by Ikea in week. The difference is the stuff we make will be around for generations because it is either of higher quality or just sentimental value. The Ikea stuff will be at the curb and destined for a land fill in a year or two. My 2 kids are already laying claim to the furniture I've made for our home. Neither has expressed any interest in any of the store bought furniture we have. So which is more environmentally responsible - making 1 dining table out of solid Koa that will be around for generations or veneering 10 particle board dining room tables that will end up in a landfill?
John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
Dear All,
I'm a newby to this site but have enjoyed Fine Woodworking Magazine for 25 years or more. I even used notes from it in the eighties in my adult woodworking classes! As a woodworker at heart I always am on the lookout for local woods to use in my projects. As a flyfisher and hunter I have really noticed a drastic lack of older (not old growth) trees in Pennsylvania forests! Most notable is the calculated removal of all the nut trees (money trees) from out state forests. I've talked with state forestry people and they deny selling stands of older trees on purpose. However, I have lost six different stands of Oak trees in the northcentral forests to loggers. I know this cause I am an avid small game hunter. And without the bigger older trees the small game moves away. More concerning is the fact that these areas are regrowing with more faster growing trees like Cherry and Birch. Both make beautiful furniture but do not provide any "mast" food for game animmals. I fear that in the, not too distant future Oaks, Walnuts and other nut trees will be a thing of the past! Ron G.
> I fear that in the, not too distant future Oaks, Walnuts and other nut trees will be a thing of the past!I don't want to sound like a Chicken Little but I do share your concerns.
My home (in a rural area near the Appalachian Trail) has dense hardwood forest on two sides. Abundant in quantity, but the quality is another matter. The native species are interspersed with trashy exotics like Tree of Heaven. Even when my father was young, the massive Chestnut trees were long gone. Then the Elms went. Now, I've heard something new and nasty is infesting the Oaks. One of the most abundant trees in my area, the wonderful Black Locust, is infested with borers. The native Cherries seem to grow just so big before rotting on the inside, becoming saturated with water, and blowing over in a storm. Same with the Black Walnuts. So yes, thnings seem a little out of whack.
I have decided to start using domestic woods only. I have used a good bit of mahogany in the past but with the price escalating it's just not worth it anymore. There are plently of good species that grow right here in the good ole USA that are more than fitting for the type pieces that I specialize in making.
Ron Brese
Ruth: Yes I think woodworking is enviromentally friendly.
Duke
Support the Troops, Support your Country
Support Western Civilization:
Fight Islamofascism
...on a spring board with a chain saw in hand....;-)
Seriously now, trees/wood is a renewable resource. I am an unabashed 'tree guy'. I love trees, especially gnarly old timers that have been on the earth for a century or three. But they grow back. So long as we manage the resource properly, I don't see what the big deal is. Caveat is proper resource management though, not wholesale clearcutting with no reforestation plan. This, no matter if we're talking about my home state of Washington, or the forests of Central America, Asia, Eastern Europe or where ever. Done properly, we can have our cake, and eat it too, right?
Edited 3/2/2007 4:34 am by jeff100
I may be wrong, but I thought this was discussed in a back issue of FWW. The majority of rain forest destruction is due to land clearing for cattle. We do far more damage to the rain forests by eating at fast food chains than by making a nice teak or mahogany piece of furniture
I primarily use lumber from local timber that I have harvested myself and only costs me my labor, fuel, and sawmill fees. However, for exotic furniture I have no qualms about using either domestic or imported species that add to the value of the piece. I understand the rain forest and similar arguments, but I do not think hobby and small woodworkers are the chief cause of the problem. They need to look at the huge commercial manufacturers. Even most of those are now using veneered sawdust in their construction. Much of the rain forest are simply burned to make way for agricultural use.
I'd like to stand on all enviromental cases (I weigh almost 300 lbs). I say use up all the trees. Trees,(along with all plant life,) consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen for the world to breathe.
Steinmetz.
I take apart old buildings and recycle the materials into furniture. I've been doing this for over 10 years now and feel it's far better than cutting down trees and using energy to dry them when I have access to materials that's already milled and dried alls it needs is a little cleaning to make it workable. I feel this is far better than filling landfills with materials that are still useable. PS when working with old materials a person has to be very careful with freaking slivers.
Sincerely
Jim at Clark Customs
I'd be interested to see a review of non-toxic or low toxicity finishes for the hobbiest woodworker. Name such as Osmo, AFM, Tried & True, etc, as well as old standbys such as shellac, tung oil, etc.
I'd love to be able to add more names to this list, as well as find out how they perform on a variety of woods and with a variety of application methods.
Thanks.
I personally don't want to waste my energy arguing with anyone, or even trying to change someone's mind. How about those of us who do think we are effecting the rain forrest and actually care about that, get together and share information about where to shop or order online from? I do care and would like to be apart of that.
Moe in Brooklyn
To all;
I really do love wood. But it is all too easy to ignore the facts. It is our future that we are destroying if we ignore these facts. Not just our future wood supply, but our world. Let's all take our responsibility seriously.
Thank you.
I posted "other". I don't think that my actions will harm the rain forests. I don't think I can have any effect on fixing it. When the planet is sick and tired of us it will figure something to do.
Dumping of anything is the only environmental thing that I feel strong on. Recycling is a good thing.
Why do I want to be friendly to the environment? If I have to count the environment as a friend then I am a very lonely person!
dlb
.
Hello Ruth,
The forests of south America are being slashed and burned by people desperate to survive, they need farmland to grow crops to sell and buy food. By banning their exotic wood, they slash it and burn it, then create their farmlands and...
I would think, if we INCREASED our purchase of these exotic woods, they would have reason to replant the trees and use lumber as a cash crop instead of grain or graizing land. Only economics will solve the problem, we who live in the USA or Europe with enough food on the table do not have the right to dictate how someone else should try and survice, we are simply not there in their "Experience". Trees grow back.
Jim
Hi Folks,
<!----><!----><!---->
Thank you for your contributions to this lively debate. We’re stopping discussion on this topic since it’s getting heated and veering off topic.<!----><!---->
GinaFine Woodworking
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled