# Illegal building materials



## CodeWarrior (Jun 30, 2022)

Here is an interesting article about common building materials now deemed to illegal.









						Home Materials That Are Now Illegal | Bankrate
					

Certain materials and fixtures are outlawed in homes now. We cover the most common, and how to deal if you’re renovating or building a home.



					www.bankrate.com


----------



## Msradell (Jun 30, 2022)

I find it simply hard to believe that some areas are prohibiting natural gas from being used for new constructed homes! It's still the best alternative for heating the residence and water, it's much more efficient and cheaper than any other alternative. The future maybe not but at the present time it certainly is.


----------



## bill1952 (Jun 30, 2022)

Msradell said:


> best alternative


Define basis for "best"?  Certainly not for environment long term.


----------



## Msradell (Jun 30, 2022)

bill1952 said:


> Define basis for "best"?  Certainly not for environment long term.


It depends what you are comparing it to, it's definitely best for cost per BTU and depending on the source of electricity it may even be better for the environment.  You may be correct for long-term but in the intermediate term unless people wake up and realize that nuclear is a good source for energy there really aren't many alternatives. The environmentalists are pushing us into a corner that is going to break America and quite probably the world.


----------



## bill1952 (Jul 1, 2022)

I agree we need nuclear.


----------



## Joe.B (Jul 1, 2022)

There are groups that push this idea of "banning" natural gas. It bothers me in two ways. First if you're telling someone who's building a new house in a developed neighborhood that they can't have it even though everybody else can, that seems unjust to me. Second is that in my area our electricity is produced almost exclusively by burning natural gas. When you take into the account the inefficiency of the 20 year old NG generators, the losses in transformers, and miles of transmission lines, using electricity to heat water or run a furnace is approximately 40-45% efficient at best. If you have a large solar array then I get it. If you personally will feel better not using gas, I get it. If your local power generation is clean, I get it. But to try to make blanket policy like that for everybody is a bit off to me.


----------



## ICE (Jul 1, 2022)

Killing the natural gas industry in favor of renewable energy might make sense if there was a reliable source of renewable energy.  The current source of renewable energy being the Sun indicates that the energy will never run out, however the methods for harvesting energy from sunlight are not sustainable.  Photovoltaic requires minerals that we do not have and is dependent on nations that are hostile towards America.  PV is wildly inefficient.  The billion panels already placed will wear out in twenty years and then what?

PV panels are manufactured in China. There is a large transfer in wealth to obtain PV panels.  Do not be surprised if planned obsolescence has been built into the panels and inverters.  China builds coal fired power plants to produce the components of renewable energy....lots of them. 

And then there's the issue of climate change.  There are renowned individuals on both sides of the argument. The people that question the validity of climate change are less vocal as is the case with many social dilemmas.  To come out against the tide of climate change gets one branded racist, a conspiracy adherent and just plain loony.  The Gretas will come for you.

The problem was conceived by the government.  The solution was identified by the government.  The solar energy industry would collapse tomorrow without the government propping it up.  All of that should tell you something.

The federal government declared war on the fossil fuel sector of the economy.  The stated goal is to put the industry in the dustbin of history.  That just might explain the extreme rise in the cost of gasoline.


----------



## steveray (Jul 1, 2022)

ICE said:


> The solar energy industry would collapse tomorrow without the government propping it up. All of that should tell you something.


Amen.....


----------



## redeyedfly (Jul 1, 2022)

ICE said:


> And then there's the issue of climate change.  There are renowned individuals on both sides of the argument. The people that question the validity of climate change are less vocal as is the case with many social dilemmas.  To come out against the tide of climate change gets one branded racist, a conspiracy adherent and just plain loony.  The Gretas will come for you.


This is pure logical fallacy.  The overwhelming consensus is that human activity is driving climate change. Just because you can find a few outliers does not negate the remaining 98%.  
I find it interesting that people who cling to these outliers are also the same people who believe it is some conspiracy to weaken the US.  Being a first mover for sustainable renewable energy can only help the US.  No matter what you think about anthropogenic climate change, we will run out of oil someday.  Areas that don't have an alternative will be in a world of trouble.


----------



## bill1952 (Jul 1, 2022)

.


redeyedfly said:


> This is pure logical fallacy.  The overwhelming consensus is that human activity is driving climate change. Just because you can find a few outliers does not negate the remaining 98%.
> I find it interesting that people who cling to these outliers are also the same people who believe it is some conspiracy to weaken the US.  Being a first mover for sustainable renewable energy can only help the US.  No matter what you think about anthropogenic climate change, we will run out of oil someday.  Areas that don't have an alternative will be in a world of trouble.


Amen.  Thank you redeyedfly!


----------



## classicT (Jul 1, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> we will run out of oil someday


This is not entirely true. Oil, yes. Fossil fuels, never.

Climate change will kill us all well before we exhaust the fossil fuels available to us... or the sun exploding, or Yellowstone supervolcano, or a meteor.

The doom of running out of oil ceased to exist with the advent of fracking and realization of the natural gas reserves available.


----------



## steveray (Jul 1, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> This is pure logical fallacy.  The overwhelming consensus is that human activity is driving climate change. Just because you can find a few outliers does not negate the remaining 98%.
> I find it interesting that people who cling to these outliers are also the same people who believe it is some conspiracy to weaken the US.  Being a first mover for sustainable renewable energy can only help the US.  No matter what you think about anthropogenic climate change, we will run out of oil someday.  Areas that don't have an alternative will be in a world of trouble.


Well then maybe we should ban people?....And we will run out of sun someday too......


----------



## ICE (Jul 1, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> This is pure logical fallacy.  The overwhelming consensus is that human activity is driving climate change. Just because you can find a few outliers does not negate the remaining 98%.
> I find it interesting that people who cling to these outliers are also the same people who believe it is some conspiracy to weaken the US.  Being a first mover for sustainable renewable energy can only help the US.  No matter what you think about anthropogenic climate change, we will run out of oil someday.  Areas that don't have an alternative will be in a world of trouble.


Except for the missing racial component you performed as expected.  You point to the 98% consensus like that has meaning. 99.999% of the 98% consensus are ordinary people that have no authority to have an opinion.  There is evidence for both positions but the contrarians are shouted down and ignored by the media.  After hearing something three times it becomes the reality for most people and then they can form a consensus.

It's not that the 98% have evil intent or even understand the issue.  The academic proponents needed a topic for the the next wave of government grants....aw shucks...that's a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Genduct (Jul 1, 2022)

bill1952 said:


> Define basis for "best"?  Certainly not for environment long term.


CH4  That's ONE CARBON and FOUR HYDROGEN ATOMS  Not quite All Hydrogen but I agree it is pretty Good for environment


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 1, 2022)

Propane is cleaner. But it might depend on what the truck uses to deliver.


----------



## redeyedfly (Jul 1, 2022)

ICE said:


> Except for the missing racial component you performed as expected.  You point to the 98% consensus like that has meaning. 99.999% of the 98% consensus are ordinary people that have no authority to have an opinion.  There is evidence for both positions but the contrarians are shouted down and ignored by the media.  After hearing something three times it becomes the reality for most people and then they can form a consensus.
> 
> It's not that the 98% have evil intent or even understand the issue.  The academic proponents needed a topic for the the next wave of government grants....ah shucks...that's a conspiracy theory.


No, the 98% is environmental engineers and climate scientists.  You just don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit your worldview.  

You might want to turn of Fox and Newsmax.


----------



## ICE (Jul 1, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> No, the 98% is environmental engineers and climate scientists.  You just don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit your worldview.
> 
> You might want to turn of Fox and Newsmax.


I didn’t know about Newsmax …thanks for that.  Climate scientist sounds like a federal job classification that’s a subset of the environmental engineering field.  Any occupation that includes the word engineer indicates manipulation.  The climate is perhaps beyond the engineering prowess of mere mortals.


----------



## bill1952 (Jul 2, 2022)

Read an article in Forbes that the 97% is probably not accurate, but for sure 80-90% of qualified experts agree there is a climate change caused by humans and it's not good.  I think we are way beyond the cyclical climate variations of the past.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 5, 2022)

You can go back over the last 60 years and find plenty of consensus opinions by scientists and medical professionals that over time have proven to be wrong. Eggs are good for you and eggs are bad for you, wear a mask for protection or cloth mask do not protect you. Computer models on the climate from the 1970's never came true, Meteorologist can't accurately predict the weather more than 24 hours into the future or the path of a hurricane. The computer modules can only work on the information put in. Since other countries such has China and India are large contributors to the climate change "crisis"   has there ever been studies which indicate that we (the USA) have reached the point that no matter what more we do it will not make a significant difference due to the fact that the US is a small percentage of the human caused changes.


----------



## bill1952 (Jul 5, 2022)

Well let's not do anything on the hopes there is no climate change.  I'm sure a lot of people thought the structural nags in that Florida condo were just Debbie Downers like those of us concerned by climate change.


----------



## steveray (Jul 5, 2022)

Before I give up my choice of fuel, a whole bunch of other people need to give up their 40,000 foot houses and private jets....Maybe we need to just carbon cap everyone on what they are allowed to use...


----------



## redeyedfly (Jul 5, 2022)

ICE said:


> I didn’t know about Newsmax …thanks for that.  Climate scientist sounds like a federal job classification that’s a subset of the environmental engineering field.  Any occupation that includes the word engineer indicates manipulation.  The climate is perhaps beyond the engineering prowess of mere mortals.


Yes, let's just throw up our hands and surrender.  This is yet another situation where you don't realize how much there is that you don't know.


mtlogcabin said:


> You can go back over the last 60 years and find plenty of consensus opinions by scientists and medical professionals that over time have proven to be wrong. Eggs are good for you and eggs are bad for you, wear a mask for protection or cloth mask do not protect you. Computer models on the climate from the 1970's never came true, Meteorologist can't accurately predict the weather more than 24 hours into the future or the path of a hurricane. The computer modules can only work on the information put in. Since other countries such has China and India are large contributors to the climate change "crisis"   has there ever been studies which indicate that we (the USA) have reached the point that no matter what more we do it will not make a significant difference due to the fact that the US is a small percentage of the human caused changes.


More logical fallacy.  I'm sure a couple BO's who know absolutely nothing about this, know more than the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of it.  The amount of data and computer processing capabilities since the 70s has increased many orders of magnitude.  Weather satellites were brand new and computers with less power than your phone took up entire rooms for example.  

The real challenge is what to do with people like you two who wish to remain blissfully ignorant and those who actively attack knowledge and expertise so they can continue to feel superior and hang on to nostalgia for a time that never existed.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 5, 2022)

We've discussed the natural gas thing in the past. I believe it was related to areas with seismic concerns. 

Makes sense to me that after an earthquake you don't want a bunch of pockets of explosive gas a couple of feet down in the soil.

Not sure there is much left of the horse carcass that is climate change to beat, so we should all probably just put away our sticks...


----------



## ICE (Jul 5, 2022)

tmurray said:


> We've discussed the natural gas thing in the past. I believe it was related to areas with seismic concerns.
> 
> Makes sense to me that after an earthquake you don't want a bunch of pockets of explosive gas a couple of feet down in the soil.


Natural gas is a casualty of the war on fossil fuels.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 5, 2022)

You say I have a Logical Fallacy but you do not have an Intentional Fallacy 

Asserting that everyone agrees (_argumentum ad populum_,

In argumentation theory, an _*argumentum ad populum*_ (Latin for "appeal to the people")[1][a] is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the majority thinks so.[2]

For years the consensus was the world was flat

The climate is and has been constantly changing and there is no disagreement on that term. The big question is, is it a crisis of such a magnitude that the reduction of CO2 is imperative and must be addressed immediately without looking at the law of unintended consequences that will result from drastic changes by requiring and/or removing existing energy consumption. Also if it is a world wide problem it will need a world wide solution that is implemented world wide and not in just a few countries that can afford it.


----------



## bill1952 (Jul 5, 2022)

Comparing the consequences of doing nothing or phasing out carbon fuels, I'll go for the latter.


----------



## classicT (Jul 5, 2022)

For both sides of the debate, I encourage that you look into global heating/cooling as it relates to the geologic time scale. Global climate is driven by both a natural cycle, and global warming (CO2 emissions tied to man). The natural cycle being primarily related to the Milankovitch cycles, and global warming tied to depletion of the ozone and CO2 emissions from industrial energy production (the burning of fossil fuels). Keep in mind that both cycles are active in our world, and both have have a strong relationship to greenhouse gases (notably CO2).

With the two processes, the primary difference is that in the natural cycle, CO2 rise follows warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. As currently observed by those documenting climate change/global warming, it appears the rise in CO2 is leading the warming. This suggests that current warming is not due to the natural cycle.

I encourage all sides to check out the data presented at http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle. The website has some excellent information that is fairly easy to digest. Lot's of graphs and explanatory information.


But my two cents as a guy who studied Environmental Sci and Geology... Climate change is real, but it is not as big of a deal as politicians want you to believe.

Mother earth will kill us off way before we screw the world over. Disease, natural disasters, drought, etc. are all methods that the world balances itself. Push a system out of balance, and it will self correct; typically, with wonderous amounts of death. To Earth's credit, mother nature is a b!tch, and as a species, man is incredibly weak. Take away our ingenuity, science, and industrial development, and few of us would survive.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 5, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> I'm sure a couple BO's who know absolutely nothing about this, know more than the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of it.


No we just read alternating articles from different people who also have dedicated their lives to science and the study of it.






						About Us | Heartland Institute
					






					www.heartland.org


----------



## redeyedfly (Jul 5, 2022)

mtlogcabin said:


> You say I have a Logical Fallacy but you do not have an Intentional Fallacy
> 
> Asserting that everyone agrees (_argumentum ad populum_,
> 
> ...


No, It's an appeal to expertise of people who are experts in the relevant field.  No argumentum ad populum there.


----------



## redeyedfly (Jul 5, 2022)

mtlogcabin said:


> No we just read alternating articles from different people who also have dedicated their lives to science and the study of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Outlier fallacy.  

No logic courses at building inspector school?


----------



## ICE (Jul 5, 2022)

*"I find it interesting that people who cling to these outliers are also the same people who believe it is some conspiracy to weaken the US.

No, the 98% is environmental engineers and climate scientists.  You just don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit your worldview.*

*You might want to turn off Fox and Newsmax.

The real challenge is what to do with people like you two who wish to remain blissfully ignorant and those who actively attack knowledge and expertise so they can continue to feel superior and hang on to nostalgia for a time that never existed.

No logic courses at building inspector school?"*

That's all you Red.  In one thread you tossed in five insults and I'm betting that you have more to come.  I took special note of the "people like you two" While it is a step up for me to be paired with mtlogcabin, I'm guessing that he's not on board with that.  I could prove that the mountain dweller is not ignorant, but he carries his own water.


----------



## redeyedfly (Jul 5, 2022)

ICE said:


> *"I find it interesting that people who cling to these outliers are also the same people who believe it is some conspiracy to weaken the US.
> 
> No, the 98% is environmental engineers and climate scientists.  You just don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit your worldview.*
> 
> ...


Those aren’t attacks on individuals, they are attacks on ideas.  This is a case in point of several of my recent posts. Just because someone attacks your idea isn’t equivalent to them attacking you; that you’re a bad person.

I’m not sure why you’re offended, but that is the playbook of following poor logic, sooner or later ad hominem shows up.


----------



## rktect 1 (Jul 6, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> This is pure logical fallacy.  The overwhelming consensus is that human activity is driving climate change. Just because you can find a few outliers does not negate the remaining 98%.


There was this study recently where they determined that 98% of percentages were made up.

Like the one I just posted.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 6, 2022)

rktect 1 said:


> There was this study recently where they determined that 98% of percentages were made up.
> 
> Like the one I just posted.



We shall all trust election polls too!


----------



## steveray (Jul 6, 2022)

rktect 1 said:


> There was this study recently where they determined that 98% of percentages were made up.
> 
> Like the one I just posted.


I prefer 68.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.....


----------



## bill1952 (Jul 7, 2022)

classicT said:


> I encourage all sides to check out the data presented at http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle. The website has some excellent information that is fairly easy to digest. Lot's of graphs and explanatory information.


This is a foundation funded by and run by one person, with very little information on their activities. The individual, John Reisman, has a degree in sound recording. He is the foundations only employee.  I can not accept anything from the ossfoundation as creditable based on information available.

NASA has a creditable explanation why the Milankovitch cycles do not explain the current climate change.


----------



## hardroadz (Jul 20, 2022)

CodeWarrior said:


> Here is an interesting article about common building materials now deemed to illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only one that surprised me was the ban on Natural Gas for new homes in SF and NYC.


----------



## steveray (Jul 20, 2022)

What does John Malkovich and his cycles have to do with climate change?


----------



## JPohling (Jul 20, 2022)

steveray said:


> What does John Malkovich and his cycles have to do with climate change?


Milutin Milanković  the geophysicist and astonomer "Milankovitch" for english speakers, but not John Malkovich the actor


----------



## Keystone (Jul 20, 2022)

My question, is it climate change, global warming or global cooling.?.?.?


----------



## Msradell (Jul 20, 2022)

hardroadz said:


> The only one that surprised me was the ban on Natural Gas for new homes in SF and NYC.


That shouldn't surprise you or anyone else at all!  The liberals in those cities will do whatever it takes to destroy the US economy and make us dependent on environmentally friendly resources!  They completely disregard the fact that we can't afford to do that and the technology that exists today is not sufficient.


----------



## e hilton (Jul 20, 2022)

JPohling said:


> Milutin Milanković  the geophysicist and astonomer "Milankovitch" for english speakers, but not John Malkovich the actor


You took the bait …


----------



## e hilton (Jul 20, 2022)

bill1952 said:


> This is a foundation funded by and run by one person, with very little information on their activities. The individual, John Reisman,


He has an impressive website.  Says he worked at the University of the World.  But nowhere does it give any educational degrees earned.  Looks like he earns his money coordinating reviews by “experts” and keeping up the web site.


----------

