Humans blamed for climate change

[rmnunez]

I suspect "cite your study", in scientific vernacular means providing a link to the source, not the one that makes reference to it, but the actual publication where the cited matter appears. If the BBC mentions the IPCC's conclusions on CO2 emissions are from some ice core study and refers to it, a party premising their argument on that reference can be asked to provide the substantiating evidence -not from the Herald Tribune, but from the ice study itself.

This is not such a simple matter because scientists who cite a study must be acquainted with how it was reviewed by their peers. Scientists whose studies are published and get cited, sometimes amend them, place conditions on their conclusions and engage in additional research. Often this results in different conclusions, factors and considerations established subsequently.

I suppose scientists who premised their studies on publications by colleagues who are or have recanted, switched sides and been dismissed for diverging with the IPCC's "consensus", have to review those studies to see where their colleagues went wrong, they have to pore over the original, consider the author's actual observations.

[Pooeypants]

I will once again, highlight the fact that the earlier implied message that many leading scientists are in denial is a myth.

Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol. This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired. Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.

I would also like to say that bringing extremist hippies (Greenpeace) into the argument is pointless as they are not on the IPCC panel.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Pooeypants I will once again, highlight the fact that the earlier implied message that many leading scientists are in denial is a myth. I would also like to say that bringing extremist hippies (Greenpeace) into the argument is pointless as they are not on the IPCC panel.

I think it's funny that anyone who advocates protecting our environment is not only a "hippy" (a term I doubt you really understand) but an "EXTREMIST hippy"

Do you REALLY know what a "hippy" is? (actually "was")

[rmnunez]

Hippies were freaky "flower children" who dropped out, tuned in, turned on and advocated free love in 1969 and thereafter. They were anti-establishment, pacifists of draft age particularly opposed to intervention in Vietnam and they included lots of very ecologically-minded folk often establishing themselves as squaters in alleged "communes". Listen to Joan Baez and you'll get the idea.

Hippies gradually expanded their cause to embrace a variety of things, they were opposed to anything nuclear, pollution, environmental degradation, the military and anything related to it. "Greenpeace" is a product of that generation and aptly combines in its name the two most compelling causes that rallied the hippies; environmentalism (Green) and pacifism (Peace).

[Century 25]

Is it anti-establishment to stop using 130 year old incandescent lighting..?? Is it anti-establishment to stop building trash homes that begin rotting before the first occupant moves in..??

Homes can be built strong.. clean.. concrete.. steel & glass.. bright and fresh.. plenty of natural light.. atrium-courtyard style also.. and fluorescent lighting for area/indirect and LED task lighting for those areas.. No more shingles.. no wood.. This photo from 1960:

Great Buildings Online Image - Stahl House, Case Study House No. 22

And: MoCo Loco: Architecture Archives

Also.. here is where the future stopped: jetsetmodern.com :: contents issue 6



Those that just can't live without termite food can look here: MARMOL RADZINER Prefab

fablist

The above homes.. lifestyles.. are contrary to capitalist greed. Life can be beautiful.. and much.. much easier. Your home should not be your money-pit.. Upkeep on our buildings is a tremendous drain of earths resources.. as well as a drain on our "free" time.. Enjoy..!!!

[rmnunez]

I don't like neon, but there are alternatives to the old-fashioned light bulb. One advantage of incandescent light is its 'warmth', nice for a cozy place, over a table, great with earth tones. Neon seems best for shiny white places like bathrooms, kitchens, hospitals and other places where we want to be sure things are ultra clean. As for the artist's rendition, I found it too minimalist bauhaus for me, I like personality and character, some art decorating the bare beams and pillars. The big windows are great though, always nice when you've got a splendid view too! You'd have to cover them with curtains if it was an apartment complex.

[nmspl]

warmth is good, but global warming is bad.... its going to ruin humanity...

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mozart1220 I think it's funny that anyone who advocates protecting our environment is not only a "hippy" (a term I doubt you really understand) but an "EXTREMIST hippy" Do you REALLY know what a "hippy" is? (actually "was")

I am very much for protecting the environment but I think that nuclear power is the way forward, despite the public hysteria, it remains the best option we have for large scale non-carbon emitting energy production and within the next few decades we may be able to switch to fusion.