Bye
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
A brushless motor and 36v batteries power Metabo HPT’s cordless rebar bender and cutter.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
Go away! Come back after you've grown some brains.
user,
Very appropriate for design of housing.
KK
Opinions v. scientific fact
You are entiteled to explain the science behind your denial of climate-change. Remember, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entiitled to your facts. Science is science, even if speaks in support of an inconvenient truth. Take a moment and argue your case on a factual basis. Thanks
food for thought: why us getting warmer bad, what's wrong with that.
Or, should be be trying to bring about another 'little ice age'? Or an iceball earth?
How about a 'year without a summer'?
One opinion that world popuion is still to low.
Let those that want otherwise get 'fixed' ?
Great deals for your decendants to invest in Siberian real estate? Or the Canadian shield, or Iceland futures?
Art
what in the hell are you trying to say?
...are you trying to say...
One thing ser sure Cal, generating more site visits with my responses, eh?
I'll needle Dan a bit more and se if there is a new high for most responses to any thread for quite a while.
Art
junkhound wrote:
...are you trying to say...
One thing ser sure Cal, generating more site visits with my responses, eh?
I'll needle Dan a bit more and se if there is a new high for most responses to any thread for quite a while.
Dont take the time to worry about what goes on here.
Like fasteddie said, , ah jes' likes ta poke da hive wit da stick occasionally <G>
Quit being an idiot.
Quit being a jerk.
I was talking to junkhound.
why us getting warmer bad, what's wrong with that.
Junk Hound asks what is wrong with an increase in temperature.
The answer is plain to the mind of reason. Take a moment to google the subject. Inform yourself. Thank you.
So, if an increase in temperature is bad, then going colder is good?
Or are yu saying we are living in a fairy tale time right now when everything is just right? Or was that 50 years ago? Or 200? Or when.
?????
Ask the guys in Australia if hotter is better.
Aussie folks can move, as has happened often over the millennium.
If we engineer cooling the earth way back down folks can repopulate the Dogger banks, and no need to the chunnel either.
Per you 'sky is falling due to anthropocentric warming' folks, when Augie Arrhenius first mentioned global warming in the 1890s all fossil fuel usage should have ceased immediately?
Also, is fossil fuel usage causing he magnetic poles to shift? Are the internal nuclear reactors deep in the mantle nearing a peak? Did the Cimbri move south out of Denmark in BC times south toward Italy to stay cool?
BTW, whatever happened to the late 20th century hockey stick?
Popsting only as see a need to goose the annointed gurus, kick the bottom of Dan's self proclaimed superior cranial capabilities pedestal to see how shakey it is, etc. <G>
Back in Augie's time, there was a big debate on what kept the earth from freezing solid as the interior coooed off during the thousands of millenium. Augie was supposedly the first to suggest a CO2 hermostat, natural nuke reactors/decay heat unknown then. .
OK, now picture the Midwest without rain, and 20 degrees hotter. Forget about your corrn-fed beef. And sea level is already rising noticeably on the East Coast. Unchecked, global warming could easily kill a billion people in 20 years. I know you aren't worried about the people in Africa and China, but what about your own family?
So, revert to not questioning pontifical wisdom, what to do? (Algore as the pope of coourse)
Shutdown all fossil fuel use - create resource wars and kill 2 billion?
You say you are smarter than everyone else, why simply spew out the CC/GW crowd mantra vs. considering climate change has ALWAYS been going on. Options vs. feeble attempts to profit politically thru chicken little approaches.
fwiw, have not seen the FHB issue, if not loaded with NE MA liberal anthropocentric rhetoric, any article on climate differences can be valid. Will look at it when next in library this week.
How far back to move climate
I'm with you on the changes in temperature of earth over time. The earth has gone from all ice to no ice 7 times in its history (or maybe more). What time do you want to role temperature back to? 10,000 years? We had ice 1 mile thick over where I am standing now. Good luck on stopping the temperature when you think it is just right.
ignorance v. stupidity
One can hope to remdey ignorance but not stupidity..sigh. No matter our views on climate change, hopefully we builders can agree that our natural resources MUST be used wisely. I stand with FH and all those who value the use of good judgment.
“[Deleted]”
Is man causing Global WARMING, OR "Climate Change" if you prefer?
I'm not convinced. I know, from research, the=at about 1000 years ago, during the "Medieval Warm Period" the earth was about 1 degree C warmer, (without Man's help), Then from about the 16 the to the 19th centuries there was a cooling period of 1 degree cooler than "normal", called "The Little Ice Age", (again, without man's help), that's about a 2 degree difference for the apprentices out there (that's humor, folks), and then there is this just in from NASA: Extremely Low Sunspot Counts Indicate Global Cooling Onset. Just google "NASA, sunspot, cooling" and see for yourself.
So, I think the science deniers are on the ones on the Man causing the global warming side.
Yes, there IS science behind this, so it is NOT settled.
I think there is a great need for details on building a safe, efficient and even "Net 0" house when it is affordable, but don't feed us the contrived "Man causing Global Warming" agenda, Please.
A recent theory proposes the little ice age was caused by humans. After the first excursions of the earliest conquistadors seeking gold native populations crashed due to diseases [probably] the europeans brought. This happened in both north and south america. The populations were settled societies with extensive agriculture and when the agri was stopped the land went back into forest, a sort of reverse to global warming. My poor attempt to explain this makes it sound silly but if you study the real science it sounds very plausible. The Americas were once teeming with peoples we know little about, destroyed in a short time by disease.
The year without a summer was believed to be caused by a series volcanic eruptions starting in 1809 with the finale in 1816 of Mount Tambora.
The Mt Tambora eruption alone ejected almost 24 cubic MILES of material into the atmosphere. And with the 5 previous eruptions, there was just an overabundance of atmospheric dust.
Similarly, the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 dropped the temp of the Northern Hemisphere by 1.2 degrees C for 5 years.
As for the Little Ice Age, it too was thought to be caused by Volcanic activities among other things. (cyclical lows in solar activity, changes in ocean current, colonization, etc)
There is no consensus among experts as to when it started or ended. Some say it ran from the 13th century to the early 20th century. Others say from the mid 17th century to the mid 18th century.
In the mid 13th century, (1250) the Atlantic Ice Pack began to grow.
The early 14th century, the great Famines of Norther Europe began due to heavy rains and unpredictable summers.
Mid 16th century, beginning of glacial expansion
Mid 17th century first climatic minimum
Early 18th century the Year without a Summer
Mid 19th century glaciers started to retreat.
Population decrease was also caused by changes in growing conditions. This caused famines, food riots, massive starvation.
Any land altered from its original state will always tend to revert back to it over time. Prairie land turned to farmland will revert to prairie land once farming has stopped. The problem is with non-native species invading and crowding out native species.
Could you please explain to me the scientific process that was used to determine climate change? Was it the same process used in the 70's that predicted the next ice age? Or is it the same process that predicted the ice caps would melt by now?
There has been no hypothesis formed followed by a scientific method to prove or disprove this belief in climate change. My issue is the notion that "there is a consensus in climate change" but in science, no consensus is needed to make it true. What matters is the scientific method.
What has been used are data models and analytics. Many of these models cannot accurately predict the path of a hurricane a few days out but we're to believe it will give us the temps within a 1/2 degree of accuracy a 10-15-20 year out? Even if you can't point to the model and say "in the history of humankind there has never been a more perfect data model." The problem is the old adage of garbage in - garbage out. NOAA and NASA have both been caught and admitted to manipulating the data they were using. They were throwing out LOWS as exceptions to the data, but they did not throw out the HIGHS the same way. That shifts the outcome of the model.
So yes let's DO discuss the FACTS not opinions. Follow the money. As long as I say "climate change" the government will give me a whole lot of money to keep studying climate change. As soon as I say "there is no such thing as climate change" the money stops coming in and the gig is up.
Not exactly as "cut and dried" once you remove all the political smoke and mirrors now is it.
If you truly want to see someone deny science...
ask an abortion supporter when life starts.
Oil companies have been very successful at confusing the issue for the gullible or those who find climate change "inconvenient", but builders and most home buyers care a great deal and want green buildings that use less energy (saves them money as well) and have a more pragmatic approach based on the current well established science.
If you own a business in the construction field then you need to look out more than a few months in positioning your products or services. It may be time to train personnel or hire new ones who are adept at using modern building materials.
If I was building in an area that is prone to flooding then I would be building homes that can handle that situation using the best possible design and building practices. There is not a single commercial or residential builder press publication that has not been producing article focused on the changing global and business climate for at least the past 10 years.
Nah. Neither care a bit. To the tiny extent that builders care it's only because they can use "green" building to upsell to gullible customers. Of the 15 things Americans care government doing climate is dead last.
Climate change is a natural phenomenon. The world gets warmer, the world gets colder. The problem some people have with climate change is that accurate recorded history only goes back a 150 years and anecdotal history goes back a few hundred more. So it is hard to tell if the current warming is as critical as some propose or not.
What I am saying is that some may not find that there is not enough data to make an informed decision. Yes, the melting of the Antarctic ice shelf is alarming. And, yes, in the 150 years of recorded history, it is unprecedented. But is it in the last 1000 years? 10,000 years?
The building techniques improvements I have witnessed in the past 40 years are incredible. My first house was built in 1958. It had 1x10 sheathing instead of plywood. Tar Paper instead of Tyvek. Minimal weather sealing, instead of all the options we have now. The drywall was 1/2" 2x8 strips double laminated instead 1/2" 4'x8' sheets.
Everything was copper. The HVAC was 50% efficient and was 3' x 6' in size if not a bit larger. The A/C was water cooled. When I moved out in 2008, the HVAC was 98% with multi stage burners and blowers. The A/C was a multi scroll compressor. with a 15 SEER. Sadly, the water heater was the same tank type water heater. But, I had upgraded it with a gravity loop water recirculation system.
+1 on all the cooments that we SHOULD be frugal and energy conscious in building practices, and even 'good stewards' of the earth.
That said, for the CO2 'science experts', what about the contribution of deep earth reactors over thousands of millenia? Moderated of cours by changes in palte tectonic movements. Mayve we cause that movement by more of us being in one place aka a recent politician saying an island might sink with too many people??
for the 'science expert' who whant to chage warming, not much we can do about this 'eyt'.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58687/
So, what does this article have to do with climate change? This about what is going on hundreds of mile below ground, that other having some implication to volcanic activity has no impact on CC.
It is vitally important that the home building industry discuss how to mitigate the impacts of climate change. As the oceans warm, we will see more violent and wet storms. So we need to evaluate how to make homes more wind and water resistant. As wild fires become more frequent and intense, how do we build homes to be resistant to these wild fires. Yes, this may mean more expensive homes, but it is it not worthwhile to build once for a 10% premium or re-build several times. Same for homes along the US coasts. We need to build (or rebuild) so that the larger rain events and higher wind loads can be considered and mitigated instead of watching miles of homes be wiped off the map. People will not be able to insure these homes much longer, so if we don't build homes to withstand these events, there will be no homes, as no insurance, no mortgages, no loans, and no work for contractors. BTW, I"ve been an atmospheric scientist for 40 years, CC is real, and happening.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, worldwide wildfires are down 15% and will continue to decline until midcentury.
The journal Nature says, “…there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”
Here's the real reason we have CC.
"In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
The U.N. Climate panel concluded last year: “Some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”
Hurricane activity is at the lowest level since the 1970s. The US is experiencing the longest absence of severe hurricanes making landfall in over a century.
I find it pretty interesting that an "atmospheric scientist" just happened to stumble upon a little-known builders forum just in time to register and make a post supporting CC.
Colorado had an above normal number of "Wild"fires the past few years. The reason that I put wild in quotes is do to an abundance of the fires caused by idiots. (People using tracer rounds at a gun range or having fires at a camp site and not fully extinguishing them when they leave the campground, even for a half hour. Or having fires even though it has been posted that there is a fire ban in national parks and the surrounding counties for the past months.
And I am sure that Californians feel the same way.
As a 40 year scientist, did you read the recent NASA articles that show the oceans are NOT warming? You can of course google it too. Two separate studies through NASA confirm that since 2003, the world’s oceans have been losing heat. In the peak of the recent warming trend, 1998 actually ranked 2nd to 1934 as the warmest year on record.
Florida, I've been a subscriber to FineHomebuilding, and JLC for years. In addition to my day job, I do furniture and cabinet building and extensive remodeling on my own home (outside of the slab, not much left of the original structure). The thread was should Fine Homebuilding have articles about building in the age of climate change. The answer for the industry is yes. I will not engage with you or other deniers about what is true or not. As Neil Tyson says, you are free to believe what ever you want, but science doesn't care what you "believe".
Color me not surprised. I'm sure you won't "engage" since you start off with ad hominems in lieu of facts. I gave you facts and where they came from that so I have already pointed out the real science.
I can do it all day whereas you can't give me the name of a single scientific study that supports climate change. Michael Manns program that he used to prove global warming makes hockey sticks out of phone numbers. Briffa's pine cone study that "proved" global warming used cones from 10 trees and only one of those was outside norms for climate change. Like Manns, his study couldn't be replicated so global warming suddenly became "climate change."
I'm all for energy efficiency and high tech building technology but not to the point of stupid like residential solar and windmills that will never produce the power to pay for themselves. Encouraging our customers to put money into projects with negative paybacks uses more energy and takes money away from new technologies that really could make a difference.
Florida, I have not heard the words Global Warming in quite awhile. I think most people have stopped using that term in favor of Climate Change. I for one didn't believe in Global Warming, but I heartily endorse Climate Change.
Climate Change (CC) is much more easy to define, measure and explain to others. You can measure trends and graph them. And you can plot future trends to some extent.
GW on the other hand, at least from my point of view, has more of an extremist view and is by its own name, it already has a bias towards one point of view. While CC has no particular bias.
I live in Colorado where we have 300 days of sunshine every year. Actually, it is more than that where I live. And my roof faces south. I would love to have Solar for electric with the Tesla battery to store the energy. I would also love to use a wind turbine to capture all the wind we experience here.
I look at all the flat roof buildings and think that there is a perfect spot for photovoltaic panels. The government should subsidize the cost of production and installation so that will help bring down the cost of the panels. (Economies of scale) Which would make them actually affordable to be installed on homes that do get enough sun.
We need to keep improving building techniques but at a faster rate than we have. I looked at the change in techniques in my own house that my parents built and that I bought from my mother. My dad, who was a salesman that designed grocery stores. He understood a lot of building processes. He had extra insulation added to the attic so it went over the joists using rockwool. (Remember, this 1957). When I put the addition on, I used spray foam. and fiberglass.
Maybe read my post again where I pointed out that GW had become climate change. I believe CC is real, if it wasn't half the US would still be under a mile of ice.
Where do you live in CO?
When considering residential solar math is your friend because once you do the math you'll quickly see that it is not economically feasible. Lots of people get lost in the idea of not paying the electric company and lose sight of the fact that they will be making even larger payments to a solar energy company. Unless you happen to be in some super sweet spot wind is even worse. Have you ever heard of a commercial wind farm being built without a subsidy? If they can't do it, there's that economy of scale thing, you certainly can't.
Governments all over Europe and CA subsidize solar and wind. Those countries and CA have the highest electric rates in the developed world too.
Yet another forum where people see and believe that which confirms their belief systems. Science be dammed! Conspiracy theorists and their ilk will always require you to disprove their unfounded “facts”. They are ignorant and will never be persuaded by objective evidence. They should be steamrolled back to the Stone Age where they would, I’m sure, live quite happily!
So Benny, are you saying that the anthropocentric cool-aid drinkers who want to profit from a carbon tax or re-ordering of out entire industrial base use LIMITED science to ascribe all to human causes and have promulgated that as a BELIEF system by invoking the holy name of 'scientists' ?
Or is your belief in science limited to 'science' as defined by those who label open minded true science advocates as 'deniers' ?
True science rejects no hypothesis NOR accepts conjectures that have just a few limited factoids for support until proven by experiment. Self serving anthropocentric views are more of a belief vs. REAL overall science.
So Junkhound, how many years have your been making a living as a scientist, and what discipline? How many publications have you authored. You posts certainly don't sound like a scientist or engineer and certainly not a researcher.
Ah, the old "appeal to authority" argument. which is no argument at all. You lose automatically.
Since you ask from your apparent throne of high academic and self appointed expert:
FWIW, 58 years as professional BSEE; experience in thermal, electrical, nuclear, radiation, and space, plus having built a few environmentally 'great' houses with 80% recycled materials. 35 peer reviewed published papers, mostly space, electrical, and nuclear related.
How about you?
... most folks I work with happen to have a totally open minds and do not drink politicians cool aid.
Someone has to ask the questions and point out the fallacies in the cool aid drinker's beliefs so us mere mortals are not led down a path that will be described in another Piltdown man in the 22nd century.
BTW, personal Belief is that MORE population is better for human advancement (although maybe not better form many of those billions). Also subscribe more to the NON-sensational global thermal balance theories that over geologic time plate tectonic drifts modulate deep mantle breeder reactor heating resulting in earth warming and cooling.
Why, just the other day I channeled by GGGGG.GGrandfather who had to move to Germany from his Dogger bank farm due to rising sea levels. King Erogla wanted them all to stop lighting fires to stay warm ........
Climate change is not just warming temperatures across the board. It's the side effects that we have to be aware of as well. That Polar Vortex a couple weeks ago, sudden blizzards then downpours, wind storms, wild fires, heat waves, hurricanes, 100 year storms every other year, all will be getting worse. We're going to see more extreme weather events and we have to build homes that can better cope with them. People in Seattle will want air conditioning in their homes while a lot of other places will need to reevaluate their snow load calculations. Coastal building is going to change a lot. All of this will be a part of how we build every day and we should be looking ahead instead of burying our heads in the sand.
Back in my biology teacher days, when the issue of teaching evolution would come up I would tell students and parents that I did not care if they believed in evolution or not. However, they needed to understand it.
Same is true of climate change. I don't care if you believe in climate change or not. But as home builders, you had damn well better understand the impacts of whatever it is that's going on, or you are not doing your job.
Good comment Greg:
To me, there is no denying the earth today is gradually warming.
And that our technology should address that fact.
What is 'belief' and 'religion' is the cool aid drinkers is that it is 100% human caused (anthropocentric) and that by funneling lots of $$$ to the purveyors of that belief all will result in an socialist wonderland.
If the main fact of change is WARMING, WHY the big name change to "Cimate Change' if not for purposes of worshiping the god (small g) of science (small s) ?
Why? Another Ponzi scheme variation to 'get everyone on board' to funding questionalble technologies, etc.....
Again, not particularly interested in a debate here, but I can tell you the change in terminology had to do with confusion over the effects of global warming. Yes, there is well-documented global warming, but the effect of that global warming is to cause extreme and more intense changes in climate, both hotter and colder. Speaking in terms of climate change rather than global warming makes it easier for the general public to understand why a rise in global temperature can be responsible for a bone-chilling blizzard.
Correct! Most disturbing is the weakening of the "polar circulation", due to warming near the North Pole. This results in a weaker downdraft at the pole, and, as a result, a weakening of the "vortex" around the pole. It is this vortex which helps constrain weather in the "temperate zone" of the US. Without this we are apt to get colder cold spells during winter and hotter hot spells during the summer (similar to what Australia is experiencing now).
Of course terminology has confused this aspect of things as "polar vortex" is used to refer to a sort super winter storm which splits off from the weakened polar circulation.
Much of this has been known since 1958: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF9WdV8pUPk
BTW,
HAVE done some research into buying options on NW territory lands for my great-grandchildren (expecting one shortly?) but see that the GEOLOGY of the Canadian shield changes such that farming to the far north, even if climate is conducive in 200 years, is not too good in that the soil is rock.
Oh, well. Too much of a political risk to invest in Siberian farmland options though. Maybe Greenland options?
I agree 100%. This is the first time in 20 years I felt like writing to Fine Homebuilding with a complaint.
Have you actually read any scientific studies on climate change or do you just feel that it isn't real? Because that is what we call an "inside thought".
Not to worry, we got plenty! But, I would still publish the piece again without hesitation. Debate is a good thing, and when it overlaps into the world of building, that becomes our business.
Calvin:
Poked the somnolent nest with a hot stick and provoked a thread with 50 responses,
even got more than a two line pontification frm Dan, eh?
will go away now for awhile......
Yeah, great job art. On climate change too, you must be proud.
Anyone who doesn't believe that climate change is a very real and currently developing phenomenon should look at the world's dying coral reefs. In places around the world, and very near the United States, coral reef mounds that took hundreds of years to build in their normal 70-80 degree F water temperature are gone. They were turned to skeletons by intense bouts of 85 degree water temperature during the last 15 years. One bad run of abnormally hot water and a 400+ year old area of coral is bleached in six months.
This, by the way, is the same high water temperature that gives hurricanes that extra punch we have seen recently. There certainly is no denying those physics: hot water makes stronger hurricanes. It also kills coral reefs.
If you saw on land something like the coral reef death in the water, as you did with the effects of acid rain on northern forests, you would want to do something about it. Hopefully.
(I hope the more idiotic of you don't say something about not building houses underwater.)
(R.A. Speir--subscriber to FHB since Issue #1)
I think Junkhound is a Red Ice Radio Listener. I like shows that challenge the agenda. I think people should stop praising group think and start appreciating Individual Thought. I don't think that the earth is so fragile that a couple degrees will devastate the planet. The only constant is change. Caves with paintings and drawings have been found 300 feet below sea level off the coast of France. We should be great caretakers of the planet but giving Al Gore money for "carbon credits" isn't going to improve anything but Al Gore's pocket. Destroying American manufacturing and industry by overtaxing with climate fees while letting China pollute all they want is not going to help anything. "Climate Change" has more to do with De-Industrializing America than it does saving the planet.
Just look at the quote from Christiana Figueres who works on Climate Change for the United Nations,
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years..."
She's talking about undoing the economic development model that the world has used since the industrial revolution and that economic development model is Capitalism.
Regardless of what each person thinks is the truth. Everyone should be allowed to have their own take on it without being targeted for not being part of the herd.
"Appreciating individual thought" is fine and dandy when it is based on any actual investigation. The vast majority of people who believe climate change is a hoax have never read anything about it and are just repeating what they heard somewhere else. Talk about groupthink. The rest have read articles by people who are not experts in the field and who have an obvious bias.
I've read plenty of scientific articles on it from both sides. One big problem is that everyone saying that the science is Complete, Done, Settled or Confirmed are going against science by saying it's solved which is saying that there's nothing left to learn. If science years ago said that then they would have stopped at grain or particle and would never have found the atom or electron. Science is rarely ever settled and done and there's almost always something else to learn. There are too many variables left out of the studies and I have yet to read a study that doesn't leave out a lot of variables. As resilient as this planet is, I have a hard time believing we're changing anything with temperature. People should focus their attention on plastics and chemical pollution of our waterways. I can agree that the water is bad and there's not enough being done about it.
Wow this is where all the 60 year old blue collar men from Facebook hang out.
Think about this for a moment. In 1970 they said we would be in an ice age by the year 2000. In 1976 they said global cooling will cause a world war by the year 2000. In 1989 they said global warming and rising sea levels will wipe out entire nations off the map by the year 2000. In 1990 they said we have 5 to 10 years to save the rain forest. In 1999 they said the Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 10 years. In the year 2000 they said snow will soon be a thing of the past. In 2007 they said global warming will cause fewer hurricanes. In 2008 they said the arctic will be ice free by 2013. In 2012 they said global warming will cause more hurricanes. So I guess the science is settled? Anthropomorphic global warming is a myth ... as a matter of fact we actually stopped warming in 2008.
I've believed in climate change since I saw this in 1958:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF9WdV8pUPk
Amazing. Was that real? And the Forces of Evil have been successful for 60 years arguing it doesn't exist--even as it is happening all around us.
I remember watching it on our Emerson TV, while sitting on the floor in the living room.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
- Upton Beall Sinclair Jr. (September 20, 1878 – November 25, 1968)
Ultimately, being environmentally responsible is common sense. I realize our culture has been one primarily of taking and owning, not caring for the larger impact. This is at it's pinnacle with the Boomer generation. It's a big mental shift for Americans that we have to go through, or our great-grandkids won't have much left.
Climate science itself is not political and no one should not view it as such. Unfortunately, many postings here equate views on climate change/global warming with political viewpoint (e.g., “only liberals believe people are causing global warming” or “conservatives are all deniers”—I just made these up for examples). Many other comments are either facetious, or are ad hominem attacks rooted in political viewpoint. Fine Homebuilding allowed the argument about it to be opened here, and by publishing a long letter to the editor in the May 2019 issue that complained about introducing “politics” into the magazine. So it should decide to support such a discussion or not, depending on how it views its print objectives. If it decides to let this continue, it should manage the discussion. In the meantime, the magazine should honor science by purging comments that ignore facts and/or misrepresent them, or have no other objective but to insult someone. In doing so, Fine Homebuilding would simply enforcing Rule #1 of its Forum Guidelines:
“Respect other members. The purpose of this forum is to share knowledge and inspiration. It's ok to have differences of opinion, but be civil in your responses to others.”
"by purging comments that ignore facts"
Is this a civil response? -- that phrase indicates an attitude that would have fit right into the Inquisition.