AIArchitect

Architects are in a great position to encourage and promote 'energy-saving' construction. For those that do not have much trust in Al Gore's speeches: possibly his talks would carry more weight if he practiced what he preaches. i have heard of astronomical yearly electric bills, limos everywhere,... you get the picture.

It would be a mistake to focus on Al Gore. He is irrelevant. What is relevant is the intellectual dishonesty, political intimidation, and junk science that attends the "global warming" hysteria. The fact that the AIA has bought into the Gore-Suzuki et al. propaganda without the hint of a challenge or question is cause for concern.

I would encourage readers to take a look at the following:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en

If you have never searched out other evidence, give it a try.

BTW, has anyone considered the "carbon footprint" of the San Antonio conference? How does the AIA plan to offset such a Sasquatch-ian impression? Perhaps it could come up with a carbon tax like Boulder, CO has done. Alternatively, perhaps Mr. Gore could recommend a reputable carbon indulgence dealer. I think the AIA should stop drinking the Kool-Aid and pay attention.

Anyone who fails to see the reality of environmental crisis is just looking for a way to divert attention from their own self interest and intellectual shortcomings. Saying that environmental integrity is 'just politics' and diverting attention to petty personality traits instead of facts is both juvenile and idiotic. No sane human who is confronted with the overwhelming evidence of environmental deterioration can possibly deny there is a global crisis. We have to stop quibbling with simple-minded people who want to deny reality and instead start doing everything we each can do to help solve the environmental problems we humans have created.

The lightning rod effect only draws more attention to itself. Unfortunately, that’s necessary for people to be able to see an issue. There are almost as many outrageous quacks that are never remembered as those voices in the wilderness who were condemned for thinking that was proven correct over time. And, also, unfortunate, is the fact that only time will tell the truth.

However, we are at a point where the climate is beginning to change. Humankind has the capacity to cause such an effect. Whether the changes can be said to be the result of human activity or whether it is a combination of human activity and natural global cycles can be debated. What should not be debated is our willingness to put forth the efforts to make a positive change in stabilizing climate to the greatest extent we can. Let’s do this for the built environment before we’re forced to move back into caves.

There is no doubt that the concept of sustainable architecture is something that all, or at least most, of us has learned about way back in school. We should really remember those lessons and apply them to our projects as much as we can. These ideas are mostly grounded in common sense and the benefits are quite obvious.

I wish the AIA would stop using Al Gore as the head cheerleader for this change in ideals. He is an over-the-top lunatic and that detracts from the message. We don't need another "do as I say, not as I do" elitist wagging his finger at us when he refuses to follow the very lifestyle changes that he demands that we undertake. Listening to so many hypocrites all the time is very tiring. Just because he has credence as a speaker, doesn’t automatically mean he is knowledgeable on the matter.

As for global warming, do you think it is suspicious that the sun is left out of the temperature trend models? Is it a crazy notion that the sun may be somewhat responsible for the amount of warmth that we feel on earth? It is unfortunate that if you don’t buy into global warming then you’re labeled as ignorant. Science is not about consensus. The general acceptance of global warming is based upon consensus.

The 1970s global cooling scare seemed just as serious as today’s global warming. Science has proven that temperatures are cyclical – what remains to be seen is if man can be so arrogant as to think he can affect and/or control the weather.

So, let’s drop the political angle and forget about the junk science. Let’s try and focus on, and implement, the real, tangible issues because they make sense – not because of the irrational fear that the earth is going to melt away under our feet.

"Science is not about consensus."

Sure it is. Here are a few scientific organization that have come to the consensus that human activities is causing dangerous global climate change:

Adademia Brasiliera de Ciencias, Brazil

Royal Society of Canada, Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Ascademia des Sciences, France

Deutsceh Akedemia der Naturforscher Lepoldina, Germany

Indian National Science Academy, India

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy

Science Council of Japan, Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

Royal Soceity, UK

National Academy of Sciences, USA

I disagree with the whole theory of "Global Warming". It is nothing more than a theory put forth by those who deem it as their religion. It is purely a way for the world to take control of a mass amount of money and tell everyone how to live. Period. As Architects, having the best interest of human beings' sustainability, it is prudent of us to use materials conservatively and try to do what's best for our clients in the areas of conservation of energy and resources. Global warming &/or Cooling has occured since the beiginning of the world. It's a part of life, and if man thinks he is able to destroy this planet with car emmisions and manure, then man is way too arrogant. All it would take is one huge eruption of ash from any given volcano to cover the sun for several years, and voila! One gets another ice age. In living on this planet, one is at mother earth's mercy, whether we are elitists like Al Gore and his mob, or the pope. Why didn't he mention how the sun affects ozone more than anything? What we don't need is another demogouge preaching theory as fact and then expecting us to be taxed on it. Puhlease......

If AIA is going to make Al Gore their poster child, then I don't think any higher of the AIA than I think of Al Gore. That DA windbag flies all over the country in his private jet using more gas in one afternoon than I use in both my vehicles in a year and then preaches to me that I should give up my vehicles because of their huge gas consumption. That human debris how preaches how we should give to the poor and to every good cause out there and his TOTAL contributions for one year during his terror reign as VP was a couple hundred dollars; I give more than that each month, and he is making about 100x what I make. Gore is so full of himself it makes me sick to my stomach. He and Ms. Crowe should get together and share their one square of toilet paper if he is so concerned about saving the planet. If he ever did anything he asked the rest of us to do, I would probably die on the spot. But he is just a sour, lying, loser liberal like his buddy Alec Baldwin who never gave the US his highest blessing by leaving the country like he promised when President Bush got elected. If they both hate this country they live in so bad, I will personally buy them a one way ticket to anywhere in the world.
Why is the AIA all of a sudden so concerned with sustainable buildings when they spent years patting architects on the back who did building after building covered in nothing but glass or Italian marble which cost more to bring here than most of my projects cost in total. Maybe the AIA should team up with Al Gore; they both need to practice what they preach and until they do; I don't really care what they have to say.

I am dissapointed at the posts so far. Though he is a polorizing figure, (unfortunately a sign of the times we live in) he does bring the topic to the front page. Somehow we (our society) think that is "news".

To address one point that was made. The "cooling" was attributed to the pollutants in the air which we were able to get rid of (only because it caused acid rain) which "shaded" the Earth of the sun's rays. If we did it one before we can do it again. I would hope the AIA would join the US-Cap organization and I was dissapointed that they weren't on the list when they just anounced their expanded membership this past week.

Junk science remains junk regardless of the institution's credentials & notoriety. Redistribution of America's wealth is at the heart of the movement. I too am disappointed that AIA has chosen to align the institute with the movement in such a way as to suggest that a majority of architects don't practice "energy conscious design" and need a brick upside the head as a reminder to do so. I almost decided not to attend the convention when I heard Algore would be preaching but my travel time gave me peace of mind that I would be spared from the ordeal.

We don't need any more koolaid to drink. We all need to do our small part to conserve and practice godd design techniques without needing to jump on the latest well-intentioned fad bandwagon on the road to hell. We're industrious and productive and that requires energy and we use it. We need more options from the fuel providers and we need to make better choices but we don't need more big government nor world government dictating our activities while they steal our wealth and resources to line their own selfish kingdoms. Stop being fooled by wealthy celebrities touting junk science as truth. I still need to use more than one square of tissue at any given sitting. Would you shake hands with someone like that? Eeww, ichy.

"I may not be a scientist but I am a thinker." -Glenn Beck

The AIA's decision to make hypocrit Gore their poster boy is exactly why I decided not to attend the national convention. I will not be preached to by those that refuse to follow their own preaching.
By claiming there is a "consensus" you are proving there is no scientific facts involved. For an analysis to be scientific and deemed fact the process/evatuation must be repeatable by other parties and yield the same result. There are no scientif facts to prove global warming. Some of the same "chicken littles" who warned of global cooling, warned of a "new ice age" 30 years ago, are now warning us about global warming.
Those that do not jump onto the band wagon today are demonized and vilified by the global warming cult followers and this demonization and vilification should not be tolerated.
Politics is all that there is to the present reteric about global warming. The cult folowers demonize Republicans, industrialists, business owners, foresters, ranchers, dairy farmers and others and all I can ask in return is what did those evil, white, Republican, mastadons do to cause the global warming trend that ended the last ice age? Gore may be right about one thing, the glacers may be receeding, but the process started millions of years ago.
For some very interesting reading and insight into the present global fear of global warming refer to the communist manifesto and supporting documents. One of their stated approaches on how to get people to accept a global government is in response to a global environmental problem, EITHER REAL OR CONTRIVED.

Can someone tell me which of Al Gore's statements about climate change are based on "junk science"?

Yes, unfortunately some of my friends in the A/E industry reject the whole issue because Al Gore has something to do with it. I'm sure as an ex-Vice President and wealthy American, trying to pitch a necessary cause for the whole world, living with low expenses isn't easy. We middle-class Americans suck up tons of energy and resources compaired to the third world. So dumping on the rich for not practicing what they preach is a cop out. Hopefully, by more education this will cease to resemble a bi-partisan issue. Al asked a good question; Given the technology available now, do we dive into change with every new building? Or will history find this generation too petty and lazy?

"Frederick T. Wawra, AIA" made the comment that "Science is not about consensus." In response, "A friend of reason" gave a list of "scientific organization that have come to the consensus that human activities is causing dangerous global climate change." I believe that A friend of reason has misunderstood Frederick Wawra's comment. At the risk of speaking for someone else, I believe that he was not trying to say "Scientific organizations have not come to a consensus on this issue," but rather, "The practice of science is not consensus-building, but experimentation and observation."

Many years ago, the consensus of scientists was that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and blood-letting was a good treatment for illness, just to name a few. The fact that there is a consensus does not guarantee that the consensus is correct.

Yes, in the pre-modern era people believed the world was flat. Many people still do. Others of us have been convinced by the arguments and the evidence.

Architects lacking integrity:

I was never more disappointed in my profession as I was before the Al Gore speech.
I waited in line for hours to ensure a decent seat. Thousands of architects were in line behid me - when the doors opened all the members that were way back in line, broke the line and surged forward. Total lack of honesty and integrity. Very disapointing. I thought we were more honest than that,
Erik Ulland

Unfortunately even our leaders (AIA Board members) thought they were able to jump in even though they had reserved seats! I don't think so many prime (middle front) seats should have been roped off and then opened up. Nice they were used, but those that waited got worse seats that those late comers that got those former "reserved" seats. Timing is everything.

Book signing was another show of class. Notice was given no photographs and people still took pictures!

Fortunately there was high interest in Al Gore. :-)

There are so many issues and factors involved in what might cause this planet's invironment to change that one factor (Carbon Emmissions) cannot possibly cause Global Warming. I have heard no one mention that 3/4 of the Earth is covered by water and what that large surface has to do with environmental control.
"Nature" has always controlled whatever has happened on this planet for millions of years and will until the end. Are we damaging our atmosphere "YES". Are we poluting our air, water and land "YES". Are we wasting our renewable and non-renewable resorces "YES". Should the United States take on the responsibility of cleaning up these problems "NO". This will take a Globel effort but each country will have to be responsible for solving their own problems. We can take the lead in showing the rest of the World what can be done. A real World leader is one that is respected and admired for what they do within their own country and their own people. That is what makes others want to follow. Not one that feels that there form of government should be forced on other people or money "given" to support democratic governments. If you give a man a fish to eat today he will be back tomorrow for another. If you give him a fishing pole and teach him how to fish he will feed himself from now on.
Al Gore is a non issue.

"Al Gore is a non issue."

Unless he is the next President of the United States.

At this point in time, I think that the science that forms the foundation of the global warming discussion is not really in dispute. Although it is easy to find examples where general opinion was wrong (I don’t count the belief that the earth was flat as “scientific thought” as it was not based on the scientific process as we understand it), we have to believe that the scientific process is, as a whole, a necessary process that builds knowledge upon knowledge, thereby fine tuning our understanding of our world closer and closer to accuracy. We will never have all of the facts or know the complete truth about the world we live in, but we have to trust that the professionals who have spent their lives studying these complex interactions are more likely to understand than laymen such as Architects. I therefore have to trust that the consensus opinion of scientists that global warming is a real threat should be taken seriously. To ignore this is to ignore science and rational thought in general, which I cannot do.

One problem with getting everyone else to simply acknowledge the issue (aside from petty personal or political opposition) is that many of those who are pushing for change have a tendency to let their emotions take control of their arguments and not simply let the science speak for itself. We have all heard theories blaming global warming for phenomenon or occurrences that most scientists would consider a stretch. Even Al Gore suggested that global warming was at least partially to blame for Hurricane Katrina. I think it is fair to say that global warming will increase our chances of more intense and more frequent hurricanes but to blame a specific event on global warming undermines the overall argument because the cause and effect is impossible to prove. This gives nay sayers a perfect opportunity to poke holes in the “theory.”

There are obviously those whose refusal to believe the science behind this discussion takes on an almost religious fervor. Their beliefs seem to be based on faith alone that we should not be concerned. I personally don’t understand this point of view because I don’t see a downside to taking action to stem global warming. What’s the worst that can happen; we reduce carbon emissions, reduce pollution, create healthier environments and find out in 20 years that our fears were overstated? I can live with that. I think the downside of non-action is much more detrimental for me, my wife and my children. I can’t live with that.

Forty years ago, Bucky Fuller was creating his Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. Confident in our human capacity for invention, Bucky pointed out that fossil fuels were a logical place for humankind to begin but were ultimately a dead-end, and that the world should be transitioning to the use of abundant solar energy. In 1970, he was honored by the AIA with its highest honor, the Gold Medal.

Since then, our society has become so intellectually lazy that we require all our science, like our politics, to be unambiguous, dumbed-down, neat and tidy. The laziest of our citizens can’t be troubled to actually think, so they engage in ad hominem attacks on people like Al Gore who are honestly trying to create an international dialogue.

No matter what your opinion on global warming, it is irrational to argue that carbon-based fuels hold any future for this planet. The AIA should appropriately take a leadership role on this issue. To be the true voice of our profession, it must do no less. Many thanks to the AIA for inviting Mr. Gore to provoke us.

William Beyer, FAIA

"To make the world work

In the shorest possible time

Through spontaneous cooperation

Without ecological offense

Or the disadvantage of anyone."

Buckminster Fuller

Thomas Hurst that's a good post. Thanks Mr. Hurst.

I was very surprised at the belligerance displayed by so many on this blog who claim to be professional and call themselves thinkers. 2,500 scientists signed a letter to the UN agreeing there was "a discernable human influence" on climate change. Even the Bush administration has agreed to this reality. Almost one-half of human global warming can be attributed directly or indirectly to buildings. Therefore, architects stand challenged to lead our fellow humans to a better future for our planet. This is a transformational culture change we should embrace for the good of the world and prosperity.

As we look to the future - which by the way is our most basic task as architects...

let's agree to be responsible - not hysterical...

to be filled with hope - not fueled by hype...

to be accomplished architects - not gentleman environmentalists...

and let's not give in to the communal self-loathing which implies that it would be better if no humans existed at all...

The one underlying idea which I cannot accept within this debate is that, ultimately, if we follow the logic, the only "sustainable" action is suicide.

As architects we are called to improve this world, in a reponsible fashion, as a service to humanity, here and beyond. Let's not let environmentalism limit the breadth of this grand task.

huh?

"...to be accomplished architects - not gentleman environmentalists..." why can't you be both?

.."The one underlying idea which I cannot accept within this debate is that, ultimately, if we follow the logic, the only 'sustainable' action is suicide." Well that just wouldn't be SUSTAINABLE!

Al Gore has been consistent for years in his support of environmental preservation. He has behaved neither as Chicken Little, nor as a Pollyanna, speaking and writing in a measured way, making an argument backed by reliable data and a worldwide concensus among environmental scientists. He has "street creds" that may not be reinforced by his rather stuffy persona, but are increasingly supported by the evidence for global warming and worldwide ecological degradation, including overpopulation and overconsumption.
It is clearly time to stop debating the reality; the political debate must now revolve around around how to remediate and arrest the decay, not whether Ma Earth's biospheric skin is cancerous or not. It clearly is. We need neither kill nor exalt the messenger; but we need to get the message.
We architects walk hand-in-hand with our patrons, who have tended to be a pretty politically conservative lot. If they end up leading the environmental charge (because it has become popular and profitable) rather than simply financing it, we lose bragging rights, big time.
Frankly, our focus on "green building", in my view, misses the point, anyway. The way we conceive habitable environments in general, and cities in particular is at the root of the problem. If we cannot get a handle on what we expect of the political, commercial, personal, and environmental dimensions of "city" and the required infrastructure, worldwide, all the architectural greenery we can muster will remain palliative rather than a cure.

Shouldn't it be "Lightning" rod? Otherwise, ouch!

witness:

"lightening"

light·en·ing [ lt'ning ]

noun

Definition:

stage in woman's pregnancy: the process or time during late pregnancy when the fetal head begins to descend into the mother's pelvis, resulting in a lessening of pressure on the diaphragm

[

Spelling Note:

lightening or lightning? Do not confuse the spelling of lightening and lightning, which sound similar. Lightening is the present participle of either of the verbs lighten (as in lightening the load, lightening his hair), and as a verbal noun is also used with specific reference to a stage of pregnancy. The noun meaning "a flash of light in the sky during a storm" is spelled lightning (as in thunder and lightning), as is the corresponding adjective meaning "very fast or sudden" (as in with lightning speed).

Architects have observed basic principles about buildings since 27BC. What is important here is what has not been included.

Vitruvius believed that an architect should focus on three central themes when preparing a design for a building: firmitas (strength), utilitas (functionality), and venustas (beauty).

He set forth in the ten books of architecture the five fundamental principles of design (Order, Eurythmy, Symmetry, Propriety, and Economy).

Thus far architecture has survived politics, because it is a discipline with sound principles.

Global warming and the energy crisis are serious realities or surprisingly tangible fantasies. In either case by what logic does it matter?

Using renewable resources rather than non-renewable resources is clearly better design. Reducing the carbon emissions by our built environment is obviously better design.

Thus far waste and stupidity have little or no history as design principles. There appears to be no future in such practice or purpose served by such argument.

Regardless; whether there is a crisis of global proportion regarding carbon emissions, whether or not it is human-caused, Architects will have to make the best design decisions they can. That is our responsibility as professionals. That means using renewable resources wherever feasible and reduction of the environmental footprint wherever possible, to curb pollution and associated oil/coal-based energy production is simply driven by well established principles.

Most of the posts on this blog alarmed me. I am not an architect but I am very
concerned about global warming and human beings' capacity to respond to this crisis before it becomes a catastrophe.

It seems to me that professionals who are arguably better prepared to understand the science better than most citizens have particular personal and organizational responsbilities to speak and act.

What concerned me most was witnessing a group of professionals confusing the messenger with the message.

I strongly recommend that all intelligent, educated Americans go to the IPCC web site and read the reports for themselves.

I believe that only then is someone "qualified" to rationally debate global warming, its causes and effects.