I need to find a source that has published this quote. Online is fine.
"We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming. "

Was said by Dr. Susan Solomon (co-lead) author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) back in february in paris.

I read it first on BBC online but now can't find it. I use it in my paper and i need the proper reference. So if anyone knows of a publication with it in...but again i need exact page. It can be online, but it has to be reputable. Like news online or a government agency, the IPCC themselves. Which i tried but cannot figure out how to navigate.

HELP!!


Oh will trade sex. lmfaoooo.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Humans blamed for climate change

environment news wildlife conservation nature

think the first one is the bbc news article your referring to

what the hell were they doing in 1750 that created climate change?

I knew Ben Franklin's late-night BBQs would catch up to us some day.

Beautiful BS. Thank you, thank you. I guess i owe you some sex. Next week good for you?

I know i will open a can of worms with this, but I think it is just a mean year for a period of time that had alot of mechanistic and scientific activity. Those two fields have contributed to alot of destructive practices. The next is capitalism, which has probably contributred to more then the two previous combined. If you want to look at some of the activity of that time this is a fantastic timeline.

Intute Timeline - Science Engineering and Technology

Thank you again Black Scorpion. Going to use the BBC one. Easier for me to figure out how to APA standard it. Extra hugssss and kissses for you.

1750 Typhus epidemic sweeps through London, killing thousands including the Lord Mayor.
Coincidence? I think NO!

Science is actually just an effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. That's a good definition. The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. I don't think that science has caused anything very destructive all by itself. People can apply darn near anything in a destructive manner; we're creative like that. However, religion has caused a lot more destruction than science, historically, and there's very little scientific about religion (don't get me started on Scientology lol).

Until something better comes along, I'll go with science

I kind of tend to agree on capitalism though. All capitalism does is replace birth status, or race, or religion, or ethnicity, or whatever previous discriminating factor people were using to decide the haves and the have-nots, with money and the ability to manipulate money. That's not any better.

see can o worms
I should of been more specific. When i was refering to science, i meant specifically Western science. There are other far less ecologically destructive sciences out there.
I am not sure what you are meaning by the typhoid in London. Urbanzination was also happening, the population was expanding beyond capacity. That?

But, in terms of western science, let us just say that we will disagree on this. I know. In fact i would think that my views on western science would be in conflict with the majority of people here. However they are not in conflict with other people within the field i am in. And if you would like resources to speak to this issue, i can refer.

The term ecology was coined by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel in 1866. That in itself is westernish lol

I suspect we aren't using common terms here though. Are you referring more to natural science? I don't really think of that in terms of Western" or "non-Western" either, tbh.

Science in itself, whatever subclass defined, doesn't have to to be ecologically destructive. Environmental science is a very western science. Ergonomics is a western science. Ecology itself is usually considered a branch of biology, the general science that studies living organisms. I'd say that's rather westernish as well.

I just think it's in the applications of science (regardless of subclass), not the theory of it, where problems lie.

No, you are not understaning what i am saying. I am not talking about branches within western science. Western science is a construct within the western world view. It is based on euro-western hegemony. I am talking about a whole other way to see the world, a whole other science, not founded upon the same principles. A whole different world view that explains the natural world and our relationship with that. Do you see now?

To me ecology is about relationships or interconnectedness amongst the members of the natural world. Environmental science is about explaining the natural world, whether that includes humans or not. Indeed most often, if it is western science based, it sees the natural world as 'other' from humans.