It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Earth To Reach Highest Temperature In 1,000,000 Years

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I've always been a firm believer in our (humanity) quick jump to - we did it, we are the cause, we have to stop and change everything.

This is a big ball of dirt, and the energy impacting us from our Sun is THE major factor on everything environmental. While our influence can change measurable things, like CO2, we really have no clue as to the self-regulation that goes on at the global scale. The system does self regulate but will it always be beneficial to us humans - not likely. We have seen the major changes that have occured in the past and they happen in cycles. We have the short 11 year solar cycle and much larger and longer cycles that cause globale waming and cooling. The Sun is a violent and most decidely non-static type of light bulb, we are also in an orbit that is influenced by all of the other planets. A tug her a tug there and things change.

Don't get me wrong, I do think we are making changes, but that the external influence on the Sun and our orbit is the biggie and one we have no control over. Also, we do self-regulate and some changes are quite beneficial to other forms of life on the planet and not us - so who are we to proclaim what is right..??




posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

No, I'm not. I'm PO'd.

There's a BIG difference.

IMO - Critical information is being suppressed to prevent people from asking the right questions, defining the real problem, and working towards a solution. It's misinformation as distraction.

And the effect of this distraction is to leave the elite free to steal all our resources and use them to protect themselves, without regard for the whole of humanity.




btw - Mauddib - the back tracking you describe is a common response to gag orders.



Well, I hope you dont mind my saying so, but, the critical information is right there at anyones fingertips...ready for anyone to examine and draw their own logical conclusions.

NOAA
Coreolis in france
The Met Center in Europe
USGS
ARGO
NCDC


From seasonal weather archives, to paleoclimatalogical modelling, to ocean currents, to Thermosalinity charts, to undersea and above ground volcanic monitoring, its all right there.

All thats left is for anyone who chooses and has a modicum of initiative to parse through some of that data, and they WILL come up with the right answers.

Dont get me wrong, I can not STAND this current administration; I will be the FIRST to grab Dubya by the seat of his pants and kick his oil scrounging butt out of office...yet, for his administration to even BEGIN to be able to taint the data that has been so carfully archived or placed in the public domain on a real-time basis would be something they just could NOT do...nevermind suppress it.


As far as defining the REAL problem its not even determined that there IS a real problem...there's a REAL PROBLEM for some portions of geography perhaps, and it may and probably IS not conducive to excellent living conditions, HOWEVER, in geochronology, this may well be a phase that has come like many many before it....when scientists talk about a warmer climate than the last 1 million years, well for a planet thats 4.5 BILLION years old, 1 million years is a drop in the bucket!
Even in a court of law, if the prosecution can only account for 1/4500th of a defendants time as part of their evidence, then certainly it makes for VERY weak case. In this case, we're assuming that the geoscientists CAN account for every bit of that 1 million years, and frankly.... im extremely dubious.


AB1



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I once had a dream where all my friends and I, and still others, were all sitting at a banquet, we were all eating, laughing and carrying on. I looked down to take my next mouthfull of food, and when I raised my head again I noticed all my friends, all those people were gone, and in their place were termites; I too had turned into a termite, The banquet hall had changed into a wooden ship - afloat on an ocean.

My fellow termites didn't seem to notice, nor care. They kept on eating and eating and doing what termites do. I tried to implore them to conserve, to hold off, to look at the big picture. They didn't and I slowly watched our ship, our only mode of survival withering away because people...errrr....termites, refused to fight their natural tendency and think that somehow the ship that was, would always be.

Indeed, I had a dream.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

From the original article

The last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about three million years ago, when sea level was estimated to have been about 25 meters (80 feet) higher than today."


What caused the extreme warm period back then?

What produced the greenhouse gas?

Flatulent woolly mammoths?

If anything, the above quote (if true) shows that global warming, and "climate change" are more likely part of a natural cycle, than to be a man-made condition.

How hot was it three million years ago?




Surely you have to beleive that all the gasses and pollution made has made does have some negative affect on nature. You cant be so naive to think that it has nothing to do with the temperature climbing. Perhaps the natural warming cycle just happens to be going on while the pollution is taking its toll also. I dont know; however I have to realize that greenhouse gasses will have an affect.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
.
The opening article talks about a report from the boys at NASA - the same guys who send ships to Mars.


So?.... It isn't that hard to work for NASA... a cousin of mine from Spain worked for NASA for 5 years as a aeronautical engineer, and an engineer friend of mine, who went to school with me to work for the international company we both work for now, also used to work for NASA before.... They are still human beings, they make mistakes like other human beings, and they can have agendas like this person from NASA "who admits has not looked at the data but claims it is hotter than in the past million years in Earth"......

Conclusions must be reached by researching the data, and looking at the facts, not just think that a certain person must be right "just because that person has a degree".


Originally posted by soficrow
I seriously doubt their credentials are in question.


It is not about credentials, it is about the agenda this person obviously has... Having a degree does not mean the person is immediately right. I have an engineering degree, and there are other people in these forums who also have engineering degrees and degrees in different fields, but we can have different opinions and ideas, and these opinions and ideas can conflict with each other whether or not we have a college/university degree.


Originally posted by soficrow
What Hansen actually said to the interviewer is this:


"That means that further global warming of 1 degree Celsius defines a critical level. If warming is kept less than that, effects of global warming may be relatively manageable," said Hansen.

..."During the warmest interglacial periods the Earth was reasonably similar to today. But if further global warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know. The last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about three million years ago, when sea level was estimated to have been about 25 meters (80 feet) higher than today."

news.mongabay.com...


The above quote is not true, the last time that we had a warming period, which was warmer than today, was 800 years ago, during the Medieval warm period.



Conclusions
A review of research on past temperatures and variations led us to the following conclusions:

1.) Climate is in continual flux: the average annual temperature is usually either rising or falling and the temperature is never static for a long period of time.

2.) Observed climatic changes occurred over widespread areas, probably on the global scale.

3.) Climate changes must be judged against the natural climatic variability that occurs on a comparable time scale. The Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, and similar events are part of this natural variability. These events correspond to global changes of 1-2oC.

4.) Global temperatures appear to be rising, irrespective of any human influence, as Earth continues to emerge from the Little Ice Age. If the temperature increase during the past 130 years reflects recovery from the Little Ice Age, it is not unreasonable to expect the temperature to rise another 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius to a level comparable with that of the Medieval Warm Period about 800 years ago.
The Holocene Epoch, as a whole, has been a remarkably stable period with few extremes of either rising or falling temperatures, as were common during Pleistocene glacial and interglacial periods. Nevertheless, the Holocene has been, and still is, a time of fluctuating climate.

5.) Climatic changes measured during the last 100 years are not unique or even unusual when compared with the frequency, rate, and magnitude of changes that have taken place since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch. Recent fluctuations in temperature, both upward and downward, are well within the limits observed in nature prior to human influence.

www.azgs.state.az.us...


Originally posted by soficrow
We're not asking if mankind caused the problem, we're asking what we can do about it.


The only thing one can do about it is avoid living in risk areas, avoid living close to the sea, avoid living in seismically active areas, have contigency plans to move somewhere else with family members or friends for a long period of time, etc. Appart from that, there is nothing that we can do to stop climate change because humans have nothing to do with it.


Originally posted by soficrow
NASA says we have a problem. Should we listen?


No...NASA is not saying this, this man is saying this, I am certain there are scientists in NASA who would disagree with this man, more so when he even confesed that he has not researched the topic properly.


Originally posted by soficrow
Should we let the elite run the show, and save themselves first?


.... So are you trying to claim that if there were other people in power "climate change would just stop because of a political party"?..... or if instead some other people, like perhaps yourself, were in power there would be no GW?


Originally posted by soficrow
Or should we take steps to protect human society, in all its forms?


Changes do happen and have happened to the Earth several times, some have been worse and faster than the one we are currently going through, yet there were no cars, no factories.....

The following is some of the data which refutes what "mostly environmentalists, which do include people working for NASA, claim"...
Another period of unusual warm, much warmer than it is today.


What does seem apparent is that within the current interglacial period, starting some 10,000 years ago, there have been smaller patterns emerging – periods of warmer weather, followed by colder weather and so on. These have been broken down by climatologists into four main periods.

The first followed the end of the last Ice Age, indeed it caused it to end. The Earth probably reached its warmest about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. At this time the temperature would have been on average about 2C (3.6F) warmer than the present day.

This period has acquired the name the Optimum period as a result, and was followed by a much colder spell. This more or less coincided with the historical period called the Iron Age, which reached its coldest around 2,500 years ago. (It should be remembered that these changes are gradual and do not occur overnight).

www.bbc.co.uk...


There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. [n]Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
...............................
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
to continue...
---edited---

[edit on 27-9-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Continued


Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/04/2003)

Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml

There are too many inconsistencies with the "theory" that human activities are the main cause behind global warming, and anyone who is interested in the truth, and not just in following a general consencus because of what environmentalists claim, should be making their own research if they want to find the truth behind global warming.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib


There are too many inconsistencies with the "theory" that human activities are the main cause behind global warming, and anyone who is interested in the truth, and not just in following a general consencus because of what environmentalists claim, should be making their own research if they want to find the truth behind global warming.



Muaddib,
Yes all that you refrenced I am sure quite true but as your statment says there are to many inconsistencies there are plenty of inconsistencies in the other exsplanations also.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
Muaddib,
Yes all that you refrenced I am sure quite true but as your statment says there are to many inconsistencies there are plenty of inconsistencies in the other exsplanations also.


Like what exactly?

Could you please expound as to what inconsistencies you are talking about?

I am just curious.


[edit on 27-9-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Are we so vain that we somehow forget that evolution hasn't stopped just because it was discovered only a few generations ago? A creationist may be, but our smartest scientists?

This is like a weight slightly shifting on the shoulders of Atlas. We learn to balance it or the whole thing may just tip over one day.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
This is like a weight slightly shifting on the shoulders of Atlas. We learn to balance it or the whole thing may just tip over one day.


So, you think that mankind can stop global warming?

How can mankind change the forces that control the rotation of the Earth and the fuilds inside the Earth which form the magnetic field which flips and changes with time and shields the Earth?

How can mankind make the sun flip completly so that it's magnetic field protects the inner planets of the solar system from the influx of intergallactic dust and excited particles which are making their way into the solar system because of the Sun's magnetic field flipping only partially?....

We can't change the forces that control the universe, and we can't change the forces that control the Earth.

Change is the only certainty we have about the universe and everything in it, and we have nothing to say when or why these changes will occur, we can only prepare for them, and hope for the best.

[edit on 28-9-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
This is like a weight slightly shifting on the shoulders of Atlas. We learn to balance it or the whole thing may just tip over one day.


So, you think that mankind can stop global warming?



Not at all. Slow down perhaps. Yes, I do think that human behaviour can have an effect on global warming, and probably has. But I don't think it's too late to turn back now.


How can mankind change the forces that control the rotation of the Earth and the fuilds inside the Earth which form the magnetic field which flips and changes with time and shields the Earth?


By stopping the monkey business in outer space. Or at the VERY least, being responsible about it. Not using it for our egos, or just to say it's been done. But finding ways to make it beneficial to our human condition. Denying that these things are going to happen may be blissful to some, troubling to others, but plowing whole hog ahead without expecting repercussions is a rather childish thing.


How can mankind make the sun flip completely so that it's magnetic field protects the inner planets of the solar system from the influx of intergallactic dust and excited particles which are making their way into the solar system because of the Sun's magnetic field flipping only partially?....


We can't. That's what makes it so amazing that our collective egos think that Mankind is the all-important aspect of Life. Or perhaps it's blind faith that everything will resolve itself in the end as it should, as it was meant to be.


We can't change the forces that control the universe, and we can't change the forces that control the Earth.


Quite correct. And we should get used to the idea. We haven't evolved that far yet to come to what seems to me a reasonably simple explanation?


Change is the only certainty we have about the universe and everything in it, and we have nothing to say when or why these changes will occur, we can only prepare for them, and hope for the best.



That's the idea. I quite agree.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyopswatcher

Not at all. Slow down perhaps. Yes, I do think that human behaviour can have an effect on global warming, and probably has. But I don't think it's too late to turn back now.


We can't slow down climate change, just as we can't slow down the rotation of the Earth, or the flux from the Sun.

I used to think that human activities had some part in global warming, but the more i researched this topic, the more i realized that global warming is being used as a political and economical tool, nothing more, nothing less.

It is true that we have the responsibility to find a balance with the "environment", but not by making the drastic changes that "environmentalists" and others who believe everything these environmentalists claim.

Some environmentalists go as far as to state that 80% of mankind has to be destroyed....

If CO2 is the main cause behind global warming, how come when mankind was using coal like there was no tomorrow, back in the 1940s when WWII began and factories were polluting the atmosphere more than we have been doing in the past 20 years, yet global temperatures in fact decreased for over a decade, they rose a bit for a couple years then decreased again, until the 1980s.

Why is it that even before the 1940s, when mankind was also using coal and polluting the atmosphere more than we are doing now, but not at the level that was used during WWII, there was a cooling trend?

How come that back then, when there were no projects to repopulate forests, and trees were cut without impunity there was a cooling trend?...

How come during the Middle Ages there was a rapid warming trend, which was much hotter than it is today, yet back then there were no factories, no cars, no ACs or chemicals/gases being released to the atmosphere or the oceans?....


Originally posted by psyopswatcher
By stopping the monkey business in outer space. Or at the VERY least, being responsible about it. Not using it for our egos, or just to say it's been done. But finding ways to make it beneficial to our human condition. Denying that these things are going to happen may be blissful to some, troubling to others, but plowing whole hog ahead without expecting repercussions is a rather childish thing.


Do you happen to have the blueprints, and the design of a propulsion system for a spaceship that can travel beyond the solar system and maintain it's crew for at least 2-5 generations? Because if you want to escape the changes that are happening "in the entire solar system", you are going to have to get out of the Solar System.

I have a thread about this same topic, with facts which prove changes are happening not only on Earth, but every planet with an atmosphere in the Solar System. There are also changes in the Sun, which is one of the reasons why i was asking if anyone believes that mankind can control the Sun.

On the rest I guess we agree.

BTW, here is the link i was talking about.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 28-9-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I wonder,

Can 2 million flies be all that wrong?



Governors' efforts to cut emissions give impetus to an emerging industry

U.S. governors, impatient with federal inaction on global warming, are taking matters into their own hands. The result could add impetus to an emerging industry. ...California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) yesterday signed legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions. And seven Northeastern states, which together emit as much greenhouse gas as Germany, have banded together to set rules that would cut their emissions by 10 percent by 2019. Other states may join them.

"There isn't an actor at the table who wouldn't prefer a national program, but we can't afford to wait," says Franz Litz, climate change coordinator at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. ...So the state leaders are modeling their efforts on the European Union, which has turned limits on greenhouse gas emissions into a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry. ...Companies are already scrambling to take advantage of the E.U. system, which is an outgrowth of the global environmental accord known as the Kyoto Protocol. Arlington-based AES Corp. has dispatched teams to negotiate with Asian palm oil plantations over installing equipment to suck methane -- one of the most potent of a half-dozen greenhouse gases -- out of waste lagoons. The electric power company wants to convert it into energy and less harmful gases. In return, the firm would get credits it could use or sell in Europe.

"It is ironic that 10 years after Kyoto was signed, there is a vibrant market in Europe, an emerging market in the developing world, and the U.S. is sitting on the sidelines," says Véronique Bugnion, Point Carbon's research director. ...The idea of creating a market for trading air pollution rights began in the United States. Legislation passed in 1990 and implemented in 1995 established an acid rain program, which capped sulfur dioxide emissions and let companies trade their assigned shares. Sulfur dioxide emissions fell 30 percent. Economists say such plans meet environmental goals efficiently, without choosing between technologies. ...The United States insisted that other countries adopt a cap-and-trade approach for greenhouse gases in the Kyoto accord but then never signed on while Europe moved ahead.




So the governors are moving ahead without federal support or approval. And the players come out ahead on the cap-and-trade approach.

But Bush doesn't like it.

So what?






format

[edit on 28-9-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
I wonder,

Can 2 million flies be all that wrong?




They could, if the "master fly" is not suitably informed of all options.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   
It does not sound like all that bad a thing that the some states have decided to go ahead with this new protocall.
If it was sighned into law by the federal government the states would be asking for money to put the programs into efect. This way that wont happen.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem

If it was sighned into law by the federal government the states would be asking for money to put the programs into efect. This way that wont happen.



So you're saying that the lack of federal support results from budgetary constraints?

Which implies that the situation is a lower priority than funding the colonization wars, for example.

That economic colonization is more important to this administration than protecting Americans at home from drought, famine, and the other impacts of climate change.

Interesting.





posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Governors have to follow what the public thinks, and we all know that California is one of the most liberal states. This also shows that "the American citizens" still control the country.

Anyways, too many people are being "spoonfed" that something must be done right away or global wamring will bring catastrophes, CO2 emissions are the main cause for global warming, etc, etc, etc, but the truth is far from what some have been manipulating, into a political and economical tool.

Global warming is not going to stop...it has happened many times in the past and several times it has been faster and worse than the one we are currently going through.

Despite this knowledge, and despite the data that has been presented by some scientists who question the claim that "human activity is the main cause behind global warming", people are still buying the propaganda and exagerations that some are using for their own agenda.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Muaddib

I think that you know I respect you. I find your mind sharp and you usually are very open minded to the truth. But on this issue anything to do with global warming, I can’t say the same. Would I be right if I said you actually were working within the fossil fuel industry or very closely allied to it? Well? Because this is the only way I can explain how someone with a science degree and open minded approach could be strong on their support with much precedent on ATS by you, for the stance and misinformation the very oil manufacturers and government officials who have a actual stake in the oil business.

In addition to that Muaddib you also are using incorrect science as you sources. I am surprised by that I would never dream of using information that I had not verified myself. I also notice that the very research centre you seem to be focusing on this thread is giving different information from what your sources have described. That may be because you are using the Telegraph in the UK as a source. A known supporter of the Right, and Conservative party, Pro Oil and No global warming due to humans publication. I hope you didn’t post information that you didn’t source and check out? Surely Muaddib with your own degree in engineering you wouldn’t accept the information of a Journalist. Well im afraid that you have, as there is no other reason I can see for the inconsistencies. So lets look at his more closely and put some meat on the bones if you may of what im saying.

You used a quote from the Telegraph



There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998” and further “official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase


Yep of course that’s right, BUT ITS NOT RIGHT lets look at a nice graph so everyone can see of what the actual results have been from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia shall we?




Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The only problem therefore is the misinformation provided by yourself and from the Telegraph.

In addition…well I … to be honest im soo sick of this whole spin and counter spin displaying not the truth. I believe that you should practise what you preach and amend your posts on this thread I have found 3 similar misrepresentations, I will display them one by one unless you use your good brain for some truth yourself, and correct the unreliable quotes.

Nothing personal but all people have to do is look not only at Global Warming and the science, but the hype, press rubbish, lobbyists , and big business adverts on TV that are lying about the truth. The very adverts, and sites quoted by those such as the telegraph are created by the same People who defended the Tobacco industries and the “smoking causes no harm” similar lies to Global warming for many years.

Lets look at what the Environment Secretary for the UK government said today shall we:




“People "should be scared" about global warming - and be ready to take action to help tackle the problem, says Environment Secretary David Miliband.


In addition:




He said he had thought he had been well-informed about climate change but had quickly been shocked by what he had learned since taking on the job.


And this is the clincher and sooo true:




People say there should be a debate about global warming. But I tell you the debate is over; the reckoning has begun. The truth is staring us in the face. Climate change is here, in our country; it is an issue for our generation as well as future generations; and those who deny it are the flat-earthers of the 21st century,"


BBC

Please look at the following threads for evidence of Misinformation, Lobbying, Downright Lying, and Tobacco Pr companies telling YOUR children and nation about this issue that threatens all of humanity:



ATSNN Thread 1

ATSNN thread 2

ATSNN Thread 3

ATSNN Thread 4

ATSNN Thread 5

oh and as a last point a survey that revealed that the average American has the same knowledge of global warming that people in the uneducated third world do! Enjoy your SUV’s guys hope they float to, and are good at creating a their own ecosystems! (this is in no way an anti US jibe just popular culture and its attitude to this, even those who should know better!)

Survey US Citizens Understand global warming at Same Level as Third World Populations.

Kind Regards

Elf.

Edit for links sorry

[edit on 29-9-2006 by MischeviousElf]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
desolate cancer i didn't read the whole thread yet but your simple rejective answer to how one degree will or won't make a difference leads me to believe you have much to learn and comprehend.

It's not the glaciers melting due to increased air temperature or greenhouse gasses where 1 degree will matter. albeit it eventually it may be an issue.

The point of that one degree comes into veiw when you think of elninos like previously stated on the aforementioned site of nasa. One extra degree makes little difference untill it's adding so and so many axtra DEGREES to the epicentre of a warm body of surface water in the ocean. the stronger the weather patterns become across the planet the more unstable they also become.

ponder on that one. oh and if you haven't already, watch the day after tomorrow, it's far fetched but perfectly relevent to this line of thoughts.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

So you're saying that the lack of federal support results from budgetary constraints?

Which implies that the situation is a lower priority than funding the colonization wars, for example.

That economic colonization is more important to this administration than protecting Americans at home from drought, famine, and the other impacts of climate change.


Soficrow,
You took what I said a little bit to the exstreem

I am not intending to shugest that this legislation is less importand then any other legislation. I am just trying to say that when the feds pass legislation that requires the states to do one thing or another, and they dont put up the funds to pay for it, all you hear is the states complaining about this that the other and everything else.

The way this came to be that wont be hapening.

Although thanks for reading what I posted. It is nice to know that some one is reading what is written hear.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join