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.

 

Bush BLOCKS global warming report

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   

The Bush administration has blocked the release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday.


Seriously this is becoming beyond a joke, the evidence is backing up, and more and more scientists are finding it impossible to argue that humans are not having a direct impact on Global warming which is therefore effecting our weather paterns..

and yet


In May, when the report was expected to be released, panel chair Ants Leetmaa received an e-mail from a Commerce official saying the report needed to be made less technical and was not to be released, Nature reported.


Source

The administration of the worlds biggest polluter is refusing to acknowledge that their irresponsible policies regarding Industry and Polluters are having at least partially to blame.

America needs to catch up with the rest of the world and sign the Kyoto protocol
and this kind of information should NOT be held from the public.

It seems this is hardly new with prevous organizations often protesting against consistant administration coverups..


U.S. Climate Emergency Council says it condemns the response as an abdication of government responsibility when "millions of Americans are increasingly vulnerable to violent storms in a warmer world." Climate scientists at NOAA are being intimidated from talking to the press and their papers are being withheld from publication under the directorship of President Bush's friend and political appointee, Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr., the group contends.

Source

[edit on 12/06/2005 by kojac]

[edit on 12/06/2005 by kojac]




posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Global Warming is simple scare mongering plenty of Scientists have came out and admitted it.

The warming of the Earth is a natural cycle and not caused by man. Theres nothing we can do about it anyway trying to blame President Bush for listening to his scientific experts just isnt right whats next blaming Bush for the dinosaurs dieing out.

I for one am Proud America has a strong leader who listens to the real science and not Propaganda.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
Global Warming is simple scare mongering plenty of Scientists have came out and admitted it.

The warming of the Earth is a natural cycle and not caused by man.



You are correct.
In the last thousands of years the world does go through periodic warming periods.

But your forgetting, that in the past few hundered years, we have added so many toxins, pollutants and other crap to the atmosphere, that when this natural warming phase starts up again.. it is going to be like nothing experienced before.
Mankind has drastically un-balanced that natural cycle to a point im not even sure mother nature knows what is going to happen when the normal heating period happens this time.

I bet the katrina victims feel that the global warmining problem is a little more than scare mongering.

point of scaremongering is making someone believe something that isnt there.
Im pretty sure that huricane happened..Im pretty sure the heated waters in the gulf contributed to it being such a big hurricane.

I am lost for words that once again.. this government has the power, and the nerve to BLOCK scientific findings which need to be heard to ensure we come up with a solution before its too late.



[edit on 27-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
Global Warming is simple scare mongering plenty of Scientists have came out and admitted it.

The warming of the Earth is a natural cycle and not caused by man.

Global temperature is in part a function of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The atmosphere doesn't care how it got there, merely that it is there.



Theres nothing we can do about it anyway trying to blame President Bush for listening to his scientific experts

The article notes that the president is suppressing the scientific experts.


I for one am Proud America has a strong leader who listens to the real science and not Propaganda.

Please cite the 'real science' that refutes the theory that man-made emissions of CO2 can/is causing the current warming.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Shamanator


I for one am Proud America has a strong leader who listens to the real science and not Propaganda.

Please cite the 'real science' that refutes the theory that man-made emissions of CO2 can/is causing the current warming.


Nygdan, While this letter (which was signed by 60 scientist with very impressive credentials) does not include scientific data, it does support the argument that human contribution to climate change cannot yet be quantified. Certainly, CO2 emmisions affect the climate, but the big question is how much? Enough to radically change the global socio-economic structure that has produced the highest standard of living (for all the people of the world) the earth has ever seen?

[edit on 9/27/2006 by darkbluesky]

[edited to correct quote tags -nygdan]

[edit on 28-9-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
What hurricanes? We have had very few this year. Texas didn't even get hit by one at all. Although i believe in global warming and I think this administration will do everything in its power to keep us from knowing exactly what is going on, I think some ecologists are jumping the gun in assuming that hurricanes are "increasing" because of global climate change.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
soz i searched for global warming and new threads but nothing showed so i just submitted an ATSNN one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

mmm well thats probably one for the trash can lol.

this is such an important topic and Im in the process of preparing a massive OP/ed on this using some of my old Lecturers in Uni. if anyone would like to contribute please U2U me. it will be balanced but based on the truth and not spin, on hard factual evidense and true science not what tabacco lobbyists add to the debate.


kind regards

elf.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
letter (which was signed by 60 scientist with very impressive credentials) does not include scientific data, it does support the argument that human contribution to climate change cannot yet be quantified.

Without scientific data?
No.



Certainly, CO2 emmisions affect the climate, but the big question is how much?

And that is where the scientific debate is currently at. NOt that global warming isn't occuring, not that it can't be the result of man, and not that its understood and is harmless.
How it will affect us is an unknown, other than that it can change climate. Change, more often than not, is very bad.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Change, more often than not, is very bad.



Troubling....since change is constant.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
It is hard to quantify the effect, but the numbers I have seen, show a very unusual trend, that is outside the natural expectation, based upon ice core readings, and so forth...

it appears this is the height of our carbon saturation of the last 800,000yrs...

well, you might ask what makes this unnatural since it has happened before?

First off, carbon naturally will be absorbed far more than released, unless there is a huge volcano or other carbon releasing source...

800,000yrs ago, the world was a very different place... (it had also recently had a supervolcano eruption)
if this were following a natural trend, wouldn't the world look much like it did then? (returning to a natural cyclic balance)
wouldn't we have far more coastline, with higher sea levels than had been seen in 800,000yrs?
wouldn't we have a supervolcano going off somewhere?
ice core data predicts harsh weather problems

Instead we have a unbalanced climate, that is seeking equilibrium, thru rapid change...
and hurricanes would be one form of this rapid change... so would tsunamis, and even earthquakes...
The waters will rise, and the weather patterns will change...

then you have the Chinese, who have decided to manipulate the weather even more than we do, and that will have far reaching effects.

then you have the ice methane balance...
if deep water temperatures rise even a few degrees, a good portion of life on earth will end abruptly, as massive explosions of submerged methane gas suffocate us...

did you know, that population alone can make a huge difference...
even if we did nothing but sit, and belch, and fart, and breathe...
enough of us could do permanant damage to our earths ability to support life...
In some large cities, oxygen levels are too low to support good health and thinking processes (meaning that cityfolk are brain damaged)

this is already happening...
during the decades of 1960-1980, Japan had several die offs of its human population due to a sudden oxygen drop, having to do with construction explosions.

It wont be about getting enough shelter from the storm, it will be about getting enough air to breathe...

oxgen levels are dropping alarmingly fast- will humans survive?

Bush needs to face the facts... and confront these issues with the world...

there is nothing to be ashamed of... China has 90% polluted waters
Russia has vast miles of contaminated soil, that cant be used for 10,000yrs...
so the US has a bad smoking habit.. but we need to quit smoking...



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Troubling....since change is constant.

And notice, things are allways pretty bad and screwed up!



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
GREAT post LtL.






You have voted LazarusTheLong for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.




Thank you.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I extracted the following from the current PhysOrg Newsletter:


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disputed the Nature article, saying there was not a report but a two-page fact sheet about the topic. The information was to be included in a press kit to be distributed in May as the annual hurricane season approached but wasn't ready.

"The document wasn't done in time for the rollout," NOAA spokesman Jordan St. John said in responding to the Nature article. "The White House never saw it, so they didn't block it."



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
then you have the ice methane balance...
if deep water temperatures rise even a few degrees, a good portion of life on earth will end abruptly, as massive explosions of submerged methane gas suffocate us...



Good post LTL

With regard to methane issue I'd just like to illustrate the scales we're talking about and demonstrate how insignificant human activities are in the big picture.

There are 3.6x10ee20 gallons of water in the worlds oceans.
Thats 2.7x10ee21 lbs.

Now lets assume that we're going to address only one half of that mass since were talking about deep water. This gives us 1.3x10ee21lbs. of water.

Now...It would take 1.4x10ee24 joules to raise this mass of water 1 degree F.

1,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 joules


This paper (Table 2) shows the estimated annual global power consumption in 1993, Let's assume that generation and consumption are roughly equal.

The figure provided is 342,873 petajoules (peta = 1x10ee15).

342,873 peta joules = 3.4x10ee20 joules.

The total energy generation capacity of the earth per year produces only 0.02% of the energy required to raise 1/2 of the oceans water by 1 degree F.

I'm not discounting your points wholesale - Like I said I just wanted to get everyone thinking about the scales we're dealing with. It can be hard to get your head around.

I do think this excercise lends some credibility to the position that human impact on the phenomenon of GW in negligable.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
what are you talking about? We are making the hole in the ozone layer. earth wasnt just born with one! OF course there have been periods of global warming but none that contain green house gases from the science and technology that has been emerging.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Ozone depletion and global ocean warming are two totally unrelated phenomena.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SAGEX89
what are you talking about? We are making the hole in the ozone layer. earth wasnt just born with one! OF course there have been periods of global warming but none that contain green house gases from the science and technology that has been emerging.


Sage - This is the root of the problem. People see an effect (in this case Ozone depletion) and instantly, and without questioning the message bringers, believe that this is a result of human activity just because it happens coincide with technological advancement, and not insignificantly, a huge leap forward in being able to scientifically measure and quantify the phenomenon. If you can prove to me there has never been antarctic ozone depletion prior to 1900, I might get a little closer to seeing things your way.

I backed my position by citing factual data and using simple arithmatic. Please show me where I was wrong.



[edit on 9/28/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Thanks sofi for your faith in my research...

darkBluesky: I had thought that the association of our ozone depletion with the chemical releases of freon, and other chemicals was clear...

wikipedia ascribes the ozone hole almost exclusively to human releases of chemicals...
ozone hole causes- wiki:

and as to whether the ozone hole can contribute to global warming, the answer is an unequivacable YES!

Maybe it isn't apparent directly, but its one step away...
ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere areas (i beleive it is stratosphere) are associated with increases of ozone in lower atmosphere (our living altitude).
This reduces oxygen that we can breathe, which contributes to the buildup of carbon dioxide... which in turn increases the effect of global warming...

also:
ozone depletion is also associated with massive plankton kill offs... and crop kill offs...
both of these will further depleat the amount of oxygen available to us on the surface.
and both will cause a massive increase in carbon dioxide.

oxygen levels are so dangerous presently, that we cannot tolerate the loss of our oxygen producing ocean critters, and crops that swap CO2 for Oxygen...

global warming itself doesn't scare me... hell, we have had milder winters, and dramatic drop in tornados where i live, so I like it so far...
BUT... the lack of oxygen will kill us off, far before the environment will in such a climate change...

Should I even mention the effect this has on clean drinkable water supplies?
nah...
lets just say, water water everywhere, but none where it needs to be drank.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I don't know if the United States is still covering up many of the major news surrounding the major changes in the gravity and tempertures of the planets and the sun, but I know that at least some people involved with the Russian space agency is informing the public about these changes which are being done at the same period of time as our solar system moves through the Photon Belt in space. For more reference: www.crystalinks.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Guess what people?

Ice takes up more space than water!
So, as the polar ice caps melt, it should lower the sea level. Not raise it.
The planets gravity has been on a steady decline for many years. And scientists have observed the shape of the plant to change from a very circlular ball to a fatter shape of a ball. Could it be that as gravity decreases, it loosens or at leasts reshapes the planet to push more water into and around the areas of land?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join