It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by guyopitz
My family has been affected. My community has been affected. Washed out roads, Destroyed homes, Erroded shores, all the wildlife disrupted. Thats personal experience.
Why don't you ask some New Orleans residents what they think of GW.
How about you ask some people in asia who have to deal with deadly sandstorms because of all the desertification this is causing.
Everyone needs to do thier part in order for our efforts to be effective. I know lots of other GW believers who have made the extra effort also.
The government made a decent dent in the problem years ago by banning certain dangerous gasses in various products.
Google is building a massive amount of solar panels on thier land.
Scientists and Auto companies are making a Hydrogen feul cell economy more feasable. Minnesotta is pushing the biodiesel concept. The combined effort could very well 'Save us'
Your jumping to conclusions in order to demean my position by mocking my lifestyle. Jerk. I don't appreciate your tone. And for the record I am quite vocal about any new technologies I hear about.
stupid in the sense of bieng blind to anything that doesnt directly affect thier daily lives.
Why does it take a wake up call like Katrina to get anyone to take notice of the danger?
Im only wasting my time if I go unheard.
The more people who are convinced they need to Change thier wastefull environment damaging ways, the more impact we will have on the problem.
I find people react more to anger than to calm rational scientific discussion. Emotion has more impact than logic.
It hits deep into the subconcious where that sinking suspicion that something is very wrong in the world, dwells.
You've got me all wrong. I don't want humanity extinguished. Just reduced.
In any ecosystem where a species goes unchecked due to lack of predation, there are dire consequences.
Nature, war and disease are the only good population reducers we have left.
And we can't even get war right. In WW2 millions died. We havent lost a fraction of that in current conflicts.
Good, you've hit the point finally. HUMANS AFFECT THE CLIMATE.
If the climate is overheating, then the clear and obvious response is to do what is in our power to reduce that heating. If our affect on it is negligable as you would have us believe then we need to come up with ways to fix that too. Paint the planet white to increase reflectivity if thats what it takes.
Originally posted by guyopitz
Yeah 10 billion of us in 20 years. But all the less adaptable species on earth will suffer for our arrogance.
plants and animals cannot adapt to such rapid climate change. Humans cannot survive without the plants and the animals.
Not unless your keen on the idea of mass regulated cannibalism. Soylent green anyone?
his is fiction, but its a good estimate of changing our infrastructure to cleaner more efficient energy sources. lifeboat.com...
I have the luxury of caring. Im living in the USA and life is good. All my needs are met. I have to care because the poverty stricken third world populace can't do anything about it.
Its terrible that the USA is responsible for the majority of the human affect on GW
yet those who have the least affect on GW will be affected the most by it in turn. How fair is that?
Originally posted by revepelli
my first post, so please forgive any breaches of etiquette.
people spouting nonsense winds me up
people spouting nonsense about climate change is very very very dangerous
a) 500,000 years of climate records - check out the vertical lines at the right of teh graph and explain how we have 30% more CO2 in the atmoshere than at any other time in the last 500,000 years... and then caluclate the odds of this happening bang on the industrail revolution and yet been unrelated [hint: v low chance]
"One of the great propaganda icons of the United Nations climate-change machine... is about to get swept away as junk science," writes Terence Corcoran "Financial Post 7/13/04, see www.sepp.org). On July 1, Michael E. Mann, one of the creators of the 1,000- year temperature chart published a corrigendum in Nature, acknowledging that "the listing of the `proxy' data set...contained several errors." After describing the errors, Mr. Mann said that "none of these errors affect our previously published results."
The Canadian researchers who pointed out the errors, Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, stated that the claim that nothing had changed was "categorically false."
In a letter that Nature declined to publish, Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia, wrote: "The "corrected) Mann et al. graph shows that the northern hemisphere temperature index attained its highest values in the early 15th century, and that the 20th century warming cycle has so far only equalled a secondary warm peak that occurred late in the 15th century."
Actually, I did commemorate Earth Day the best way possible - by reading yet another scholarly study that debunks the notion our current climate is unusually hot, and getting hotter due to manmade greenhouse emissions. The latest study, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (www.cfa.harvard.edu), carries the vernacular title 20th-Century Climate Not So Hot. Co-authored by Smithsonian astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and David Legates of the Center for Climate Research at the University of Delaware, it notes: "20th Century temperatures were generally cooler than during the medieval warmth."
The 20th century, contrary to the alarmism of environmentalists, was neither the warmest century in the past millennium, nor the one marked by the most severe weather. Belief that the globe is warming faster than ever before, and so fast that the rise threatens the environment, is the result of examining variations in temperature over too short a time span. The Medieval Warm Period, from approximately 800 to 1300 AD, was as much as 4 C warmer on average than today, worldwide, nearly as warm as the upper extreme of UN climate projections for the coming century. And the natural world did not implode, far from it. Greenland sustained agricultural colonies through much of this period. The seas teemed with fish. Wars were less common in Europe than during the later Middle Ages, in part because harvests were plentiful and less pressure existed for campaigns of conquest to acquire new lands and resources. Cathedral construction on a grand scale (a sign of relative affluence) boomed across Europe. Mesoamerica also flourished.
Remarkable in the Harvard-Smithsonian study is the depth of analysis it contains of the historical temperature record and its finding that the Medieval Warm Period was global, not merely confined to the North Atlantic region as some have argued.
b) get up to speed here, Jim Hansen is the man on this stuff... learn why the climate is regarded as an 'ornery beast' - a little nudge and it overreacts, badly
and try this analogy for size:
take a party balloon and blow it up. the balloon is the earth. the 'skin' of the balloon is the atmosphere. the atmosphere is very very thin and we can easily destroy the balance held within it
and remember - highest human permanent is at about 14,000 feet altitude - so we can only live in a fraction of the atmosphere - we should take care of it...
GW is real
never mind these theories that the NWO or whatever are maniopulating us with fear, question why we aren't been told the full truth...
NEWS BRIEF: "Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones"
by Chen May Yee,
Staff Reporter of the Wall Street Journal
Thursday, November 13, 1997, page A19.
"KULA LUMPUR -- Malaysia's war on smog is about to get a new twist. The government wants to create man-made cyclones to scrub away the haze that has plagued Malaysia since July. 'We will use special technology to create an artificial cyclone to clean the air', said Datuk Law Hieng Ding, minister for science, technology and the environment. The plan calls for the use of new Russian technology to create cyclones -- the giant storms also known as typhoons and hurricanes -- to cause torrential rains, washing the smoke out of the air. The Malaysian cabinet and the finance minister have approved the plan, Datuk Law said. A Malaysian company, BioCure Sdn. Bhd., will sign a memorandum of understanding soon with a government-owned Russian party to produce the cyclone."
"Datuk Law declined to disclose the size of the cyclone to be generated, or the mechanism. 'The details I don't have', he said. He did say, though, that the cyclone generated would be 'quite strong'. Datuk Law also declined to disclose the price of creating the cyclone. But, he said, Malaysia doesn't have to pay if the project doesn't work."
WSJ-Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones
Those who doubt that Katrina, or any other hurricane, could be stopped—or created—can find substantiation in a long-forgotten article by Chen May Yee in the Nov. 13, 1997, issue of The Wall Street Journal.
The article recounts an offer by the Russians to aid Malaysia to create a typhoon to dissipate a pall of smoke that hung over the country—and still does—caused by the burning of large sections of the rain forests in Indonesia and Sumatra.
To quote from the article: Datuk Law Hieng Ding, Malaysia’s minister for science, technology and the environment at the time, said his country “would use special technology to create an artificial cyclone to clean the air.”
The article went on to say that a Malaysian company, BicCure Sdn. Bhd., would sign a memorandum of understanding with a government-owned Russian company to create a cyclone that would cause torrential rains and thus cleanse the air over Malaysia of the smoke and ash.
"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.
A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."
So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
FBIS Transcribed Text] MOSCOW. Aug 8 (Interfax) - The Russian State
Duma has expressed concern about the United States' program to develop a
qualitatively new type of weapon.
"Under the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), the
U.S. is creating new integral geophysical weapons that may influence the
near-Earth medium with high-frequency radio waves," the State Duma said
in an appeal circulated on Thursday.
"The significance of this qualitative leap could be compared to the
transition from cold steel to fire arms, or from conventional weapons to
nuclear weapons. This new type of weapons differs from previous types in
that the near-Earth medium becomes at once an object of direct influence
and its component.
FAS-Russian parliament concerned about US plans to develop new weapon.
"Pick up any text book on hurricanes and it will tell you that the one place where hurricanes do not occur is the South Atlantic Ocean. The atmosphere does not provide enough spin near the surface to get them started and winds higher in the atmosphere tend to shear off any that do make a start. Hence, it was with some amazement that meteorologists watched the first ever recorded hurricane develop off the coast of Brazil in the last week of March."
Catarina hits Brazil
The director of the Russian geophysical observatory of the Russian Meteorological Service, A.Voyeikov, says that the process of making a weather forecast for Russia, the USA, Europe and Canada is much more complicated in comparison with other states. "Atmospheric processes are not stable on these territories, and cyclones may occur absolutely incidentally," Voyeikov said."
Modern technologies unable to predict weather changes
"CNN) -- Hurricanes aren't behaving like many of us are used to them behaving. They're bigger and meaner, and more numerous than many people have seen.
Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne tore up parts of Florida last year. After tweaking Florida, Katrina and Rita are wreaking havoc this year along the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Texas.
But don't rush to blame it on global warming, experts warn.
Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, told a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday that we're in a period of heightened hurricane activity that could last another decade or two."
CNN-It's a 'new era' of hurricanes.