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.

 

Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years

National Geographic (headline) gives a thumbs up for ‘small’ Nuclear War - Or that’s what you might think if all you did was scan National Geographic Headlines.

But let’s go farther and read between the lines of the articles header.

They might as well have come right out and given a free pass to ‘someone’ (USA of course) to use nuclear war on a ‘small’ scale - in order to do more good than harm.

Someone should be held accountable for this gross propagandist trash.


Even a regional nuclear war could spark "unprecedented" global cooling and reduce rainfall for years, according to U.S. government computer models.

Widespread famine and disease would likely follow, experts speculate.


With a follow-up like this what’s with the headline? Why the misleading exaggerated sensationalist headline (without even taking into account the global warming BS)!


Today, with the United States the only standing superpower, nuclear winter is little more than a nightmare. But nuclear war remains a very real threat—for instance, between developing-world nuclear powers, such as India and Pakistan.


The only standing superpower? THAT’S INSANE! What bear is this journalist trying to poke with this stick? Where does he get this drivel?

Ok, it’s time to really go and find out just who wrote this piece. Something has go to be wrong here. Very wrong.

From there the article spouts NASA here and there and as a conclusion come to this:


"The main message from our work," NASA's Oman said, "would be that even a regional nuclear conflict would have global consequences."


Then why not say that to begin with?

What’s with sneaking in the propaganda, including spouting the USA is the ONLY (sic) ‘standing superpower‘?


This is an example of underhanded and irresponsible journalism at best.

I want to know why.

Here's the author/journalists FB page: Charles Q. Choi

I've invited him to come here, to this thread, and give us an explanation. Let's see if he shows up.

In the mean time? It's off to contact National Geographic HQ.

peace




edit on 24-2-2011 by silo13 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/2/2011 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
National Geographic is far from objective and is subtle in its deception and propagation of broken paradigms.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13.

With a follow-up like this what’s with the headline? Why the misleading exaggerated sensationalist headline (without even taking into account the global warming BS)!


edit on 24-2-2011 by silo13 because: (no reason given)


Simple.

It sells more.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Email to National Geographic:


National Geographic:

Redaction and a written apology for this headline will not even begin to restore my lifelong faith in National Geographic.

"Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years" (with link)

Furthermore the subject is under fire on Above Top Secret: www.abovetopsecret.com...

sincerely,
xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx


Let's see.
Let's see what NG has to say - and the so called journalist.

peace



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
It could also just be because as far as nuclear warheads go, we kinda are the only still standing world super power, even with the de-arming we still possess something like 70% of the worlds nuclear warheads.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Awolscout
 


And you really believe that? I'm just asking, not being inflammatory.

Regardless, it's nothing but unprofessional and irresponsible journalism on the part of the writer and on the part of the editor (?) of National Geographic.

peace



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 



Ever seen the movie Trinity and beyond ? No nuclear was will be close to what governments have already blown up on this planet, underground, in the atmosphere, on islands, on boats, for fun.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Ugh. Well that's right out there, isn't it. Disappointing to have them portray it that way. "Hmm...lemme think....nuclear winter...global warmin? Nuclear winter...." Great decision there.

Actually I have read articles before where they've theorized that exploding a small series of nukes at some level of the ionosphere could solve a few problems. But most of these articles in the end determined that the potential of unforeseeable consequences would not make it worth the risk.


edit on 2/24/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
It is a sad state of affairs when anyone who speaks the truth gets labelled a terrorist or a crack pot, this is the type of propaganda that the people are feed with. It does sound like the lead water pipes, GM crops, vaccinations and other eugenics tools are starting to add up with things falling into a self destructive idiocracy. For such a long standing magazine about the environment to start promoting a nuclear war is beyond messed up. Society is clearly very sick.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I don think NG is giving a "thumbs up" for a regional nuclear conflict.

This sounds more like an excuse for failed climate models. A bit of history on this one. Back in the 1980's the concept of nuclear winter was pushed very heavily in the "scientific" community as another argument for disarmamanet. The original 1983 study know as TTAPS, after authors Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack, and Sagan was more poliitcs than science but was quite the hit on the press circuit.

Fast forward to 1991 when it became clear that the Iraqis were going to set fire to the oil field in Kuwait during the first gulf war, Sagan and Turco used the TTAPS modeling to argue that this would be the equivalent to a small nuclear exchange and would lead to global climate cooling so severe that we would see a year without summer and crops all around the world would fail.

Needless to say, they were wrong, and the TTAPS model showed itself to be more of a political construct than a scientific one.

I have read a few papers since then which have "reevaluated" the original TTAPS model and have come up with the same results as TTAPS did. However it sounds like one hand washing the other if you ask me.

Climate models are garbage but climate modelers have every incentive to continue the charade. Even if it means perfroming mathematic acrobats to validate earlier work which failed a real world test.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


I can totally see some idiot taking this to mean "It's ok, it was just a small nuke, and beside NG said it would help our whole world" ******* IDIOTS!!!! Thanks a bunch, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC.
Thanks Silo, for putting this out there.
edit on 24-2-2011 by trustonlygod because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
How can global warming and cooling be bad ?
Famine and pestilence either way? Really?
I agree the statement about the US being the "world's only superpower" to be ludicrous.
I'm all for forgetting about the Soviet Unions thousands of nuclear missiles.
Hey, here's comes Barney the dinosaur now..........sing along kids....

Nonsensical rants based on pseudo-science maketh National Geographic lameth indeed.
Great magazine. I've never looked at their website before.
Something tells me not to look any further.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Two things I noticed, NASA, and Global Warming.

NASA is deeply entrenched in propagating the global warming agenda.

There is no global warming crisis, there never was one, the only thing mankind should be concerned with is the glacial cycle, which is quite the opposite.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


You may want to get your facts in order before taking the NatGeo writer to task because he is correct, by any standard of measure the U.S. has been the worlds sole superpower for nearly 20 years.



The USA is the world's foremost economic and military power, with global interests and an unmatched global reach.

America's gross domestic product accounts for close to a quarter of the world total, and its military budget is reckoned to be almost as much as the rest of the world's defence spending put together.


BBS News




There is now only one superpower...It is instead a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers...The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power -- economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural -- with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world


The Lonely Superpower



"America holds sway over the world as no empire has ever done before in the entire history of humankind. It dominates in every sphere: political, economic, military, technological, and cultural."4 For the United States is indeed alone in its class. Its dominance, which seemed so fragile to so many in the late 1980s, seems undisputed today; both the capacity and the willingness of the government in Washington to shape world politics in ways that are fundamentally consonant with American definitions of interest seem untrammeled.


Lonely Superpower or Unapologetic Hyperpower?

I fail to understand your perception that the article is anything but factual? The author outlines the scenario and documents the mechanisms involved through multiple sources.
To be honest, the Nat Geo article is a better than average piece of journalism

According to the facebook page you linked, Charles Q. Choi holds an MA in journalism and a quick search on google shows he has a large body of published work including numerous submissions to Scientific American.

Would you mind being more specific with the below comment, I don't understand the context ..?


Originally posted by silo13
They might as well have come right out and given a free pass to ‘someone’ (USA of course) to use nuclear war on a ‘small’ scale - in order to do more good than harm.


Would you also terribly mind taking a moment to acquaint yourself with the definition of propaganda, I don't believe it applies or is necessarily appropriate within the framework of your post.



1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

propaganda



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 

Ya know what - I have one word for your post - 'Whatever'...

You want to believe the USA is THE superpower, go right ahead... But I'll be my last red cent (no pun intended) there is someone right now in China, and someone else in Russia that will claim the same thing - because they too read and believe everything their newspapers tell them.

China: 'You bet we're the super power! I'll drink to that'!

Russia: 'Ahhh, those American's - they think they're so big so it makes it true, hahahaha!'

And no, I'm not swayed by the articles you posted. I thank you for posting them but it will not change my mind. Anyone who thinks the USA is 'top dog' when it comes to the nukes they have hidden like so many bones in and around the world should never forget one thing - there is always a bigger dog. Sure, other nations may not have MORE nukes but I can assure you they do have as many.

Propaganda? Yes, it is propaganda to say the USA is THE super power, in the same vein I'd also call it propaganda to quote China or Russia as the same.

Why? Becasue we, the common man, will never know. All we are asked to do is to read, believe and shut up.

It is also PROPAGANDA to insinuate - even by a very misleading headline - that the world would be better off for a 'small' nuclear war. WAR! Not explosion, not controlled detonation, but WAR.

Suck that NG.


I for one, will not. Punto.

Beyond this - and I state again - (getting to the point of the thread) it is completely irresponsible for NG to allow such a headline - especially when the article is, as it is. Then again, maybe even National Geographic has gone the way of sensationalism - like so many other once reputable news sources.

peace

edit on 24-2-2011 by silo13 because: splng



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I have never understood where people keep coming up with the “nuclear winter” crap!!!

If the bombs they have already set off hasn’t caused any climate change, then there isn’t going to be any resulting from a nuke exchange, END OF LINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
So national geographic...according to the articles premise,we must have already suffered HUGE global cooling from the late 40s to the 70s-you know,the time period when the US tested many hundred of nuclear bombs around the world..

What a crock.Where is the proof you have gathered from climate data during nuclear testing peroids?
Exactlly-you don't have it beacause it does not exist.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Awolscout
It could also just be because as far as nuclear warheads go, we kinda are the only still standing world super power, even with the de-arming we still possess something like 70% of the worlds nuclear warheads.


Wrong!!!!!!!

We have the largest strategic nuclear arms stockpile.
They have the largest tactical nuclear arms stockpile.

Their tactical arms stockpile dwarfs our strategic and tactical stockpiles put together.

Edit…….

"They" being Russia

edit on 24-2-2011 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

Thank you so much for your refreshing (and I believe) more than truth packed punch of a post and view on Russia vs. the US vs. China and who has the 'more' guns...


I have never understood where people keep coming up with the “nuclear winter” crap!!! If the bombs they have already set off hasn’t caused any climate change, then there isn’t going to be any resulting from a nuke exchange, END OF LINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Honestly I just don't know and I've no problem admitting my ignorance of what would really happen in a nuclear exchange - but - I think that's probably the clue to the crux of it - meaning - 'nuclear exchange'...

So far - thank God - the World's use of nuclear force has been minimal.

What would happen if there was a 'small' (gagging now thank to National Geographic) exchange?

I don't think we know yet.

And I hope and pray we never do.

peace



edit on 24-2-2011 by silo13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
NO answer from National Geographic
No answer from the 'journalist'.

There ya go... Big talk and no sack to back it up with.

I've an undeniable urge to go rip the map - the ‘centerfold’ of my last National Geographic - off the wall.

Their ‘vision’ of the World, is not mine, anymore...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join