Blair on global warming

Originally posted by dawnstar
The pentagon has warned about global warning...

The Pentagon has an emergency plan in place in case global warming is real. They also have emergency plans for the invasion of any country on the planet (including the U.S., in case an enemy takes it and the territory must be re-taken!), and even an emergency plan in case of an alien invasion of Earth.

Originally posted by ThunderCloud

Originally posted by dawnstar
The pentagon has warned about global warning...

The Pentagon has an emergency plan in place in case global warming is real. They also have emergency plans for the invasion of any country on the planet (including the U.S., in case an enemy takes it and the territory must be re-taken!), and even an emergency plan in case of an alien invasion of Earth.

how do u know? is there a leaked plan or satatement somewhere online i can read? or any key words i can use in a search engine to look for it??

Originally posted by el_illumbrato

Originally posted by ThunderCloud

Originally posted by dawnstar
The pentagon has warned about global warning...

The Pentagon has an emergency plan in place in case global warming is real. They also have emergency plans for the invasion of any country on the planet (including the U.S., in case an enemy takes it and the territory must be re-taken!), and even an emergency plan in case of an alien invasion of Earth.

how do u know? is there a leaked plan or satatement somewhere online i can read? or any key words i can use in a search engine to look for it??

The actual report is in pdf format and well, my computer is pretty much dead at the moment, I don't think the one I am using has acrobat on it, so I can't open it. But a link to it can be found here:

idaho.indymedia.org...

as well as alot of other places.....

I'll bet they also had an emergency plan if Bush had signed Kyoto.

Originally posted by dawnstar
regardless of what you think the cause of climate change is, it's getting kind of hard to deny that it is happening.

I don't think anyone with any credibility is denying that. What we are trying to get accross is that Earth wasn't just a planet with a static climate until the invention of the SUV. The Earth's climate has always been dynamic in nature and we've seen far more dramatic changes than we are seeing now. In fact, we live in a period of one of the most stable environments earth has seen climate wise. Glaciers have been receeding for thousands of years and it only makes sense that as less and less surface of the Earth is covered with ice, the faster whats left will receed. If you have more ice in a cooler, it will melt slower. Look, I used to be on board with the global warming crowd until I began to learn a few things.

A. Most data released by them stems from a model and not actual measered data. Its easy to say its acxtual data because its actual data a computer model predicted.

B. The warming effect the Earth has experienced in the last 300 years since the "Little Ice Age" at the end of the midevil era has actually preceeded the release of the excess carbon.

C. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past which leads us to believe that the removal of the ice is somehow responsible for the release of most of it.

D. This warming trend seems to be tied to the solar cycles more so than to John Kerry's SUVs. Its a good bet, our orbit around the sun and its activity are playing the leading role in our climate.

E. The minute temp change we've seen in the last 100 years is a raise in surface temp only. For trapped CO2 to be the culprit, we'd have to seen warming in the atmosphere first which we have not.

The Australian Govt has also refused to ratify the Koyoto Protocol. Their refusal to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions is to save job losses!!!
Australian greenhouse gas emissions per capita are one of the highest in the developed world.

Australian Conservation Foundation Executive Director, Don Henry, has stated that the environmental impacts of climate change were likely to be substantial for Australia. We've already got an extreme climate and climate change will make it more extreme. Not only is this an important issue for the environment but it is a really big health issue.

Originally posted by Jubilee

The Australian Govt has also refused to ratify the Koyoto Protocol. Their refusal to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions is to save job losses!!!
Australian greenhouse gas emissions per capita are one of the highest in

No, their refusal to plunge their economy into a recession for no better reason than a political tool and the junk science at its core shows them to be more concerned about true environmental dangers whos biggest ally is the poverty which promotes them.

i think i should become a scientist like astrocreep so that im unaffected by all the disinformation out there. Astrocreep, you know of any independent organisations out there which publish realistic infomation regarding ecology and the environment?

Once thing we cant deny is thAT IT stinks IN THE CITIES! Pollution is def the cause of that! Trust, try going for a jog or bike ride till your out of breath, then go down to euston road and take a whiff... its nasty!

Is the trend between increased asthma and air pollution disinformation too?

Originally posted by el_illumbrato
i think i should become a scientist like astrocreep so that im unaffected by all the disinformation out there. Astrocreep, you know of any independent organisations out there which publish realistic infomation regarding ecology and the environment?

Once thing we cant deny is thAT IT stinks IN THE CITIES! Pollution is def the cause of that! Trust, try going for a jog or bike ride till your out of breath, then go down to euston road and take a whiff... its nasty!

Is the trend between increased asthma and air pollution disinformation too?

Hey, I'm not denying that smog is a big problem in major metros. It gets trapped in the lower atmosphere around them. This localized phenom is termed a dust dome and that term is right on the money, in my opinion. But, just because I don't like it any better than you do, (in fact I moved back into a rural environment) doesn't mean I can accept something as far fecthed as it being responsible for one or many of Earth's natural processes. Look, I don't advocate anyone's right to pollute as evident in my earlier post just that we have serious environmental threats going unchecked because we have much mis-information out there and some of it can even be more harmful than helpful to local ecosystems such as planting forest which block out the sun and kill grass lands which play vital roles in watersheds. My only though is that before we do something out of emotion but with the best intentions, lets consult someone who is familiar with the effects of what we are about to do. Fair enough? Hey, I prefer a hike through a leaf covered forest floor to wading through waste high sage grass myself but what I prefer may not be the best route.

There was a time when I think I wanted to believe we were responsible for global climate change so I could have sometime to justify my position pollitically but its not the case. Nevertheless, there are plenty more problems for which we are responsible.

Ummm....let's see....they've banned ephedra (based on "junk science") and out went a very effective portion of an asthma treatment I would give my son while waiting for payday, when I could buy the very costly inhalers.
They've banned smoking in the workplace in my state, and well considering the fact that the Governor clearly stated that he would never allow anything as dangerous as second hand smoke into the workplace, I often wonder if this could be part of the reason why so many industries are now packing up and leaving, they know danged well that their chemicals are far more dangerous! That was based on "junk science" also.
And, well, you can probably say goodbye to those twinkies....hostess is declaring bankruptcy....the low-carb fade. That's based on junk science also.
There's something wrong when people will live in smog filled cities, and yet, go to these extremes accepting "junk science" but then, deny the same type of "junk science" when it comes to global warming. Maybe bush is right, we all need a good mental screening.

IF you want my opinion, they are going after the smokers, the twinkie and big mac eaters ect, because those people are blatantly doing what everyone else is trying to forget that they are doing to themselves.

Scapegoating...
well, when one out of every eight people start keeling over because of undeveloped lungs, I don't want to hear how it's the smoker's fault...or hostess'.

'Global Warming may well be catchy shorthand for what is going on but IMO it's unhelpful and a barrier to getting people to accept what is happening.

Global Weather Disruption is actually what it is.

For as long a people think some warm cosy lovely mediterranean climate is on the way they are never going to face up to the changes we need to be making.

Of course those who wish to rake out the last possible pennies/cents from the old tech will keep on trying to convince that it isn't happening (and laughably propagate the absurd notion that it's 'communism under another guise').

Hmm, tell that to the (commie?!) insurance companies who have been taking hit after hit after hit with these 'natural' disasters.....aren't folks paying attention to their premiums lately or something?!

It's true that compared to a volcano or forest fire some of our polluting seems small beer but the point is the continual pressure always in one direction only and some of the pollutants we release are by the multi-million ton per year every year for over a hundred years, some several hundred years now.

But, if you want to go back to sleep that it's all just a commie plot......

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

But, if you want to go back to sleep that it's all just a commie plot......

I take it that was directed at me? Look, one more time, my opinion that CO2 is not responsible for global climate change or melting glaciers does not mean I advocate pollution. In fact, I volunteer on a local watershed research team. I think the release of toxic chemicals into the air and water is a bad thing and should be stopped. CO2 is a natural by-product of buring a carbon fuel and aside from its localized effect when mixed with the other bad things we do release, it continues to play a major role in keeping life sustainable on earth.

Its a distraction because no one is going to stop driving cars and while the rest of us are out there trying to make people stop doing something they are never going to do, your local industry AND GOVERNMENT are filling our streams and the air full of things that are harmful.

The only thing about driving a vehicle that is dangerous to the atmosphere is the by-product of the catalytic converter. These things should be outlawed. Its the biggest obstacle in fuel efficiency and the oil companies just love it. So do the car makers because without the back pressure it creates, an engine would last twice as long.

IF you want my opinion, they are going after the smokers, the twinkie and big mac eaters ect, because those people are blatantly doing what everyone else is trying to forget that they are doing to themselves.

what are you on about? Those fast greasy food eating, cancer loving and high cholestrol people are loved by the corporations! It more likelt they'd go after vegans/vegetarians like me who grow our own food, dont eat rubbish and do as many activities as possible (while advocating not spreading cancer while killing yourself with it.

i think cars should just be banned. On my bicycle, i see the motorists swearing there heads off daily in fron of their lil children, getting mad, almost running me over and 2 days ago, a lorry actually did knock me off my bike. Did they even stop? no? If motorists are going to cause deaths and fight each other because their brains cant keep calm while driving, i say we ban cars, and have a utopia like in H.G wells utopia where "cycle tracks abound". Even in authur c clarkes, in the "songs of distant earth", in a colony living in the distant future, everyone is geting around on bicycles and by walking.

I myself have stopped cycling now too because of the motorists and so i now just walk everywhere, which means im stuck walking about 4-10 miles a day.

About the disinfo about global warming. How does it benefit corporations if this is the case, apart from with regards to catalytic converters? Doesnt the public pressure and fear just results in more stringent industrial rules and regulations regarding pollution and therefore higher costs for them?

Originally posted by el_illumbrato

IF you want my opinion, they are going after the smokers, the twinkie and big mac eaters ect, because those people are blatantly doing what everyone else is trying to forget that they are doing to themselves.

what are you on about? Those fast greasy food eating, cancer loving and high cholestrol people are loved by the corporations! It more likelt they'd go after vegans/vegetarians like me who grow our own food, dont eat rubbish and do as many activities as possible (while advocating not spreading cancer while killing yourself with it.

i think cars should just be banned. On my bicycle, i see the motorists swearing there heads off daily in fron of their lil children, getting mad, almost running me over and 2 days ago, a lorry actually did knock me off my bike. Did they even stop? no? If motorists are going to cause deaths and fight each other because their brains cant keep calm while driving, i say we ban cars, and have a utopia like in H.G wells utopia where "cycle tracks abound". Even in authur c clarkes, in the "songs of distant earth", in a colony living in the distant future, everyone is geting around on bicycles and by walking.

I myself have stopped cycling now too because of the motorists and so i now just walk everywhere, which means im stuck walking about 4-10 miles a day.

About the disinfo about global warming. How does it benefit corporations if this is the case, apart from with regards to catalytic converters? Doesnt the public pressure and fear just results in more stringent industrial rules and regulations regarding pollution and therefore higher costs for them?

My government has spent bundles of money in advertising in an attempt to convince the population to quit smoking, and eat right....and there is at least one new news story on the tv everynight with the same theme.
There's alot of time and money being put into the gov't controling the populations PERSONAL habits.....
very few stories about global warming...
where is the warning to those employees who work with lead, the machinists, weilders, and such? The ARE aware that these people do bring the lead dust home, the kids come into contact with it, and this can cause lead poison just as easily as the lead paint that they banter about. But then, that would be putting pressure on the businesses, wouldn't it. They'll lose less campaign money and stimulate the economy if they convince you to paint your home. (Which can also be a source, but, it's far from the only source, although it's about the only source you hear about.)
I am just pointing out, the same scientific methods more than likely were used in all the cases I mentioned. So, if one is "junk science", then they all must be! By picking and chosing, blaring the results on those that single out small groups of the population, since, they won't affect a vaste majority of the the people, while remaining almost silent on others, or dismissing the results of other studies that point blame on things like car emissions, the chemicals in the workplace, or the crap they are throwing into our environment, well, in the long run, I am afraid that they will make it harder in the long run for those who are affected by these other things to discover the source of their problem, which in the end will reduce the effectiveness of any treatment that they get. If we accept the idea that second hand smoke is so bad, well, if someone develops similar problems from the styrene that they have been working in for the last 20 hears, will the doctor bring up the idea that maybe the man should be trying to distance himself from the styrene, or will he be insisting that the patient has allowed himself to be exposed to second hand smoke....he just didn't know that someone in his area was smoking....or something to that extent.
If we are gonna accept the "junk science", then let's at least do it fairly....and put pressure on the businesses to clean up their act!! Unfortunately, my president at the moment seems to be just dismissing the studies as "junk science" and lightening up on the work that has already been done in that area. My state suupreme court has just ruled that the power plants, who have been running on expired permits for a few decades because they haven't made the changes that NY has already ordered, now need to clean up their act....well, we'll see. But, my veiw of the whole thing is simply this...if they can kill us with their crap, well, don't invest a small fortune in advertising to tell me that I can't kill myself if I chose to. Take the danged 2x4 out of your own eye before you come to me thinking you are gonna help me take the tiny sliver from mine!!!

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

But, if you want to go back to sleep that it's all just a commie plot......

I take it that was directed at me?

- No, really, it wasn't.

It was aimed at any and all who still refuse to accept the overwhelming weight of evidence - accepted by the vast bulk of scientists world-wide and for decades - all pointing at the fact that global climate disruption is happening as a direct result of mankind's actions and who dismiss efforts to do something about it as futile and, even more laughably, as some sort of politically slanted 'plot'.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
[ - No, really, it wasn't.

It was aimed at any and all who still refuse to accept the overwhelming weight of evidence - accepted by the vast bulk of scientists world-wide and for decades - all pointing at the fact that global climate disruption is happening as a direct result of mankind's actions and who dismiss efforts to do something about it as futile and, even more laughably, as some sort of politically slanted 'plot'.

So, then any change from the status quo is climate disruption? Look, I'm not advocating pollution of air or water, actually just the opposite, but when we look at the Earth's history, we see evidence of much more pronounced changes than we are seeing now. I can full well accept the nasty localized effects of man but to pretend we do not live on an ever changing and very dynamic planet is ...well..its just uneducated..for lack of a better word. Let me ask you a question point blank and see if I get a straight answer since you seem to be on the global warming agenda.

Do you discount all other factors which might cause this planet's climate to change including changing solar cycles and changes in the aethenosphere?

Do you not accept that the 300 year warming trend since the Little Ice Age at the end of the mid-evil era preceeded the rise in CO2 levels?

Do you assert the notion that a portion of Earth's surface should be covered ice permanently ..and furthermore put forth the notion that it always has been?

Originally posted by astrocreep
So, then any change from the status quo is climate disruption? Look, I'm not advocating pollution of air or water, actually just the opposite, but when we look at the Earth's history, we see evidence of much more pronounced changes than we are seeing now.

- I don't disagree with you that change has been part of the natural story of earth, clearly this is visible in the historical record.

But so what?

Continental-sized forest fires have been a regular part of earth's history too but for all that they remain hugely damaging and not something I or anyone in their right mind would recommend or discount as of little or no consequence just because they have happened naturally quite often before all over the globe.

I can full well accept the nasty localized effects of man but to pretend we do not live on an ever changing and very dynamic planet is ...well..its just uneducated..for lack of a better word.

- As I said, on the specific point regarding change and previous events I am not in disagreement with you.

In many regards tackling the 'localised' effects is to tackle the global effects anyway so where is the conflict in the idea here?
Air and environmental pollution, energy and resource conservation, forest conservation and renewal to name a few for instance.

Equally I would suggest that to discount the continual pressure (in one direction alone) and changes this is causing globally is...well...just "uneducated".

Let me ask you a question point blank and see if I get a straight answer since you seem to be on the global warming agenda.

- Feel free.

Do you discount all other factors which might cause this planet's climate to change including changing solar cycles and changes in the aethenosphere?

- I don't deny that other natural factors can arise periodically cause and contribute to climate change. They tend to operate on long cyclical timescales though. Much longer than the periods we are seeing rises in average temperatures now.

Do you not accept that the 300 year warming trend since the Little Ice Age at the end of the mid-evil era preceeded the rise in CO2 levels?

- Of course.

I would not and have not suggested single factors are at work or that similar circumstances cannot arise due to a combination of other unrelated factors.

But in any case what of it? Interesting debating point as it might be are you suggesting that the detail of the mini ice age means it's ok to carrying on causing the dumping of several billion gallons of fresh water into the northern atlantic as if it were 'a good thing' and free from all avoidable effects?

Do you assert the notion that a portion of Earth's surface should be covered ice permanently ..and furthermore put forth the notion that it always has been?

- No.

As I said, looking at the historical record one can find all sorts of extreme conditions have arisen 'naturally' at various points.

Who is denying this? I am not.

I am asserting that the evidence points towards mankind causing serious global weather disruption by a continual pressure on the various 'systems' in one direction alone.

We pour billions of tons of various gasses into the atmosphere and continue to act as if this has no consequence whatsoever even though we know these gasses have observable effects. We destroy balances in the 'system' even though study now shows what such imbalances have caused in the past when they have happened naturally.

The 'atlantic conveyor' has been interrupted (naturally) many times before and the effects of it happening to 'our world' (as in all of our world) are unthinkable.

To ignore this and carry on regardless strikes me as totally insane.

Those who have commentated on the planet's ability to survive mankinds mistakes and meddling are, of course, quite correct. The planet has seen and survived much worse and probably will again without man's help.(...if we bother our asses we might learn how to handle the issue of the danger of impact but that's about it I believe.....if 'we' bother.)

However we are supposed to be blessed with an intellect that allows us to see what we have been doing and to take note and alter our self-harming behaviour.....for the sake of our own survival, welfare, economic and social systems.

It might even be that mankind as a species could or even would survive an extended period of unstable extreme weather conditions but I'd suggest it unlikely we could survive in a condition any of us would recognise......it might even be that other 'natural' factors are also adding to the whole disruption of the climate we face, in which case I still see no reason not to stop throwing fuel on the fire and look for ways and means to reduce the impact of the fire in every practical way possible.

Now I'd like to ask you a question.....

Why do you think that almost the entire scientific world agrees with the idea of 'global warming' now.....many of whom have been persuaded to this position?

The idea of it being some sort of nationally based and biased or anti-capatalist based 'plot' is absurd.....so, why then? What do you think it is really all about?

How does recycling etc equate to personal control?

[edit on 4-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


Now I'd like to ask you a question.....

Why do you think that almost the entire scientific world agrees with the idea of 'global warming' now.....many of whom have been persuaded to this position?

The idea of it being some sort of nationally based and biased or anti-capatalist based 'plot' is absurd.....so, why then? What do you think it is really all about?

How does recycling etc equate to personal control?

[edit on 4-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Actually, global climate change as a result of human influence is by no means a proven fact nor is it accepted by the majority of scientists in the field.

cfa-www.harvard.edu...

www.newsweekly.com.au...


What do I think its about? I think its about politics pure and simple. Most people who are out there screaming about the dangerous rise in CO2 have no idea where it comes from and what it does to keep life sustainable on Earth. There have been huge deposits of CO2 to the atmosphere all throughout history and pre-history by fires, volcanos, and numerous natural processes on Earth.

I'll be the first to admit, it was a good premise and worth the money to research. Now that we have a quarter century of data pointing the other way, I think we can environmentally look at solving other pollution problems that have taken a backseat to this...because I think it had too. I wanted to know and I think we all did ..if something we were doing was changing the climate globally. It was bonafide research and a bonafide need to know. Nothing wrong with that. Now that we have it set up to monitor lower atmospheric temps, I think we should continue it. I'm not against safeguards and having that knowledge. What I am against is destroying economies and ushering in a new era of mass poverty because some cannot accept that the world isn't ending because we drive cars to work.

The sad thing was, when it becomes a political tool, all the answers and data in the world are meaningless. It has to be true because so many affluent reputations ride on it. They cannot let it go. Its not an insult to say hey, we thought it might have been happening, we did the research and found out it wasn't. I'll admit it. I was one of the first in my circle of friends to become concerned about it. Now, most of them accept it because its been touted by politicians so much. Make no mistake, the environments biggest threat is poverty.

We are here on Earth, our species. We will use its air and water to sustain us, doesn't it make sense that we retain the resources to clean them afterward. I'm not against recycling at all. I'm very much for it...but whos going to give it a second thought with an empty stomach that they can't fill or a toothache they can't ease? See my point. The most industrialized countries in the world have the best looked after environments because we have the basic needs met and can turn attention and resources toward it.

Originally posted by astrocreep
Actually, global climate change as a result of human influence is by no means a proven fact nor is it accepted by the majority of scientists in the field.

- Clearly we are not going to agree on this but I would leave you with a quote from the recent guest here on ATS Dr Parmesan.

DR. PARMESAN: Those people, as I said, are not listening to the scientists. The consensus is stronger on this issue, amongst climate scientists, than I can think of any other issue in science � including evolution. There�s more contention amongst biologists about the role of evolution in shaping our biodiversity than there is about the role of greenhouse gases in shaping the climate. So 99.9% of the climate scientists, atmospheric scientists, modelers, etc. have concluded that rising greenhouse gases have affected the Earth�s climate and are responsible for the bulk of increase in global temperature for the past 30 years

Originally posted by earthtone
The earth's temperature is ever changing, but we are a contributing factor at this point in history.

I couldn't have said it better myself, humans being a contributing factor is a major issue.

People who say that our pollution and general manipulation of the Earth's landscape hasn't been detrimental to our environment are very unaware.

Where do these pollutants go? They don't just vanish as if by majic.

I think we are either in a state of denial, or are just plain ignorant, or not educated enough, or in a dream state and just plain unaware of what effect we have on everything in life, or just don't care.

Most people are happy to live their life only caring about things that can effect them in a very in your face kind of a way, such as being in the room with a smoker. They then leave that room and get into a car and pollute themselves all the way home.
Bad example maybe, but I am tired.

All in all I don't think enough people care what long term effects our actions have, "hell, I will be dead in 40 years, so why should I care what happens when I am gone" kind of attitude is rampant.



[edit on 7-10-2004 by Kriz_4]