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.
reply to post by ZakOlongapo
Are you kidding me? This isn't a text between friends, it's a forum. So please, quit being lazy and actually type the two extra letters that make up the word "you". (Sorry to everyone for going off topic, but ATS is a place that's under scrutiny as it is due to the subject matter. Having people typing like tweens doesn't help.)
On topic - I don't care who is responsible for global warming. The way I see it is that we're already killing ourselves off. Look at the pure junk we leave behind, we're extremely wasteful. Plastics can (and should!) be reused/recycled. We should be longer ahead in the electric car game by now, it's not like the electric car is a new invention. Our factories pump out poison in our atmosphere daily, world wide. We fill our oceans with so much junk that I'm ashamed to call myself human. We over fish and generally never think about sustainability. And what irks me so much, is the fact that all of what I mentioned above was/is preventable. Or at the very least, we could limit our impact on earth's health.
And that's why I don't care about global warming. Either it's natural (which I honestly believe) or it's man-made. Either way, cleaning up our act and how we live will either help or not help global warming. Either way, it's only good for us, the earth and our fellow creatures that inhabit the earth with us.
More scare tactics, or is this starting to become too obvious to ignore?
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.
The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.
It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.
The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.
"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."
"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."
It seems that what they want to do is to target one specific problem. Air pollution. They don't want to fix the problem, the governments want to collect taxes to pay for problems stemming from the problem. That is like treating the symptoms of an illness instead of stopping the illness from getting to be a problem. It appears they only want to look at parts of the problem that do not effect consumerism. Add a tax.
This problem is very complex, it is not just about emissions. It is about chemicals entering the ocean and harming the bees and wildlife. It is about tearing out mountains to get a little gold. It is about looking at greed and waste of resources as a negative effect on the ecosystem. I suppose people think we can survive on eating food created in a lab. We may be able to survive but who would want to live on energy bars. Science does not yet know how to reproduce all the nutrients in foods that will make us survive and be completely normal and healthy. In a hundred years they may know....but we are not going to have that much time.
The easiest way is if ninety five percent of all people got sick and died. They know that. I doubt if any of my family will be chosen to survive. They don't need many people anymore, we have built machinery to make everything. Only a few people will be needed to run these machines. I just wonder when this will be happening, they are telling us that the bacteria and viruses are mutating....or is someone steering their mutation. One small group could kill most of us off in a short time.
Some things are so big you don’t see them, or you don’t want to think about them, or you almost can’t think about them. Climate change is one of those things. It’s impossible to see the whole, because it’s everything. It’s not just a seven-story-tall black wave about to engulf your town, it’s a complete system thrashing out of control, so that it threatens to become too hot, too cold, too dry, too wet, too wild, too destructive, too erratic for many plants and animals that depend on reliable annual cycles. It affects the entire surface of the Earth and every living thing, from the highest peaks to the depths of the oceans, from one pole to the other, from the tropics to the tundra, likely for millennia -- and it’s not just coming like that wave, it’s already here.
It’s not only bigger than everything else, it’s bigger than everything else put together. But it’s not a sudden event like a massacre or a flood or a fire, even though it includes floods, fires, heat waves, and wild weather. It’s an incremental shift over decades, over centuries. It’s the definition of the big picture itself, the far-too-big picture. Which is why we have so much news about everything else, or so it seems.
"Vostok is still the world's coldest recorded location," said Randy Cerveny, an Arizona State University professor of geography and the "rapporteur for climate extremes" at the WMO, via e-mail. "They are using remote sensing, not standard weather stations, so we at the World Meteorological Organization will not recognize that."
there is no way to determine the elevation of the remote-sensed value.
Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets (see here) that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fourteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years.
Based on remote satellite measurements, scientists recently recorded that temperature at a desolate ice plateau in East Antarctica. It was the lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth, though it may not get that recognition in the official record book.
A NASA satellite measured that temperature in August 2010; on July 31 of this year , another bone-chilling temperature of -135.3 degrees was recorded.