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.
A Product of the National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel on Climate Change Washington, DC, February 24, 2020 — In a comprehensive report released by the “National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel (NSMIP)” of the Center for Climate and Security, experts warn of High-to-Catastrophic threats to security from plausible climate change trajectories – the avoidance of which will require “quickly reducing and phasing out global greenhouse gas emissions.” The panel, made up of national security, military and intelligence experts, analyzed the globe through the lens of the U.S. Geographic Combatant Commands, and concluded that:
Features of Carbon Credits When this ingenious concept was first discussed and the phrase coined, stakeholders saw mainly inherent benefits in on the one hand, sustaining life as we know it today, and on the other, rescuing the environment and cutting down on carbon emissions. But like the practice of using the dreaded credit card, the plan hasn’t worked up to now. In the meantime, this list highlights some of the main features of carbon credits, if correctly put into practice.
originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: dfnj2015
Well thanks. You wrote a lot and did a nice piece. I will give you a star for your effort. However, you did not mention once Carbon Offsets or Credits in your response?
You write as an INTEL person would write to evade the issue as in make it go away. Happens all the time here.
originally posted by: xuenchen
Carbon Offsets and/or Credits don't dissolve the carbon !!!
The carbon is still on Earth !!
originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Many don't believe the "science" because the science was dead wrong in the 70's over the same concerns.
But from what I've looked at with regards to the NASA science I referenced in my post it all looks like good science. The amount of carbon particulates measured in the atmosphere linked to the burning of gasoline seems to be accurate source of the pollution.
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015
The science is not sound.
I've been involved in to many college research papers to buy that one.
The reason so many of their predictions have been wrong is because of the flawed data and failed projection models.
When the models fail to be anywhere near accurate the trend is to go back and revise the data.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Bluntone22
I'm going to go with the scientists working at NASA over you. Sorry. I think it's a question of prestige and schooling.