[jbartone]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...153513,00.html

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

� Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
� Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
� Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.



How humiliating, if it's true.

[Klaus1]

Two things worry me about this report:

1. What is the Pentagon's motive for issuing it? To what extent do they think that military force, or even just capability, can prevent/limit/stop climate change?!

2. The report seems to paint a 'worst case scenario'. Was this in order to penetrate the particularly thick skulls of its intended readership?

[Logic]

From the article:

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars.

This article is great!


:sits back and waits for the usual "guardian sucks and this is all lies" group to enter:

[lil'babykitten]

Stoopid guardian! lies lies lies. Didn't you know? Bush = God

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Why exactly would it 'humiliate' Bush if Europe sunk beneath the the seas and Britian turned into Siberia? (By the way, did freakin' Art Bell come up with that 'news' article or something?)

So the premise here is that Bush has to pony up to the demands of the global warming crowd, in order to keep Europe from sinking?!?

Ummmmm.... WHAT exactly is the DOWNSIDE supposed to be from Bush's POV in that?

[Troll]

"Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat."

Hello the "War on Terror." Bush is the first President we've ever seen that points guns at concepts! I can see him declaring war on climate change and inavade those nations that have links to people who think about the possibility of starting programmes that might one day lead to products that may cause climate change.

What I find dangerous about this is the implication for the Third World of the elevation of climate change to an issue of US national security. To date there has been a modicum of recognition in the First World that the Third World needs to be shown a carrot to encourage it to develop along sustainable lines rather than to follow Western development models. If that carrot becomes a stick because suddenly climate change is more important to Uncle Sam than it was previously, this could cause much suffering in the Third World.

[Troll]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Why exactly would it 'humiliate' Bush if Europe sunk beneath the the seas and Britian turned into Siberia? (By the way, did freakin' Art Bell come up with that 'news' article or something?)

So the premise here is that Bush has to pony up to the demands of the global warming crowd, in order to keep Europe from sinking?!?

Ummmmm.... WHAT exactly is the DOWNSIDE supposed to be from Bush's POV in that?

Maybe you want to explain to me how the sea level rises in Europe but nowhere else in the world? My First Grade geography teacher told me that sea level was a constant all over the world. Not sure she'd agree that Amsterdam could be flooded but not New York or LA.

Maybe, just maybe the Guardian decided to focus on this aspect because it is a European paper.

[vmarks]

The Guardian is nothing if not sensationalist and excels at exaggeration.

The report isn't secret. And it doesn't say those things.

But by --calling it secret-- they can report that it says any damn thing they please.

Lerk explained in the other thread why the Sun was not a reliable source of information, and I tell you, the Guardian is a close cousin.

Now that that's out of the way, I'll tell you WHY it isn't secret, and WHY it doesn't say those things.

1) The report is not secret.

I got an email from the Director of the NRDC Climate Center, and this is what he had to say:

The report, by Peter Schwartz, is not secret. I have a copy if you would like to see it. It is a valid scenario exercise: we cannot today predict the probability of the events he describes but the shutting down of the north atlantic ocean current has occurred in the past and appears to have happened rapidly. Peter's estimates of the social consequences of such a shutdown today appear plausible.
David Hawkins
Director, NRDC Climate Center

2) The author's other work is easily publicly available.

Peter Schwartz published a book last summer,
Inevitable Surprises: Thinking Ahead in a Time of Turbulence (Gotham Books)
that includes this scenario. It was written up in Forbes, Economist,
Financial Times, according to GBN:
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=14200

It appears that Schwartz, GBN, and Andrew Marshall have succeeded in
raising the topic's prominence further by having the Pentagon commission
a report on it:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1050857.htm

Fortune has published a summary of the report:
http://sierratimes.com/04/02/09/ar_weather.htm

The basic scenario is not new; it has been on Nova, and there is a NOAA
web page explaining abrupt climate change in the Younger Dryas:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/abrupt.html
``Ice core records from Greenland show in less than a decade there
was a sudden warming of around 15 degrees Celsius (27oF) of the annual
mean temperature. At the same time a doubling of annual precipitation
occurred.''

There's a 2002 book, Abrupt Climate Changes: Inevitable Surprises,
by the National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10136.htm..._newsdoc121101
``it is not a matter if such events will occur in the future but when.''

Robert Gagosian, director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
in Massachusetts, discussed the issue at Davos last year.

None of this was enough to get the issue into governmental and
public consciousness. Apparently it took Peter Schwartz spelling
out the likely social consequences and Andrew Marshall commissioning
a DoD report on it to make this meme self-propagating.

To quote from the Fortune summary of the Peter Schwartz DoD report:

"Over the past decade, data have accumulated suggesting that the
plausibility of abrupt climate change is higher than most of the
scientific community, and perhaps all of the political community,
are prepared to accept. In light of such findings, we should be asking
when abrupt change will happen, what the impacts will be, and how we can
prepare...� not whether it will really happen. In fact, the climate record
suggests that abrupt change is inevitable at some point, regardless of
human activity. Among other things, we should:

``+ Speed research on the forces that can trigger abrupt climate change,
how it unfolds, and how we'll know it's occurring.

``+ Sponsor studies on the scenarios that might play out, including
ecological, social, economic, and political fallout on key food-producing
regions.

``+ Identify "no regrets" strategies to ensure reliable access to food
and water and to ensure our national security.

``+ Form teams to prepare responses to possible massive migration,
and food and water shortages.

``+ Explore ways to offset abrupt cooling� today it appears easier
to warm than to cool the climate via human activities, so there may be
"geo-engineering" options available to prevent a catastrophic temperature
drop.''

3) What the report says, and doesn't say.

The report outlined a variety of *plausible* scenarios without predicting that any of them *will* happen.

"The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet
to the edge of anarchy ...." i.e. IF there is climate change, then....

There's a big difference between saying the government (and all of us) should take the possibility of climate change seriously, and saying that the UK is likely to turn into a Siberian climate (why would the seas rise when the temperature is freezing??). This seems like an alarmist report about a measured scenario analysis that is indeed worth paying attention to.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Maybe you want to explain to me how the sea level rises in Europe but nowhere else in the world? My First Grade geography teacher told me that sea level was a constant all over the world. Not sure she'd agree that Amsterdam could be flooded but not New York or LA.

Maybe, just maybe the Guardian decided to focus on this aspect because it is a European paper.

Further to Crash's scenario: what you are saying is that global warming could cause the "blue" states to be submerged, while leaving the mostly inland "red" states alone. And this is a bad thing for Bush?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

[Klaus1]

What I find dangerous about this is the implication for the Third World of the elevation of climate change to an issue of US national security.

Well, this explains it. The US military are turning the World into a virtual reality game!

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3507531.stm

[Sven G]

Climate change or not, I think people should begin to think (indipendently!) much more about the interaction between our current lifestyle and the environment: not that I'm in any way completely "pro nature" (nature can also be extremely contrary to human needs), but there has to be a balance, eventually, between advanced technology and "natural" environment - which really doesn't seem to happen in today's, mostly oil-energy-based context...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Climate change or not, I think people should begin to think (indipendently!) much more about the interaction between our current lifestyle and the environment: not that I'm in any way completely "pro nature" (nature can also be extremely contrary to human needs), but there has to be a balance, eventually, between advanced technology and "natural" environment - which really doesn't seem to happen in today's, mostly oil-energy-based context...

actually, I think that as long as perceived scarcity = obscenely huge windfall profits for the oil industry, there is no incentive to reduce our dependence on oil. In fact, the more we run out of it, the more poweful the oil industry becomes and the more it engineers the perpetuity of our dependence. This is one of the downsides of unfettered capitalism.
Obviously, this runs against normal logic: that as a commodity begins to run out, it would benefit everyone to develop alternatives in larger or replenishable supply.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Bush is the first President we've ever seen that points guns at concepts!

Please tell me you're kidding.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Further to Crash's scenario: what you are saying is that global warming could cause the "blue" states to be submerged, while leaving the mostly inland "red" states alone. And this is a bad thing for Bush?

Lol!

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Obviously, this runs against normal logic: that as a commodity begins to run out, it would benefit everyone to develop alternatives in larger or replenishable supply.

Exactly: that's also one of the reasons why "neo-liberalism" is so irrational from a common sense point of view!

[Troll]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Please tell me you're kidding.

Partly. I suppose there is the whole War on Drugs thing although drugs are things not concepts. "Terror" is an emotion. Name me one other President that declared war on an emotion. Some might say that with his anti gay marrige push, Bush is now waging a War on Love too.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Further to Crash's scenario: what you are saying is that global warming could cause the "blue" states to be submerged, while leaving the mostly inland "red" states alone. And this is a bad thing for Bush?

*discharges dozens of aerosol cans while he releases all the freon out of his air conditioner*

Just doing my part to make America better....


While the South may not rise again...the North might very well sink.

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by Troll:
Partly. I suppose there is the whole War on Drugs thing although drugs are things not concepts. "Terror" is an emotion. Name me one other President that declared war on an emotion. Some might say that with his anti gay marrige push, Bush is now waging a War on Love too.

Do the words "Cold War" sound familiar? Weapons were pointed at idealogies, nuclear weapons. History is -full- of "wars on concepts" as you put it, back to the Crusades and further.. but within the realm of US history -

The American Revolution
The Civil War
The Cold War

War declared on emotion: Fear of a mythical commie threat.

[Troll]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Do the words "Cold War" sound familiar? Weapons were pointed at idealogies, nuclear weapons.

War declared on emotion: Fear of a mythical commie threat.

On civil war I don't agree. Civil wars are not fought against concepts. They are wars between groups of people just like any other war. The people happen to have different ideas but that doesn't change the fact that the guns are aimed at individuals. I can see how you might interpret the Cold War in that way, but I think there is a very big difference between the Cold War and the WOT not only in phrasing but in what they are.

The Cold War was not a war; it was a description of a situation of two states (who had competing versions of the good life no doubt) competing with one another. The Cold War was not a declared war like the WOT is. Although it might have represented for some people, a battle between the concepts of communism and democracy, those are not emotions or concepts except in the most esoteric of sense.

To illustrate the point, the Cold War may have been for the US, a war against Communism. The WOT could have been termed a War on TerrorISM and then it might have been similar to a War on Communism. Terrorism is not an esoteric concept. It's a real, definable thing. You can fight terrorists. You can't fight fear. The equivalent, for me at least, of War on Terror in a Cold War context would have been "War on Cold" or "War on Sharing."

The WOT is a declared, real war with guns and soldiers and rules of war that apparently apply. Still I suppose in a deeply esoteric way, I can see your point. Even if they were never labelled as such, every human endeavour is a war against some emotion. I guess the Geneva Conventions apply to much more than we think

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Do the words "Cold War" sound familiar? Weapons were pointed at idealogies, nuclear weapons. History is -full- of "wars on concepts" as you put it, back to the Crusades and further.. but within the realm of US history -

The American Revolution
The Civil War
The Cold War

War declared on emotion: Fear of a mythical commie threat.

um, I think you're confusing the issue (If I understand you correctly) the cold war was based on a weapons standoff, those were actual physial weapons in close parity, from whence mutually assured destruction arose. It was the threat of actually using those weapons that forced the cold war to be non-direct in its confrontation.

I wouldn't call that a war against a concept.....actually I wouldn't call WOT a war against a concept, necessarily, either. I just think its BASED on a concept that attempts to codify and aggregate a threat that is neither codified nor aggregate, and that is its central flaw.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
While the South may not rise again...the North might very well sink.

LOL!

Come to think of it, depending on how far Los Angeles sinks, my house might very well be right on the new beachfront!

(Hatches sinester plot to secretly add massive bean tonnage into the feed supply of the world's cattle, thereby increasing bovine flatulence a millionfold...)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
To illustrate the point, the Cold War may have been for the US, a war against Communism. The WOT could have been termed a War on TerrorISM and then it might have been similar to a War on Communism. Terrorism is not an esoteric concept. It's a real, definable thing. You can fight terrorists. You can't fight fear. The equivalent, for me at least, of War on Terror in a Cold War context would have been "War on Cold" or "War on Sharing."

So your objection is entirely semantic?

How does it matter what the War is styled by pundits and politicians? The war on terror is no more abstract than the Cold War (which despite its name, was actually very hot at times) or any other war. Who is to say that the name given the war won't change in time? Other wars have. World War 1 was called the Great War, and even "the War to End All Wars." Those names gave way when subsequent history made the earlier names lose their relevance.

The War on Terror is just a name. What matters is the thing. It's called the war on terror for a couple of reasons. One is simply because Americans commonly refer to terror interchangebaly with terrorism. You often hear people talk about "terror organizations", or "state sponsors of terror." It's not very precise, but it's common.

More to the point, its called the war on terror because we are too polite and too much looking for shorthand to say "the war on Islamic Extremists who use Terrorism Against Westerners and Our Allies and Their State Sponsors, But Not Islam the Religion." That's accurate, but too much of a mouthful. So war on terror is a nice pithy euphamism. But this is just semantics.

[Logic]

It wouldn't surprise me if the name changed from War on Terror� to War of Terror in a not too distant future........

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*discharges dozens of aerosol cans while he releases all the freon out of his air conditioner*

Just doing my part to make America better....


While the South may not rise again...the North might very well sink.

Even better...


EVERYONE IN SO. CAL. I want you to start jumping up and down, and keep doing that for the next 2-3 weeks. I just want to see if Luthor is right...

[swrate]

Originally posted by Troll:

..............................The WOT is a declared, real war with guns and soldiers and rules of war that apparently apply.

I wish they would apply to both sides the same way.

I would worry about Manhattan and Louisiana. I also feel the situation due to climate, can deteriorate faster then we imagine.

[spacefreak]

You gotta love all these doomsday prediction as to what is going to happen to our climate 30 years from now. So why not take a look back at the climate alarmists' predictions from 30 years ago and see just how close they came to being right?

Newsweek: April 28, 1975

The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth�s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production� with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas � parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia � where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree � a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. �A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,� warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, �because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.�

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth�s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras � and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the �little ice age� conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 � years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. �Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,� concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. �Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.�

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases � all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

�The world�s food-producing system,� warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA�s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, �is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.� Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Geez...we all should be starving now.


_

[fizzlemynizzle]

The Guardian? Let's start using the Weekly World News and the National Enquirer as sources, too.

Until this story is backed up by a credible source, it's ********.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You often hear people talk about "terror organizations", or "state sponsors of terror."

Really? I don't think I have ever heard that. Could you provide an example?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Geez...we all should be starving now. _

It may have started already for some people.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/regional/index.htm

Quote from the chapter regarding North America:

8.3.9. Human Health

Climate change is likely to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health. These impacts would arise by direct pathways (e.g., exposure to thermal stress and extreme weather events) and indirect pathways (increases in some air pollutants, pollens, and mold spores; malnutrition; increases in the potential transmission of vector-borne and waterborne diseases; and general public health infrastructural damage) (IPCC 1996, WG II Sections 18.2 and 18.3, and Figure 18-1). Climate change also could jeopardize access to traditional foods garnered from land and water (such as game, wild birds, fish, and berries), leading to diet-related problems such as obesity, cardiovascular disorders, and diabetes among northern populations of indigenous peoples as they make new food choices (Government of Canada, 1996).

Let's take a a local example: Inuit of Northern Qu�bec (Nunavik). The Inuit have always lived from the product of their hunts (caribou, seal, walrus, beluga and fishing). Most of their hunting was done all year long. With sedentarization triggered by the installation of trading posts in the '30s as well as the necessity to established sovereignty, the Inuit pretty much used the resources available around them, except for a few who could then manage to have a hunting camp away.

This change in their way of living has created an over exploitation of their local food resources while their sedentarization increased with the coming of a "modern" way of life (local jobs etc).

While this happened, development of the territory (east coast of the James and Hudson Bay area) lead to the management of some important tributaries (Koksoak river by damming the Canapscau river) for Hydro power generation (some of it going straight to the U.S.). The Kosoak river was the river with the second most important tides in North America (10 meters). It was recognized as a hunting ground for the beluga, feeding on salmon and arctic char.

The consequence lead to the rarification of some resources. The Beluga (white whale) disappeared completely from the Koksoak river (the beluga used to get its salmon up to 60 miles inland!). It is now considered a threathened species. Its hunting is autorized as long as a quota of 10 whales per year is respected. The beluga, as well as the many species of seal, the walrus and to some extent the polar bear are major elements of the healthy diet of the Inuit. Until 30 years ago, there were barely any cases of coronarian diseases.

Today, the increase of coronarian disease is important (I do not remember the public health stats) because of the change in the diet. Since the food resource is becoming scarce locally, they have to travel further to get their food. But keeping a job and hunting for several days away are not going well. Buying from the grocery stores is also bound to have an increase in purchasing fast food, which is direct cause of coronarian disease.

Ironicaly, the Inuit live longer (they gained 20 years or so in longevity in the last 20 years) but are not getting any healthier.

On top of that, there is increase concern regarding pollution and climate change:

http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/nu...t10803_06.html

So, you may not be starving ... yet....

;o)

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Further to Crash's scenario: what you are saying is that global warming could cause the "blue" states to be submerged, while leaving the mostly inland "red" states alone. And this is a bad thing for Bush?

How about Alaska?

http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/nu.../briefs.html#5

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Really? I don't think I have ever heard that. Could you provide an example?

Do a search in google news (I just did). You will see the use of the term. It's quite common.

[swrate]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You gotta love all these doomsday prediction as to what is going to happen to our climate 30 years from now. So why not take a look back at the climate alarmists' predictions from 30 years ago and see just how close they came to being right? Geez...we all should be starving now.


_

Inuit, Alaska�� merci

I think its hollow to claim �30 years ago the situation was this way, now it his so, it means for the next 30 years, no problem, the stats will follow the same curve.�

Climate changes took place a few times, big changes or micro-changes. Heating up the atmosphere happens when you build high energy factories, when you cut forests , when you erect dams, when you extract too much of a product, i.e. the every day changing scape of sinking Dead Sea, when you pollute with gas emanations, or naturally.

The problem with the planet is that we do not control it.
Here for example, a few hours ago, the earth shook suddenly, and the whole rock were I live moved, it was the same feeling as when an elevator suddenly dislodges down. The electricity was cut.
Once things start to deteriorate, there is no way to go backwards, and we can suddenly slide fast before we realize it. Globally and lately, more natural disasters hinder time.
We cannot stop something started on the planet�s magnitude, we can only try and not let it become worse too fast.
Anyway, sooner or later, consequences of the climate change will amplify, evidenced by the data�s, maybe then we will start making a global effort.

.

The sky altered with smog, the air looks heavier then when I first started using planes, the sky is not so shiny any more. A part from high altitudes, where the air is thinner, Australia is the land I found the sky shone the most. I heard of the experiences Australians do on chemicals/viruses, on the land, to get rid of rabbits, I worry, That�s another uncontrollable tragedy, species/viruses brought in by us and destroying land or fauna
But then, again, here too the rivers are infested with chemicals, and the mountains crumble.

The Jordan is nearly gone,
�Roll River Jordan Roll�
the Jordan is just a lazy dirty little stream.
The Dead Sea is shrinking miles a day
The Aral, Sea is dead
The Nile is polluted and infested with weed
Michigan has fish with cancer
Inuits are losing their land
Louisiana is sinking���
You can as usual add to the list.

The United States of America�s politics need to be less pretentious, and I hope they will soon recognize the problems, and be aware, showing an example of vigilance in the use of energies.
I didnt mean to upset anybody, because we all are touched, we adapt to nature but we, humans dont control it 100%..
I think we should be very cautious.

dreaming again.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally posted by swrate:
Inuit, Alaska�� merci

---snipsnip---

The United States of America�s politics need to be less pretentious, and I hope they will soon recognize the problems, and be aware, showing an example of vigilance in the use of energies.
I didnt mean to upset anybody, because we all are touched, we adapt to nature but we, humans dont control it 100%..
I think we should be very cautious.

dreaming again.

swrate, I totally agree with your point of view. I would like to add though that we cannot put all the blame on the United States; pretty much all industrialized countries are not doing enough (and Canada should do more as well, imho). And what Troll expressed earlier is bound to create concerns as well, big time!


Quote from Troll:

What I find dangerous about this is the implication for the Third World of the elevation of climate change to an issue of US national security. To date there has been a modicum of recognition in the First World that the Third World needs to be shown a carrot to encourage it to develop along sustainable lines rather than to follow Western development models. If that carrot becomes a stick because suddenly climate change is more important to Uncle Sam than it was previously, this could cause much suffering in the Third World.

Concerns regarding the issue of U.S. National Security would be only a factor since these developing countries have been at their industrialized development for some time already and their technology is not up to date to ours (nor is ours necessarily better).

http://mondediplo.com/2002/12/08ecology

But in the end, we may ask too much from our governments. Maybe those guys are too busy at doing what they do. Maybe WE need to do the efforts of helping this world.

Maybe it is all in the small gestures, responsible purchases, recycling of our possessions, etc. that we will see the biggest difference. Maybe just saying "no" to some products is bound to make a difference.

Do we all need cars? Do we need that car that goes so fast and burns oil more than any other? Do we need all those commodities that we have? How many things are in our closets that we will have to dug out in a year from the pile of crap we accumulate?

And what if we were to support the "good" corporations?

http://www.thecorporation.tv/ray-anderson.php

Dreams come true... if we believe enough in them to make them happen!

tiens toi! ;o)

[Y3a]

Ho Hum...

I guess real science with reliable data isn't to be used, but instead, more conspiracy BS and pop science by the left is??? Perhaps if more of you knew about REAL scientific observations from our space probes you would realize how stupid those 'facts' are. NASA has been observing and providing data for scientific research for decades. The raw data is at Goddard Space Flight Center, in Greenbelt Md.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally posted by Y3a:
Ho Hum...

I guess real science with reliable data isn't to be used, but instead, more conspiracy BS and pop science by the left is??? Perhaps if more of you knew about REAL scientific observations from our space probes you would realize how stupid those 'facts' are. NASA has been observing and providing data for scientific research for decades. The raw data is at Goddard Space Flight Center, in Greenbelt Md.

Well, here it is for a start:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/reso...-resources.htm

And there is not only NASA that studied this atmosphere of ours: your neighbours of the North as well and for good reasons.

http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/plan_for_canada/

And here is some more research:
http://earthscience.surfwax.com/file...al_Change.html
http://earthscience.surfwax.com/file...l_Warming.html

and this one is really special. Just to make sure:

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/kids/index.html


Have a good read...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do a search in google news (I just did). You will see the use of the term. It's quite common.

Ok, fair enough, but just because the general public uses the term improperly doesn't give the government the right to do so as well.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Ok, fair enough, but just because the general public uses the term improperly doesn't give the government the right to do so as well.

Is there any substance to this argument? It appears entirely semantic.

Next you will be telling us to spell color with a u.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is there any substance to this argument? It appears entirely semantic.

Next you will be telling us to spell color with a u.

or that "grave and gathering" is not "imminent".

[Y3a]

I guess irresponsible conclusions based on mis-interpreting the is OK for you. I do consulting withe the NASA project managers and doomsayers like most of the global warming crowd is a source of humor. posting a bunch of links with POSSIBLE future outomes is a joke. we don't have accurate weather data for more than a few hundred years so all is conjecture. the weather cycles are anywhere from 10K years to 175K years.

we will be distroyed by an asteroid strike long before that.

[thunderous_funker]

Climate change is a fact.

What remains inconclusive is how much (or if at all) human activity contributes to it.

[swrate]

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
...................
But in the end, we may ask too much from our governments. Maybe those guys are too busy at doing what they do. Maybe WE need to do the efforts of helping this world.

Maybe it is all in the small gestures, responsible purchases, recycling of our possessions, etc. that we will see the biggest difference. Maybe just saying "no" to some products is bound to make a difference.

Do we all need cars? Do we need that car that goes so fast and burns oil more than any other? Do we need all those commodities that we have? How many things are in our closets that we will have to dug out in a year from the pile of crap we accumulate?

And what if we were to support the "good" corporations?

http://www.thecorporation.tv/ray-anderson.php

Dreams come true... if we believe enough in them to make them happen!

tiens toi! ;o)

ok Imminent
I was upset when US did not sign the Kyoto treaties

I agree, with what you say, except the governement part: it IS their job to take care of the planet too. Its our future and future generations are involved.
To educate people you have to pass through governements. Its the system.
Small gestures? it depends on chemicals authorized, on the amount of CO2 you use etc... and the governments job is to make new laws and have them respected. Unless they never reform

Felize, merci
Thanks for your posts,

I find it alarming Inuits have to stop eating fish, so much metals up in the cold! And some still don�t worry!!!!

Did you know the average life span in Senegal is 28 years?

And thanks for all of your links, millennium
And troll keep trolling, I am still choking over Guantanamo�s unlawful minor combatants. Sea with colours. Not semantics.

http://www.unac.org/fr/link_learn/mo...ues_oceans.asp


Yes, we all are responsible and should contribute.
I am comforted many share this concern, all over, and appreciative Europe, Canada are �greener��.then�. Big Brother.

If I pointed US out that way, it is because US policies tend to want to control the planet, and �show the example� -even if it means to break Conventions.
.
The only words we hear lately are *WOT what?
So yes, that finger is pointing too, so why not acknowledge other problems?
You are not the only one.
Change your emotions, King of Oil.
I hope these reports will have impact, even if they are blown.
Let none say later they never heard of such a report, ok, CIA takes the blame.
If they don�t read the reports, what do you expect?


Climate changes:
I hear too often�.;
- lies,, its been ok for a while we fine 40 more years or 30? 30,
Surprise, say that to children.
We should think much further ahead.
-Ah green nicks why don�t they read the NASA report�s?
I can�t believe those reports when I see with my own eyes the affected planet,
(rivers, seas, fields, bush, deserts, islands, icebergs, beaches, sky, mountains, forests�.)
-these scientists are just inventing things!
When I breathe in certain cities at peak hours, I yearn for the sea, to be a fish must be difficult too at times!

The concerned populations, deeply affected, often have to relocate and are left with Health problems.

I hope I am wrong in also foreseeing a sudden increase in the curve.

Sites, humanitarian orientated and planet wise, ecology, fauna, flora, geography, and other scientists will tell you the same What happened to the last NASA flight? Does the change of chemicals in the atmosphere affect the �supposed to be stellar� material? Was it really an accident? Has the quality of the air changed these 2,5 last decades?

Je n'aime pas du tout the way the *Dead Sea is shrinking. Lets hope they stop arguing and start taking care of real problems: the water. (or is that why they fight really?)
The salt effect pulls all the drinkable water.


Caution. Human�s don�t control and own the planets. Unless you are � le Petit Prince�, with a volcano to feed every day.

[Klaus1]

Originally posted by Y3a:
I we don't have accurate weather data for more than a few hundred years so all is conjecture.

Oh dear! So 50,000 year old ice core samples mean nothing? Geological/geophysical data covering hundreds of millions years mean nothing? Fossil records mean nothing?

Next you will be telling us that you and/or NASA don't believe in evolution!

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Klaus1:
Oh dear! So 50,000 year old ice core samples mean nothing? Geological/geophysical data covering hundreds of millions years mean nothing? Fossil records mean nothing?

Next you will be telling us that you and/or NASA don't believe in evolution!

Ahh sounds like another fight! How do you tell ice is 50000 years old? You measure the ice around it! How about carbon dating??? Lets through out everything that does not fit within our specified range of dates! lol

[djohnson]

Global warming is a naturally occuring phenomenom. It will not be the climate that destroys us...

Oh forgot to mention that evolution is the biggest hunk of bunk in the world. When was the last time you saw a fish start walking???