Well of course you don't give a shit about ass fuck...you yourself said you were thinking about suicide...lmao. Not to mention the fact that you aren't exactly mentally "on top of the game". The higher levels of reasoning...adult reasoning...are reserved for those who can not only examine and identify the immediate effects of an action or circumstance..but the effects on their environment/world.
Global Warming Poll
- Thread starter WHITE DEVIL
- Start date
I believe pollution is the only factor in the small effect of global warming, I think alot of people blow it out of proportion, beacuse I believe the worlds weather changes in in cycles, 70 year storms and such. Either mankind will evolve to tolerate it, (pollution) or mother nature will turn bitch on us. But mankind will proably just kill its self off, and mother nature will heal herself, and we'll evolve again and fuck her up the same.
So if global warming is happening only time will tell, beacuse global warming is something that cannot be 'examined or identified by the immediate effects of an action or circumstance..but of the effects on their environment/world'. So this cannot be disclosed by the few scientists who "study" it,
who are most likely satisfying their contributors with press they can pump for their agenda's.
This is just my opinion, much like yours, because i'm no scientist, and have but one leg to stand on.
So if global warming is happening only time will tell, beacuse global warming is something that cannot be 'examined or identified by the immediate effects of an action or circumstance..but of the effects on their environment/world'. So this cannot be disclosed by the few scientists who "study" it,
who are most likely satisfying their contributors with press they can pump for their agenda's.
This is just my opinion, much like yours, because i'm no scientist, and have but one leg to stand on.
Global warming's effects CAN be seen in the short term dog.
Read: Beetle destruction of Alaskan forests, stinkbugs now in England, and many other major environmental oddities occuring in areas closer to the poles. All around the world, there are small examples here and there of vegetation, animal and insect life, and climate characterristics in areas not tradtionally accustomed to or producing them.
A one or two degree mean change IS a big effect, regardless of the esteem scientist baygiants who calls it "not such a big deal".
Read: Beetle destruction of Alaskan forests, stinkbugs now in England, and many other major environmental oddities occuring in areas closer to the poles. All around the world, there are small examples here and there of vegetation, animal and insect life, and climate characterristics in areas not tradtionally accustomed to or producing them.
A one or two degree mean change IS a big effect, regardless of the esteem scientist baygiants who calls it "not such a big deal".
The most simple argument, to me, is this.
A person sits in their garage, windows and doors closed, and inhales car smoke for 15 minutes. They die. Now if this can kill a full-sized human in 15 minutes, imagine the amount of this same toxic chemical you put out over a 3 hour drive. Imagine areas around freeways which are constantly filled with it...multiply that effect by about a million...and you see what we put up in the air every day.
A person sits in their garage, windows and doors closed, and inhales car smoke for 15 minutes. They die. Now if this can kill a full-sized human in 15 minutes, imagine the amount of this same toxic chemical you put out over a 3 hour drive. Imagine areas around freeways which are constantly filled with it...multiply that effect by about a million...and you see what we put up in the air every day.
America's five most polluted national parks
"Almost all the pollution affecting these parks comes from power plants, cars and industries outside the parks, the researchers said.
The polluted air that can obscure views in California's Sequoia and Kings Canyon National parks drifts up from the San Joaquin Valley, a 25,000-square mile bowl that extends from Bakersfield to Stockton.
Dirty air also hurts people — 13 percent of the valley's residents suffer from a breathing disorder like asthma. "
How wonderful it is to take your kids out to a great national park and breathe the fresh I mean highly polluted and toxic air!
"Almost all the pollution affecting these parks comes from power plants, cars and industries outside the parks, the researchers said.
The polluted air that can obscure views in California's Sequoia and Kings Canyon National parks drifts up from the San Joaquin Valley, a 25,000-square mile bowl that extends from Bakersfield to Stockton.
Dirty air also hurts people — 13 percent of the valley's residents suffer from a breathing disorder like asthma. "
How wonderful it is to take your kids out to a great national park and breathe the fresh I mean highly polluted and toxic air!
1. The reduction of as much carbon mono and dioxide emissions as possible. Higher energy standards for cars and factories. We need to somehow fix the damage Bush has done to environmental regulations, the EPA, and federal envrionmental mandates. Cars need to have higher MPG standards, and factories need to look into ways to cut, reduce, or counter emissions.
2. Put as much money as possible into research for alternative power sources.
3. The re-planting of as many trees and forests as possible. What would really be great/helpful/etc would be a federally sponsored program asking people to plant trees in their front yards, backyards, etc. The planting of trees in empty lots/unused land, etc. Basically, we need to plant as many trees as possible, as fast as we can. I've been involved with a group that does this locally. With the current administration in the white house, though, I really see the chances of this as little to none.
4. The immediate petition to end rainforest cutting/clearing.
5.Counteractive methods; producing and putting into the atmosphere chemicals that promote ozone replenishment. There are companies and scientific groups looking into this at the moment...they need to be better funded and recognized.
6. Don't re-elect Bush. This seems like partisan blah blah, etc., but he has been the most environmentally harmful president we've had since knowledge of the issue began.
2. Put as much money as possible into research for alternative power sources.
3. The re-planting of as many trees and forests as possible. What would really be great/helpful/etc would be a federally sponsored program asking people to plant trees in their front yards, backyards, etc. The planting of trees in empty lots/unused land, etc. Basically, we need to plant as many trees as possible, as fast as we can. I've been involved with a group that does this locally. With the current administration in the white house, though, I really see the chances of this as little to none.
4. The immediate petition to end rainforest cutting/clearing.
5.Counteractive methods; producing and putting into the atmosphere chemicals that promote ozone replenishment. There are companies and scientific groups looking into this at the moment...they need to be better funded and recognized.
6. Don't re-elect Bush. This seems like partisan blah blah, etc., but he has been the most environmentally harmful president we've had since knowledge of the issue began.
Pentagon's Worst-Case Scenario for Global Warming
Reports Last year the Pentagon commissioned a report on the potential global impacts of an abrupt and severe change in the world's climate and the worst-case scenario doesn't look good, according to the authors.
Since it has surfaced, the 38-page report has sparked controversy within political circles on the timing of the leak during an election year along with accusations of cover-ups from the liberal media. Meanwhile, Pentagon officials are downplaying the findings as an extreme situation based on a worst-case scenario of global warming with some critics claiming the leak was politically motivated.
The report suggests global warming is already approaching a threshold beyond which a sudden cooling will set in. The authors suggest a number of dire consequences in a scenario in which the current period of global warming ends in 2010, followed by a period of abrupt cooling. Some excerpts:
_ As temperatures rise during this decade, some regions experience severe storms and flooding. In 2007, surging seas break through levees in the Netherlands, making the Hague "unlivable."
_ By 2020, after a decade of cooling, Europe's climate becomes "more like Siberia's."
_ "Mega-droughts" hit southern China and northern Europe around 2010 and last 10 years.
_ In the United States, agricultural areas suffer from soil loss due to higher winds and drier climate, but the country survives the economic disruption without catastrophic losses.
_ Widespread famine in China triggers chaos, and "a cold and hungry China peers jealously" at Russia's energy resources. In the 2020-2030 period, civil war and border wars break out in China.
_ In a "world of warring states," more countries develop nuclear weapons, including Japan, South Korea, Germany, Iran and Egypt.
_ "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life… once again, warfare would define human life."
_ Europe and the United States become "virtual fortresses" trying to keep out millions of migrants whose homelands have been wiped out by rising sea levels or made unfarmable by drought.
_ "catastrophic" shortages of potable water and energy will lead to widespread war by 2020.
Sounds pretty grim, and the report goes on to warn that climate change may lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives and is a far greater threat than terrorism. The authors of the report acknowledge in the introduction that the scientists with whom they consulted regard the gloomy scenario as extreme in scope and severity.
They said they were not predicting how climate change will happen but sought to "dramatize the impact climate change could have on society if we are unprepared for it." The scenario they sketched was patterned after a climate event - a sudden global cooling after an extended period of warming - that is believed to have happened 8,200 years ago and lasted for 100 years.
The Pentagon official who commissioned the study, Andrew W. Marshall, issued a brief statement saying it "reflects the limits of scientific models and information when it comes to predicting the effects of abrupt global warming. ... Much of what this study predicts is still speculation."
Marshall, head of the Pentagon's internal think tank, known as the Office of Net Assessments, said his intent was to explore the question of whether countries affected by rapid climate change would suffer or benefit, and whether the change would make them more or less stable.
"More pragmatically, what kinds of climate change might our worldwide forces encounter in the future?" Marshall said.
A spokesman for Marshall, Lt. Cmdr. Daniel Hetlage, said the report, which was commissioned last October and finished earlier this month, did not fully satisfy Marshall's needs. Hetlage said the report would not be passed along to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Still, the authors, Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, said their scenario was "not implausible" and would challenge U.S. national security in ways that should be considered immediately. Schwartz is a co-founder of Global Business Network, based in Emeryville, Calif., which says it uses "out-of-the-box" thinking in its consulting services to business and government. Hetlage said the Pentagon paid about $100,000 for the report.
Schwartz and Randall asserted the plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher than most scientists and nearly all politicians think. They also concluded it could happen sooner than generally believed.
"This report suggests that because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change - although uncertain and quite possibly small - should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern," they wrote.
Liberal British weekly The Observer suggested that the report was covered up by "US defense chiefs" for four months, until it was "leaked" to the media. It said the report has drawn angry attention to US environmental and military policies, following Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and skepticism about global warning.
The controversial report drew commentary from political columnist and former California gubernatorial candidate Arianna Huffington who had a warning for those who may ignore the report:
"It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature."
Reports Last year the Pentagon commissioned a report on the potential global impacts of an abrupt and severe change in the world's climate and the worst-case scenario doesn't look good, according to the authors.
Since it has surfaced, the 38-page report has sparked controversy within political circles on the timing of the leak during an election year along with accusations of cover-ups from the liberal media. Meanwhile, Pentagon officials are downplaying the findings as an extreme situation based on a worst-case scenario of global warming with some critics claiming the leak was politically motivated.
The report suggests global warming is already approaching a threshold beyond which a sudden cooling will set in. The authors suggest a number of dire consequences in a scenario in which the current period of global warming ends in 2010, followed by a period of abrupt cooling. Some excerpts:
_ As temperatures rise during this decade, some regions experience severe storms and flooding. In 2007, surging seas break through levees in the Netherlands, making the Hague "unlivable."
_ By 2020, after a decade of cooling, Europe's climate becomes "more like Siberia's."
_ "Mega-droughts" hit southern China and northern Europe around 2010 and last 10 years.
_ In the United States, agricultural areas suffer from soil loss due to higher winds and drier climate, but the country survives the economic disruption without catastrophic losses.
_ Widespread famine in China triggers chaos, and "a cold and hungry China peers jealously" at Russia's energy resources. In the 2020-2030 period, civil war and border wars break out in China.
_ In a "world of warring states," more countries develop nuclear weapons, including Japan, South Korea, Germany, Iran and Egypt.
_ "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life… once again, warfare would define human life."
_ Europe and the United States become "virtual fortresses" trying to keep out millions of migrants whose homelands have been wiped out by rising sea levels or made unfarmable by drought.
_ "catastrophic" shortages of potable water and energy will lead to widespread war by 2020.
Sounds pretty grim, and the report goes on to warn that climate change may lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives and is a far greater threat than terrorism. The authors of the report acknowledge in the introduction that the scientists with whom they consulted regard the gloomy scenario as extreme in scope and severity.
They said they were not predicting how climate change will happen but sought to "dramatize the impact climate change could have on society if we are unprepared for it." The scenario they sketched was patterned after a climate event - a sudden global cooling after an extended period of warming - that is believed to have happened 8,200 years ago and lasted for 100 years.
The Pentagon official who commissioned the study, Andrew W. Marshall, issued a brief statement saying it "reflects the limits of scientific models and information when it comes to predicting the effects of abrupt global warming. ... Much of what this study predicts is still speculation."
Marshall, head of the Pentagon's internal think tank, known as the Office of Net Assessments, said his intent was to explore the question of whether countries affected by rapid climate change would suffer or benefit, and whether the change would make them more or less stable.
"More pragmatically, what kinds of climate change might our worldwide forces encounter in the future?" Marshall said.
A spokesman for Marshall, Lt. Cmdr. Daniel Hetlage, said the report, which was commissioned last October and finished earlier this month, did not fully satisfy Marshall's needs. Hetlage said the report would not be passed along to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Still, the authors, Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, said their scenario was "not implausible" and would challenge U.S. national security in ways that should be considered immediately. Schwartz is a co-founder of Global Business Network, based in Emeryville, Calif., which says it uses "out-of-the-box" thinking in its consulting services to business and government. Hetlage said the Pentagon paid about $100,000 for the report.
Schwartz and Randall asserted the plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher than most scientists and nearly all politicians think. They also concluded it could happen sooner than generally believed.
"This report suggests that because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change - although uncertain and quite possibly small - should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern," they wrote.
Liberal British weekly The Observer suggested that the report was covered up by "US defense chiefs" for four months, until it was "leaked" to the media. It said the report has drawn angry attention to US environmental and military policies, following Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and skepticism about global warning.
The controversial report drew commentary from political columnist and former California gubernatorial candidate Arianna Huffington who had a warning for those who may ignore the report:
"It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature."