Why manmade CO2 is the important bit
08-08-2009, 12:18 PM
#91
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
In one way we haven't, in one way we have.
The way we haven't. Global warming actually leverages the power of the Sun to warm the planet. The Sun warms the Earth. CO2 doesn't stop that, because it lets sunlight through. But it in effect puts a blanket on the Earth, by reducing the heat flow out. More or less (see below) the same heat in, less out, the planet warms. Leveraging the Sun this way is a mechanism that would be downright diabolical, if we were doing it on purpose. It's how our seemingly small input can have a serious effect.
The way we have. Solar radiation has actually been going DOWN (slightly) while temperatures have been going UP. The mechanism described above has been sufficient to reverse the slight natural cooling we experienced from the last exit from an ice age (about 12,000 B.C.) to 1900 or so. Details of the analysis here;
Lockwood, Frohlich (2007), Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. 463 no. 2086, pp. 2447-2460
This is one of several scientific journal articles debunking the notion that increases in solar radiation are responsible for the recent increases in temperature. Internet article, with lots of references to the scientific journal articles, here:
http://cce.890m.com/solar-cosmic-rays/
The way we haven't. Global warming actually leverages the power of the Sun to warm the planet. The Sun warms the Earth. CO2 doesn't stop that, because it lets sunlight through. But it in effect puts a blanket on the Earth, by reducing the heat flow out. More or less (see below) the same heat in, less out, the planet warms. Leveraging the Sun this way is a mechanism that would be downright diabolical, if we were doing it on purpose. It's how our seemingly small input can have a serious effect.
The way we have. Solar radiation has actually been going DOWN (slightly) while temperatures have been going UP. The mechanism described above has been sufficient to reverse the slight natural cooling we experienced from the last exit from an ice age (about 12,000 B.C.) to 1900 or so. Details of the analysis here;
Lockwood, Frohlich (2007), Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. 463 no. 2086, pp. 2447-2460
This is one of several scientific journal articles debunking the notion that increases in solar radiation are responsible for the recent increases in temperature. Internet article, with lots of references to the scientific journal articles, here:
http://cce.890m.com/solar-cosmic-rays/
Last edited by Redone; 08-08-2009 at 12:31 PM.
08-08-2009, 12:28 PM
#92
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
We'll see at the end of the year, in the global meeting on addressing this, if that makes them willing to deal. I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic, I just don't know.
08-08-2009, 01:24 PM
#93
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
Whether you're concerned about CO2 or real pollutants in our air and water, other quality of life issues, the once honest and honorable "environmental movement" refuses to even discuss the few vital things we could do, should have done years ago.
If the Sierra Club et al cared half as much about the environment as they do about money, power and control, they'd have demanded secure borders, enforced immigration law and immigration policy which promotes population stabilization.
Bring it up at one of their meetings. Watch them cough, shuffle their feet and pretend they didn't hear you.
http://www.frostywooldridge.com/arti...2007jan01.html
If the Sierra Club et al cared half as much about the environment as they do about money, power and control, they'd have demanded secure borders, enforced immigration law and immigration policy which promotes population stabilization.
Bring it up at one of their meetings. Watch them cough, shuffle their feet and pretend they didn't hear you.
http://www.frostywooldridge.com/arti...2007jan01.html
08-08-2009, 02:12 PM
#94
Slacker
Superstock
Superstock
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 489
08-08-2009, 10:14 PM
#95
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 111
Climate Change = National Security Threat
Alright tough guys, chew on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc...nted=1&_r=1&hp
According to not only politicians (eww!) but also retired senior military people, this whole climate change thing is not only real, it's a direct threat to the security interests of the USA. You'll notice that I quoted a mainstream source, which has its positives and negatives. One click up from linking a youtube video, if ya ask me.
Is it possible that the entire military establishment is flat-out completely incorrect about the mountain of evidence supporting climate change? These are some of the smartest people on the planet, with some of the most sophisticated technology available for recording and analyzing climate data.
I guess if you want to be absurdly paranoid you could claim they are going along with this so they can use climate change to create panic and declare martial law and restrict personal liberties. But why the hell would they want to do that? I'd surmise that after years of brutal urban warfare in Iraq/Afghanistan, the last thing even the most insane person would want to do is try to impose martial law on the citizens of the USA - the most heavily armed people on earth. I can only conclude that the military is genuinely worried about the effects of climate change and the security problems that will undoubtedly arise.
Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc...nted=1&_r=1&hp
According to not only politicians (eww!) but also retired senior military people, this whole climate change thing is not only real, it's a direct threat to the security interests of the USA. You'll notice that I quoted a mainstream source, which has its positives and negatives. One click up from linking a youtube video, if ya ask me.
Is it possible that the entire military establishment is flat-out completely incorrect about the mountain of evidence supporting climate change? These are some of the smartest people on the planet, with some of the most sophisticated technology available for recording and analyzing climate data.
I guess if you want to be absurdly paranoid you could claim they are going along with this so they can use climate change to create panic and declare martial law and restrict personal liberties. But why the hell would they want to do that? I'd surmise that after years of brutal urban warfare in Iraq/Afghanistan, the last thing even the most insane person would want to do is try to impose martial law on the citizens of the USA - the most heavily armed people on earth. I can only conclude that the military is genuinely worried about the effects of climate change and the security problems that will undoubtedly arise.
Thoughts?
08-08-2009, 11:17 PM
#97
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,804
Do you really believe that our military is independent from the banks and international financial institutions who really run things and have been working to subvert nation states and install world government for quite some time? The military is nothing if not political; top military brass have been NWO lackeys for decades. They will say and do anything they are told. One look at a pudgy little ***** like Michael Hayden (Mr. 4th Amendment) should tell you that.
The Earth has been warmer than it is now and it has been colder. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations, whether from natural or "man made" sources, have been higher than they are now. There is no demonstrable correlation between CO2 and global temperature no matter how much tortured information is put forth to try and prove it.
Go back and do more research. Global warming "science" is junk and is being used to implement a political agenda for world government and strict controls on human behavior.
The Earth has been warmer than it is now and it has been colder. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations, whether from natural or "man made" sources, have been higher than they are now. There is no demonstrable correlation between CO2 and global temperature no matter how much tortured information is put forth to try and prove it.
Go back and do more research. Global warming "science" is junk and is being used to implement a political agenda for world government and strict controls on human behavior.
08-09-2009, 01:47 AM
#98
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
Lot of eye opening info and serious questions in each of those vids.
08-09-2009, 05:50 AM
#99
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: south nj (philly area)
Posts: 277
just a thought
ok lets say co2 is the biggest "problem" of our time... then why is it that plants greatly improve in all aspects of their growth (about 30 % give or take a few)? why is it that co2 which is HEAVIER than air (o2 and H mostly) but we dont suffocate and die? i sometimes garden indoors and because of this i KNOW that the outside levels are much much lower than indoor natural levels why? simple we breathe it out!! this being said are our houses heat boxes? no... plants can take a co2 enriched room and clear it to natural outdoor levels in about 12-16 hours if none is added. if this is the problem why are we still clearing the best co2 "filters" we have?
now for the actual global warming why is no one looking at the ice melting on mars? or the fact that one of jupiters moons was ice and is mostly liquid now? did we do that or is our sun getting hotter like every other star scientists have studied? if this is the case how can humans be to blame?
yes we humans put out alot of co2 but why not plant trees and shrubs to at least try to combat it somewhat? instead were cutting them down. i just wonder if these destructive actions and the planned hiding of certain facts is a way to push something into effect what i dont know. im just saying we should try to look through the "smoke screen" of certain ideas or facts we are getting bombarded with... just a thought
now for the actual global warming why is no one looking at the ice melting on mars? or the fact that one of jupiters moons was ice and is mostly liquid now? did we do that or is our sun getting hotter like every other star scientists have studied? if this is the case how can humans be to blame?
yes we humans put out alot of co2 but why not plant trees and shrubs to at least try to combat it somewhat? instead were cutting them down. i just wonder if these destructive actions and the planned hiding of certain facts is a way to push something into effect what i dont know. im just saying we should try to look through the "smoke screen" of certain ideas or facts we are getting bombarded with... just a thought
08-09-2009, 07:54 AM
#100
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,051
hurricane Katrina (2005) was tout'd as a sign for things to come... larger, more frequent storms due to global warming. well it's now 2009
tim
tim
Alright tough guys, chew on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc...nted=1&_r=1&hp
According to not only politicians (eww!) but also retired senior military people, this whole climate change thing is not only real, it's a direct threat to the security interests of the USA. You'll notice that I quoted a mainstream source, which has its positives and negatives. One click up from linking a youtube video, if ya ask me.
Is it possible that the entire military establishment is flat-out completely incorrect about the mountain of evidence supporting climate change? These are some of the smartest people on the planet, with some of the most sophisticated technology available for recording and analyzing climate data.
I guess if you want to be absurdly paranoid you could claim they are going along with this so they can use climate change to create panic and declare martial law and restrict personal liberties. But why the hell would they want to do that? I'd surmise that after years of brutal urban warfare in Iraq/Afghanistan, the last thing even the most insane person would want to do is try to impose martial law on the citizens of the USA - the most heavily armed people on earth. I can only conclude that the military is genuinely worried about the effects of climate change and the security problems that will undoubtedly arise.
Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc...nted=1&_r=1&hp
According to not only politicians (eww!) but also retired senior military people, this whole climate change thing is not only real, it's a direct threat to the security interests of the USA. You'll notice that I quoted a mainstream source, which has its positives and negatives. One click up from linking a youtube video, if ya ask me.
Is it possible that the entire military establishment is flat-out completely incorrect about the mountain of evidence supporting climate change? These are some of the smartest people on the planet, with some of the most sophisticated technology available for recording and analyzing climate data.
I guess if you want to be absurdly paranoid you could claim they are going along with this so they can use climate change to create panic and declare martial law and restrict personal liberties. But why the hell would they want to do that? I'd surmise that after years of brutal urban warfare in Iraq/Afghanistan, the last thing even the most insane person would want to do is try to impose martial law on the citizens of the USA - the most heavily armed people on earth. I can only conclude that the military is genuinely worried about the effects of climate change and the security problems that will undoubtedly arise.
Thoughts?
08-09-2009, 11:12 AM
#102
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
Alright tough guys, chew on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc...nted=1&_r=1&hp
According to not only politicians (eww!) but also retired senior military people, this whole climate change thing is not only real, it's a direct threat to the security interests of the USA. You'll notice that I quoted a mainstream source, which has its positives and negatives. One click up from linking a youtube video, if ya ask me.
Is it possible that the entire military establishment is flat-out completely incorrect about the mountain of evidence supporting climate change? These are some of the smartest people on the planet, with some of the most sophisticated technology available for recording and analyzing climate data.
I guess if you want to be absurdly paranoid you could claim they are going along with this so they can use climate change to create panic and declare martial law and restrict personal liberties. But why the hell would they want to do that? I'd surmise that after years of brutal urban warfare in Iraq/Afghanistan, the last thing even the most insane person would want to do is try to impose martial law on the citizens of the USA - the most heavily armed people on earth. I can only conclude that the military is genuinely worried about the effects of climate change and the security problems that will undoubtedly arise.
Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc...nted=1&_r=1&hp
According to not only politicians (eww!) but also retired senior military people, this whole climate change thing is not only real, it's a direct threat to the security interests of the USA. You'll notice that I quoted a mainstream source, which has its positives and negatives. One click up from linking a youtube video, if ya ask me.
Is it possible that the entire military establishment is flat-out completely incorrect about the mountain of evidence supporting climate change? These are some of the smartest people on the planet, with some of the most sophisticated technology available for recording and analyzing climate data.
I guess if you want to be absurdly paranoid you could claim they are going along with this so they can use climate change to create panic and declare martial law and restrict personal liberties. But why the hell would they want to do that? I'd surmise that after years of brutal urban warfare in Iraq/Afghanistan, the last thing even the most insane person would want to do is try to impose martial law on the citizens of the USA - the most heavily armed people on earth. I can only conclude that the military is genuinely worried about the effects of climate change and the security problems that will undoubtedly arise.
Thoughts?
Not sure why a retired general would be better at predicting future temperatures than me, you, or the guy who takes your order at Burger King.
The paper isn't about civil strive/martial law in the US either. It's a "what if" paper. What if there really was a sustained increase in temps sufficient to destabilize third world populations?
How would the already over extended US military continue to fulfill its Neocon/Libtard mission as policeman, paramedic, food bank, waterworks and welfare office for half the world?
And since we're too high minded and "green" to produce our own energy these days, how would our military (which burns through over ten million barrels of oil every month) secure that oil supply in destabilized third world countries and how would they protect transit from where it is to where we need it?
That paper has been out for a while. the "objective" NYT is writing about it now in hopes of helping shove the carbon/energy tax through the Senate when they come back in session next month.
Climate change. It's not just for beard scratching college professors and aging hippies anymore. Why, it's a national security issue! Yeaaaaaah! That's the ticket!
Last edited by RK1; 08-09-2009 at 11:57 AM.
08-09-2009, 12:27 PM
#103
Senior Member
SuperBike
SuperBike
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles ish
Posts: 1,031
08-09-2009, 12:40 PM
#104
Senior Member
SuperBike
SuperBike
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles ish
Posts: 1,031
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
08-09-2009, 01:57 PM
#105
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 987
Wow, looks like all was good until all hell broke loose in the mid 70s when temps started shooting up millidegrees per decade.
The gas embargo also happened in 1973 and the auto manufacturers started putting emissions equipment on all cars and increasing fuel economy.
Clearly those efforts have contributed to global warming. My conclusion is that we should all remove our cats and start running leaded fuel again.
The gas embargo also happened in 1973 and the auto manufacturers started putting emissions equipment on all cars and increasing fuel economy.
Clearly those efforts have contributed to global warming. My conclusion is that we should all remove our cats and start running leaded fuel again.
08-09-2009, 02:07 PM
#106
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
Here is another series from Bob Carter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
I hope those who wet themselves over of CO2 watch his vids, even if their discipleship in the Church Of Global Warming precludes them commenting!
08-09-2009, 02:09 PM
#108
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
Hurricanes are complicated, and serious global warming scientists don't predict more frequent storms. Warmer ocean waters can fuel larger storms, but "wind shear" tears them apart, lowering their frequency. Which is pretty much what we've been seeing, fewer storms, more Cat 5s.
08-09-2009, 02:17 PM
#110
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
08-09-2009, 02:19 PM
#111
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
As said, it's stupidity.
Last edited by Redone; 08-09-2009 at 02:26 PM.
08-09-2009, 02:29 PM
#112
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
Two reasons. The levels which cause global warming are lower than the levels which suffocate you. Thermal motion keeps the atmosphere well mixed, CO2 doesn't sink to the bottom.Plants are trying, but they can't keep up with us. Post #1 shows the picture, and explains.Because we're stupid. Note though, it's a little complicated. Planting trees in the tropics helps a lot. Fast growth year round. Planting evergreens up north hurts more than it helps. The dark trees cover up reflective snow.
They did. NASA says the warming seen on Mars is due to dust storms covering lighter land with darker dust. Picture are on http://cce.890m.com/solar-cosmic-rays/ which is the last cite on post # 91, and the whole page gives details about how we know the temperature isn't increasing because of increased radiation from the Sun (which actually has been decreasing). Scan down the page, and the pictures of Mars are easy to spot.
As said, it's stupidity.
They did. NASA says the warming seen on Mars is due to dust storms covering lighter land with darker dust. Picture are on http://cce.890m.com/solar-cosmic-rays/ which is the last cite on post # 91, and the whole page gives details about how we know the temperature isn't increasing because of increased radiation from the Sun (which actually has been decreasing). Scan down the page, and the pictures of Mars are easy to spot.
As said, it's stupidity.
Last edited by RK1; 08-09-2009 at 02:33 PM.
08-09-2009, 02:39 PM
#113
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
On the first video a guy says that receding glaciers are better for people. Not if they're your source of water.
"Impacts of climate change on water resources of Nepal: the physical and socio-economic dimensions"
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1...9_6_292029.pdf
There are other examples. Pacific Northwest farmers depend on snowpack for irrigation, and it's decreasing.
Will this kill people? No, but they'll be on the move, and national borders won't stop desperate hungry people. This is the main reason the military is concerned. And they are concerned, not just theoretically. This is only one of the reports, the one referred to by Liquidogged.
"National Security and the Threat of Climate Change".
http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/
Those stating the military people are lying might want to watch out for angry Marines
, one of the authors is General Zinni.I'll break this post up, RK1 just gave me the perfect hook for the other videos.
Last edited by Redone; 08-09-2009 at 03:10 PM.
08-09-2009, 02:47 PM
#114
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
If Bob Carter and hundreds of scientists are wrong, why are they being ignored by the drive by, in the tank Hope and Change media?
Why aren't they being exposed, debated and challenged by Al Gore, Prince Charles, and the hundreds of "scientists" (social workers and "community activists") who preach from the pulpit of the Church of Global Warming? Why does "Redone" refuse to address their claims?
Why does
Why aren't they being exposed, debated and challenged by Al Gore, Prince Charles, and the hundreds of "scientists" (social workers and "community activists") who preach from the pulpit of the Church of Global Warming? Why does "Redone" refuse to address their claims?
Why does
08-09-2009, 02:50 PM
#115
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,132
Good collection of global warming fallacies. It would bore everyone here (including me) to go through them all, but two deserve special mention.
On the first video a guy says that receding glaciers are better for people. Not if they're your source of water.
"Impacts of climate change on water resources of Nepal: the physical and socio-economic dimensions"
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1...9_6_292029.pdf
There are other examples. Pacific Northwest farmers depend on snowpack for irrigation, and it's decreasing.
Will this kill people? No, but they'll be on the move, and national borders won't stop desperate hungry people. This is the main reason the military is concerned. And they are concerned, not just theoretically. This is only one of the reports, the one referred to by Liquidogged.
"National Security and the Threat of Climate Change".
http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/
Those stating the military people are lying might want to watch out for angry Marines, one of the authors is Admiral Zinni.
I'll break this post up, RK1 just gave me the perfect hook for the other videos.
On the first video a guy says that receding glaciers are better for people. Not if they're your source of water.
"Impacts of climate change on water resources of Nepal: the physical and socio-economic dimensions"
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1...9_6_292029.pdf
There are other examples. Pacific Northwest farmers depend on snowpack for irrigation, and it's decreasing.
Will this kill people? No, but they'll be on the move, and national borders won't stop desperate hungry people. This is the main reason the military is concerned. And they are concerned, not just theoretically. This is only one of the reports, the one referred to by Liquidogged.
"National Security and the Threat of Climate Change".
http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/
Those stating the military people are lying might want to watch out for angry Marines
, one of the authors is Admiral Zinni.I'll break this post up, RK1 just gave me the perfect hook for the other videos.
Does that mean they are planning on blowing up your house? Or that the military prepares for everything (including the possibility for global warming, cooling, or being hit by a meteorite)
08-09-2009, 02:56 PM
#116
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
But you've put your finger on it. The gem is indeed, the ice core data that PROVES CO2 lagged behind temperature in past warmings. Absolutely correct. The only problem for Carter is, this is actually proof that THIS warming isn't natural. Stick with me, this one is good.
Some very basic science. CO2 acts in TWO ways. It causes warming through the greenhouse effect (post #64 ). And it's an effect of warming, warming ocean waters eventually (the eventually is key) emit CO2 because its' solubility decreases with temperature. Try heating soda pop, you'll see it. So CO2 can either be a cause OR an effect.
In the past warming started for other reasons, likely increased solar radiation. Google "Milankovic cycles" for details. Then as Carter pointed out, CO2 rose hundreds of years later. The process CANNOT happen faster. It requires that oceans warm and that deep ocean waters circulate to the top. That takes a lot of time. Back then, CO2 was clearly mostly an effect, though the later rise of CO2 and the greenhouse effect helped the Sun reverse the ice ages.
But THIS TIME THERE IS NO LAG. CO2 and temperatures are moving up together, not separated by hundreds of years. Because this time CO2 is mostly a cause (although later on it will also be an effect, making things worse).
This is actually one of many reasons scientists know the present warming is mostly caused by us.
Carter (once again, a trained geologist) has been called an embarrassment to Australian scientists. Of no great distinction in his field, his global warming stuff is (in)famous.
Last edited by Redone; 08-09-2009 at 03:00 PM.
08-09-2009, 03:05 PM
#117
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Way Out West
Posts: 2,547
And again, the panel's task was not to debate "global warming", but to discuss how the US military could be whored out to protect the assets and profits of the Global Elite if, in fact, temp increases destabilized the third world.
Last edited by RK1; 08-09-2009 at 03:13 PM.
08-09-2009, 03:06 PM
#118
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. As I looked at it on my own, I couldn’t come to any other conclusion. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”
Admiral Richard Truly (Ret.) Shuttle astronaut, first commander of the Naval Space Command, former head of NASA
Last edited by Redone; 08-09-2009 at 03:12 PM.
08-09-2009, 03:11 PM
#119
Senior Member
MotoGP
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,132
This ain't theoretical planning. From the report, a very illuminative quote on global warming, one of my all time favorites because it captures WHY a large majority of scientists agree about this.
"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. As I looked at it on my own, I couldn’t come to any other conclusion. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”
Admiral Richard Truly (Ret.) Shuttle astronaut, first Chief of the Naval Space Command, former head of NASA
"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. As I looked at it on my own, I couldn’t come to any other conclusion. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”
Admiral Richard Truly (Ret.) Shuttle astronaut, first Chief of the Naval Space Command, former head of NASA
Does this mean I should prepare to defend myself from an American soldier?
They honestly and really prepare for everything they can imagine. (part of the reason the military budget is so huge)
All I am saying is that your US military preparing for it is no more proof of it than it is proof of anything.
08-09-2009, 03:16 PM
#120
Member
Squid
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
Agreed. And all I'm saying is that this particular report wasn't just theoretical planning. Friendly question, honest. Did you read the Truly quote?
Last edited by Redone; 08-09-2009 at 03:20 PM.
