Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 107

Thread: Don't Forget, Climate Change is not Real

  1. #1

    Don't Forget, Climate Change is not Real

    [SIZE="4"][B]As ice cap melts, militaries vie for Arctic edge[/B][/SIZE]

    ..YOKOSUKA, Japan (AP) — To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts.

    By Arctic standards, the region is already buzzing with military activity, and experts believe that will increase significantly in the years ahead.

    Last month, Norway wrapped up one of the largest Arctic maneuvers ever — Exercise Cold Response — with 16,300 troops from 14 countries training on the ice for everything from high intensity warfare to terror threats. Attesting to the harsh conditions, five Norwegian troops were killed when their C-130 Hercules aircraft crashed near the summit of Kebnekaise, Sweden's highest mountain.

    The U.S., Canada and Denmark held major exercises two months ago, and in an unprecedented move, the military chiefs of the eight main Arctic powers — Canada, the U.S., Russia, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland — gathered at a Canadian military base last week to specifically discuss regional security issues.

    None of this means a shooting war is likely at the North Pole any time soon. But as the number of workers and ships increases in the High North to exploit oil and gas reserves, so will the need for policing, border patrols and — if push comes to shove — military muscle to enforce rival claims.

    The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year.

    What countries should do about climate change remains a heated political debate. But that has not stopped north-looking militaries from moving ahead with strategies that assume current trends will continue.

    Russia, Canada and the United States have the biggest stakes in the Arctic. With its military budget stretched thin by Iraq, Afghanistan and more pressing issues elsewhere, the United States has been something of a reluctant northern power, though its nuclear-powered submarine fleet, which can navigate for months underwater and below the ice cap, remains second to none.

    Russia — one-third of which lies within the Arctic Circle — has been the most aggressive in establishing itself as the emerging region's superpower.

    Rob Huebert, an associate political science professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, said Russia has recovered enough from its economic troubles of the 1990s to significantly rebuild its Arctic military capabilities, which were a key to the overall Cold War strategy of the Soviet Union, and has increased its bomber patrols and submarine activity.

    He said that has in turn led other Arctic countries — Norway, Denmark and Canada — to resume regional military exercises that they had abandoned or cut back on after the Soviet collapse. Even non-Arctic nations such as France have expressed interest in deploying their militaries to the Arctic.

    "We have an entire ocean region that had previously been closed to the world now opening up," Huebert said. "There are numerous factors now coming together that are mutually reinforcing themselves, causing a buildup of military capabilities in the region. This is only going to increase as time goes on."

    Noting that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, the U.S. Navy in 2009 announced a beefed-up Arctic Roadmap by its own task force on climate change that called for a three-stage strategy to increase readiness, build cooperative relations with Arctic nations and identify areas of potential conflict.

    "We want to maintain our edge up there," said Cmdr. Ian Johnson, the captain of the USS Connecticut, which is one of the U.S. Navy's most Arctic-capable nuclear submarines and was deployed to the North Pole last year. "Our interest in the Arctic has never really waned. It remains very important."

    But the U.S. remains ill-equipped for large-scale Arctic missions, according to a simulation conducted by the U.S. Naval War College. A summary released last month found the Navy is "inadequately prepared to conduct sustained maritime operations in the Arctic" because it lacks ships able to operate in or near Arctic ice, support facilities and adequate communications.

    "The findings indicate the Navy is entering a new realm in the Arctic," said Walter Berbrick, a War College professor who participated in the simulation. "Instead of other nations relying on the U.S. Navy for capabilities and resources, sustained operations in the Arctic region will require the Navy to rely on other nations for capabilities and resources."

    He added that although the U.S. nuclear submarine fleet is a major asset, the Navy has severe gaps elsewhere — it doesn't have any icebreakers, for example. The only one in operation belongs to the Coast Guard. The U.S. is currently mulling whether to add more icebreakers.

    Acknowledging the need to keep apace in the Arctic, the United States is pouring funds into figuring out what climate change will bring, and has been working closely with the scientific community to calibrate its response.

    "The Navy seems to be very on board regarding the reality of climate change and the especially large changes we are seeing in the Arctic," said Mark C. Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences University of Colorado. "There is already considerable collaboration between the Navy and civilian scientists and I see this collaboration growing in the future."

    The most immediate challenge may not be war — both military and commercial assets are sparse enough to give all countries elbow room for a while — but whether militaries can respond to a disaster.

    Heather Conley, director of the Europe program at the London-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said militaries probably will have to rescue their own citizens in the Arctic before any confrontations arise there.

    "Catastrophic events, like a cruise ship suddenly sinking or an environmental accident related to the region's oil and gas exploration, would have a profound impact in the Arctic," she said. "The risk is not militarization; it is the lack of capabilities while economic development and human activity dramatically increases that is the real risk."

    [url]http://news.yahoo.com/ice-cap-melts-militaries-vie-arctic-edge-072343565.html[/url]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,286
    The debate isn't about climate change being real it is about the causes, if there is a solution or even one needed and whether the net effect will be good or bad for humanity.

  3. #3
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,281
    Climate change and Man-Made Climate change are two very different things.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,919
    [QUOTE=Trades;4436036]The debate isn't about climate change being real it is about the causes, if there is a solution or even one needed and whether the net effect will be good or bad for humanity.[/QUOTE]

    This.:cool:

    Too bad shifting the goalposts and obfuscation is the favored tactic of both sides of the argument. At least you are smart enough to see that, many are not.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,976
    People have spent the past 1,000 years sh*tting on their dinner plate. I pray for a meteor to wash this entire place away....would be entertaining to watch humanity convulse in it's last death throes.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,286
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4436059]People have spent the past 1,000 years sh*tting on their dinner plate. I pray for a meteor to wash this entire place away....would be entertaining to watch humanity convulse in it's last death throes.[/QUOTE]

    That is a bunch of tripe. For the past 100 years or so, right about the same time frame that we haven't been in a constant struggle for survival in the developed world, people have been predicting the end. It was claimed that pollution, ozone depletion, mass starvation, diseases (AIDS, SARS and the bird flu were going to kill us all, lol), overuse of natural resources, global warming, global cooling, nuclear winter, over population, etc would be our end before the turn of the century.

    Thankfully the doomsday prophecies are never accurate and rarely even close to being correct. We find new deposits of fossil fuels, innovate new energy sources, better use of our resources, improved farming, better medicine and life get more comfortable and some might even say better for most of us.

    Yes there are a lot of places in the 3rd world where suffering is common place. Most of these are ruled by dictators where a stones throw away people are living in the lap of luxury because they empower their people and allow for the rule of law and the trade of products and ideas for the betterment of their people.

  7. #7
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,281
    [SIZE="4"][B]YESTERDAY.[/B][/SIZE]
    [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dPNMuY8FSow/TbYeo05c3JI/AAAAAAAAB6M/O1QZxB5PE-c/s1600/Time+ice+age.jpg[/IMG]


    [SIZE="4"][B]TODAY.[/B][/SIZE]
    [IMG]http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2001/1101010409_400.jpg[/IMG]


    [SIZE="4"][B]SCIENCE![/B][/SIZE]

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,286
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4436102][SIZE=4][B]YESTERDAY.[/B][/SIZE]
    [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dPNMuY8FSow/TbYeo05c3JI/AAAAAAAAB6M/O1QZxB5PE-c/s1600/Time+ice+age.jpg[/IMG]


    [SIZE=4][B]TODAY.[/B][/SIZE]
    [IMG]http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2001/1101010409_400.jpg[/IMG]


    [SIZE=4][B]SCIENCE![/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

    A couple of things I find interesting in those covers...

    1. The middle entry on the banner of the old cover, "Why we can't beat the Soviets". :D

    2. Graphics have gotten much better. The imagery of the egg in the pan with the yolk being earth is cool looking.

    3. The old article is "51 things [B]YOU[/B] can do to make a difference". The new one is "Why isn't the government doing anything".

    <edit> 4. Is that a mushroom cloud over Canada?

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,564
    Fail thread is fail.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,949
    [QUOTE=Trades;4436036]The debate isn't about climate change being real it is about the causes, if there is a solution or even one needed and whether the net effect will be good or bad for humanity.[/QUOTE]

    Unfortunately, far too many people on both sides do not understand the distinction and true debate. As with most debates where agenda-driven politics are injected, we end up with nothing but a nonconstructive pissing match.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,180
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4436059]People have spent the past 1,000 years sh*tting on their dinner plate. I pray for a meteor to wash this entire place away....would be entertaining to watch humanity convulse in it's last death throes.[/QUOTE]

    LOL.

    We are killing ourselves and people don't realize it.

    The earth will fix itself once humanity is gone from existence. The ozone will repair and the forests will begin to spread again. It will take time, but it will repair itself.

    Ever see "Life after People"?

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,180
    [QUOTE=Trades;4436086]That is a bunch of tripe. For the past 100 years or so, right about the same time frame that we haven't been in a constant struggle for survival in the developed world, people have been predicting the end. It was claimed that pollution, ozone depletion, mass starvation, diseases (AIDS, [B][SIZE="3"]SAR[/SIZE][/B] and the bird flu were going to kill us all, lol), overuse of natural resources, global warming, global cooling, nuclear winter, over population, etc would be our end before the turn of the century.

    [/QUOTE]

    This board has been infected.:eek:

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,286
    [QUOTE=DDNYjets;4436163]LOL.

    We are killing ourselves and people don't realize it.

    The earth will fix itself once humanity is gone from existence. The ozone will repair and the forests will begin to spread again. It will take time, but it will repair itself.

    Ever see "Life after People"?[/QUOTE]

    The ozone has already repaired itself and the forests are spreading due to replanting. Much ado about nothing. Humanity has made mistakes and will continue to do so but fear-mongering isn't constructive.

    For example, DDT could have saved millions of lives in Africa but false fear-mongering by eco-nuts got it banned instead of limiting the use where it could be helpful. It was overused, that was the problem but banning it due to hysteria was a much worse decision.

    For example:
    [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria[/url]

  14. #14
    50 astronauts and scientists join to debunk “man made global warming”

    Seven Appolo astronauts are among the 50 people.

    Some of the most famous scientists in US history have joined forces to denounce the man made global warming hoax.

    From Washington Examiner…

    In an unprecedented slap at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists–including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center–claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency.

    Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency “refrain from including unproven remarks” supporting global warming in the media.

    “We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

    The letter was signed by seven Apollo astronauts, a deputy associate administrator, several scientists, and even the deputy director of the space shuttle program.

    NASA had no immediate comment.

    In their letter, the group said that thousands of years of data challenge modern-day claims that man-made carbon dioxide is causing climate change. “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from (NASA’s) Goddard Institute for Space Studies leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled,” they wrote.

  15. #15
    GloBULL warming is NOT man made, otherwise it would be systemic.

    Himalayan glaciers actually GAINING ice, space scans show

    A new study of survey data gleaned from space has shown a vast region of Himalayan glaciers is actually gaining ice steadily, mystifying climate scientists who had thought the planet's "third pole" to be melting.

    The study was carried out by comparing two sets of space data, the first gathered by instruments aboard the space shuttle Endeavour in 2000 and the second by the French SPOT5 satellite in 2008. The results were unequivocal. Across the targeted 5,615km2 region of the Karakorum mountains lying on the Chinese border with India and Pakistan, the glaciers had gained substantial amounts of mass by the time the second survey was carried out. Satellite pictures had previously shown the glaciers there spreading to cover more area, but some climate scientists had argued that they might nonetheless be losing ice by becoming thinner: this has now been disproven.

    “This is a solid, high-grade measurement,” glaciologist Graham Cogley commented, reviewing the paper published in Nature Geoscience. The study was led by Julie Gardelle of Grenoble uni in France.

    The melting or non-melting of the high Asian glaciers provides key underpinnings to climate models and sea-level forecasts and is thus crucial to the climate-change/global-warming debate. However it's actually very difficult to find out what's happening up in most of the valleys of the "third pole", as they are extremely hostile and inaccessible environments. This has led in recent years to attempts to get a proper handle on the situation using space surveys. As in this case, some of these new improved measurements have provided surprising results: a recent survey by the GRACE [Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment] satellites showed that overall the third pole appears not to be losing any mass at all.

    The new discoveries are in sharp contrast to the general narrative until recent times, which had assumed that the Asian glaciers were melting away rapidly. As recently as 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change formally predicted that all the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035: this was later found to be based on a bogus study issued by the hard-green campaigning group WWF. The IPCC retracted the claim, but stuck to its assertion that rapid melting is taking place.

  16. #16
    What the next BS story from the loons going to be, now that Al ( I made a half a bil. from the idiots and bought a sea front home) Gore's scam has been debunked?

    AuNews.co

    Ice expanding in much of Antarctica Eastern coast getting colder Western section remains a concern

    ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

    The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

    Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

    However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

    East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

    Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

    "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

    The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

    Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

    Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.

    Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

    "Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

    Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

    A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,919
    [QUOTE=Trades;4436185]The ozone has already repaired itself and the forests are spreading due to replanting. Much ado about nothing. Humanity has made mistakes and will continue to do so but fear-mongering isn't constructive.

    For example, DDT could have saved millions of lives in Africa but false fear-mongering by eco-nuts got it banned instead of limiting the use where it could be helpful. It was overused, that was the problem but banning it due to hysteria was a much worse decision.

    For example:
    [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria[/url][/QUOTE]

    Another one hit out of the park by Trades.

    :clapper:

    To the malaria/DDT topic; there's quite a bit of money to be made in creating and distributing a vaccine. Just sayin'.;)

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4436151]Fail thread is fail.[/QUOTE]

    for years we heard that global warming was not real.

    Then when the pictures kept circulating showing all the melting ice caps and rising sea levels it became "yes it is getting warmer....but man has nothing to do with it".

    Of course man has nothing to do with it. But the corporations that make billions producing coal, oil and natural gas have something to do with it. But since many of these companies make ridiculous profit they will not take kindly to pesky environmentalists trying to rain on their parade. One thing that these companies can do is buy influence (see lobbyists and politicians like James Inhofe (click on Inhofe's name);

    [url]http://www.dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?searchvalue=in&zip=&can=&com=&search=1&type=search[/url]

    And that money has been spent well.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4436338]for years we heard that global warming was not real.

    Then when the pictures kept circulating showing all the melting ice caps and rising sea levels it became "yes it is getting warmer....but man has nothing to do with it".

    Of course man has nothing to do with it. But the corporations that make billions producing coal, oil and natural gas have something to do with it. But since many of these companies make ridiculous profit they will not take kindly to pesky environmentalists trying to rain on their parade. One thing that these companies can do is buy influence (see lobbyists and politicians like James Inhofe (click on Inhofe's name);

    [url]http://www.dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?searchvalue=in&zip=&can=&com=&search=1&type=search[/url]

    And that money has been spent well.[/QUOTE]

    So you have irrefutable proof that those companies have led to ice caps melting at a higher rate than they ever have in the history of this planet?

    The more you post, the more I realize you should choose a different moniker...

  20. #20
    [url]http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/08/unbearable-news-for-doomsayers[/url]

    [QUOTE]It would come as no surprise if David Suzuki called an emergency meeting of his David Suzuki Foundation over the weekend to deal with the sad news that the North Pole was not melting.

    Every eco-system has its canary in the coal mine and, in the case of the Arctic, it¹s the polar bear - supposedly dying off, say doomsayers, because global warming is melting the very ice on which these bears need to hunt.

    The trouble with this, however, is that it's bogus.

    Our Nanooks of the North have never been healthier. An aerial survey of the northern shore of Hudson Bay, where the polar bear is supposedly most threatened, shows a population some 66% greater than what many scientists predicted.

    This should drive Suzuki apoplectic. The dying polar bear, after all, is his meal ticket. Its impending demise turned the lies of An Inconvenient Truth into a Nobel Prize for former U.S. vice president Al Gore.

    This is a very difficult bell to unring.

    The aerial survey's results, released last week by the Government of Nunavut, shows a bear population along Hudson Bay of 1,013 animals when the alarmists predicted the number would be as low as 610.

    These would likely be the same "scientists" used by David Suzuki for his sky-is-falling, ice-is-melting, canary-is-dying fundraisers which have Santa Claus drowning as the North Pole melts. What will they say now that this inconvenient truth has the polar bears flourishing, not dying off? It is a conundrum for the Suzuki crowd.

    "(The survey shows) the bear population is not in crisis as people believed," says Drikus Gissing, wildlife management director of Nunavut.

    "There is no doom and gloom."

    What? How could this be?

    Instead of listening to eco-opportunists, or university professors, we'd rather take the word of the Inuit. It's their hunting ground too, and they say the polar bear is far from being endangered.

    In fact, the 25,000 polar bears across Canada's Arctic is likely the highest number ever.

    We trust, therefore, that David Suzuki will call a press conference to explain his Chicken Little routine. He can use one of our Sun News studios for free.

    No charitable tax receipt necessary.[/QUOTE]


    Doomsdayers.....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us