__________________
Senast redigerad av Trumpetflugan 2017-06-12 kl. 21:30.
Senast redigerad av Trumpetflugan 2017-06-12 kl. 21:30.
Tre år kvar till Armageddon
I en artikel från 2004 i the Guardian målas en skrämmande bild upp hur klimatförändringarna kommer att påverka vår jord:
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
Man fortsätter:
Känner ni igen denna typ av argumentation?
Jo, jo, samtliga "usual suspect" verkar ha hängt på:
Ja, se dessa presidenter:
Tre år kvar, tjejer och grabbar! Tre år kvar! Sedan är det tack för kaffet!:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Som sagt, de här med att framföra olika scenarier. Jo, det har man nog lyckats med under åren som gått sedan dess.
I en artikel från 2004 i the Guardian målas en skrämmande bild upp hur klimatförändringarna kommer att påverka vår jord:
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
Citat:
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.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
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.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
Man fortsätter:
Citat:
Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Känner ni igen denna typ av argumentation?
Citat:
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
Jo, jo, samtliga "usual suspect" verkar ha hängt på:
Citat:
A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.
Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
/.../
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
/.../
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
Ja, se dessa presidenter:
Citat:
'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. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Tre år kvar, tjejer och grabbar! Tre år kvar! Sedan är det tack för kaffet!:
Citat:
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.'
Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.
'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'
Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.
'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Som sagt, de här med att framföra olika scenarier. Jo, det har man nog lyckats med under åren som gått sedan dess.
Citat:
Jag skulle ha större förståelse om du lade fram detta som stöd för något du hävdade. Nu använder du detta som ett förmodat argument från "vår sida", att angripa. Detta är inget argument någon i tråden lagt fram. Detta är i det närmaste definitionen av en halmdocka. Tre år kvar till Armageddon
I en artikel från 2004 i the Guardian målas en skrämmande bild upp hur klimatförändringarna kommer att påverka vår jord:
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
Man fortsätter:
Känner ni igen denna typ av argumentation?
Jo, jo, samtliga "usual suspect" verkar ha hängt på:
Ja, se dessa presidenter:
Tre år kvar, tjejer och grabbar! Tre år kvar! Sedan är det tack för kaffet!:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Som sagt, de här med att framföra olika scenarier. Jo, det har man nog lyckats med under åren som gått sedan dess.
I en artikel från 2004 i the Guardian målas en skrämmande bild upp hur klimatförändringarna kommer att påverka vår jord:
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
Man fortsätter:
Känner ni igen denna typ av argumentation?
Jo, jo, samtliga "usual suspect" verkar ha hängt på:
Ja, se dessa presidenter:
Tre år kvar, tjejer och grabbar! Tre år kvar! Sedan är det tack för kaffet!:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Som sagt, de här med att framföra olika scenarier. Jo, det har man nog lyckats med under åren som gått sedan dess.
Citat:
A *straw man*is a common form of*argumentand is an*informal fallacy*based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]*One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
A *straw man*is a common form of*argumentand is an*informal fallacy*based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]*One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
__________________
Senast redigerad av Trumpetflugan 2017-06-12 kl. 21:43.
Senast redigerad av Trumpetflugan 2017-06-12 kl. 21:43.
__________________
Senast redigerad av Trumpetflugan 2017-06-12 kl. 22:06.
Senast redigerad av Trumpetflugan 2017-06-12 kl. 22:06.
__________________
Senast redigerad av Trumpetflugan 2017-06-12 kl. 22:51.
Senast redigerad av Trumpetflugan 2017-06-12 kl. 22:51.
Citat:
Det följer en linje efter Xenonens inlägg där han besvarade mitt inlägg om nyansering i media, och knyter också an till vad jag anser om era "projektioner". Hur ska vi ställa oss till det ni påstår idag? Vilken tilltro ska vi ha till vad som skrivs i tidningarna och visas på TV samt hörs på radio? För det som skrevs i the Guardian 2004 var en gång en del av ert narrativ.
Källkritik
Det är alldeles utmärkt att du inser att man bör betrakta det som presenteras i media med skepsis och försöka se vilka källor som refereras till och utvärdera trovärdigheten hos de källor som anges.
Det som är totalt obegripligt är att, om du nu har denna förmåga till källkritik, hur kan du då samtidigt vara totalt befriad från samma förmåga till källkritik när du refererar till en godtycklig video på Youtube eller bloggar och andra sajter på internet som inte ens anger källor och som lätt kan överbevisas om att sprida falska och påhittade budskap och som bara uppfyller ett krav. Att misstänkliggöra all information som kommer från etablerad forskning, etablerade referentgranskade vetenskapliga tidskrifter, välrenommerade universitet och etablerade organisationer som t.ex. NASA och NOAA.
Kan du förklara det på ett sätt som går att förstå? Jag hoppas du inser att ditt agerande påminner om religiös fanatism…
Det är samma argumentationsteknik som används av chemtrailare och kreationister.
USAs medborgare tycker inte som Trump om CO2 och koleldning
"Percentage of adults per congressional district who support strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fired power plants"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fcl im ate&action=click&contentCollection=climate®ion= rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlac ement=9&pgtype=sectionfront
69% av USAs medborgare tycker att kolförbränning och CO2-utsläpp ska minska. I samtliga "congressional districts" (455 valdistrikt som var och ett väljer en kongressledamot) är andelen som vill minska kolförbränning och CO2-utsläpp över 50%.
–
Citat:
De riktiga grodorna hittar jag ju i MSM, ibland i riktigt etablerade sådana. Så allvarliga att man sedan får gå in och rätta:Källkritik
Det är alldeles utmärkt att du inser att man bör betrakta det som presenteras i media med skepsis och försöka se vilka källor som refereras till och utvärdera trovärdigheten hos de källor som anges.
Det som är totalt obegripligt är att, om du nu har denna förmåga till källkritik, hur kan du då samtidigt vara totalt befriad från samma förmåga till källkritik när du refererar till en godtycklig video på Youtube eller bloggar och andra sajter på internet som inte ens anger källor och som lätt kan överbevisas om att sprida falska och påhittade budskap och som bara uppfyller ett krav. Att misstänkliggöra all information som kommer från etablerad forskning, etablerade referentgranskade vetenskapliga tidskrifter, välrenommerade universitet och etablerade organisationer som t.ex. NASA och NOAA.
Kan du förklara det på ett sätt som går att förstå? Jag hoppas du inser att ditt agerande påminner om religiös fanatism…
Det är samma argumentationsteknik som används av chemtrailare och kreationister.
USAs medborgare tycker inte som Trump om CO2 och koleldning
"Percentage of adults per congressional district who support strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fired power plants"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fcl im ate&action=click&contentCollection=climate®ion= rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlac ement=9&pgtype=sectionfront
69% av USAs medborgare tycker att kolförbränning och CO2-utsläpp ska minska. I samtliga "congressional districts" (455 valdistrikt som var och ett väljer en kongressledamot) är andelen som vill minska kolförbränning och CO2-utsläpp över 50%.
–
Det är alldeles utmärkt att du inser att man bör betrakta det som presenteras i media med skepsis och försöka se vilka källor som refereras till och utvärdera trovärdigheten hos de källor som anges.
Det som är totalt obegripligt är att, om du nu har denna förmåga till källkritik, hur kan du då samtidigt vara totalt befriad från samma förmåga till källkritik när du refererar till en godtycklig video på Youtube eller bloggar och andra sajter på internet som inte ens anger källor och som lätt kan överbevisas om att sprida falska och påhittade budskap och som bara uppfyller ett krav. Att misstänkliggöra all information som kommer från etablerad forskning, etablerade referentgranskade vetenskapliga tidskrifter, välrenommerade universitet och etablerade organisationer som t.ex. NASA och NOAA.
Kan du förklara det på ett sätt som går att förstå? Jag hoppas du inser att ditt agerande påminner om religiös fanatism…
Det är samma argumentationsteknik som används av chemtrailare och kreationister.
USAs medborgare tycker inte som Trump om CO2 och koleldning
"Percentage of adults per congressional district who support strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fired power plants"
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fcl im ate&action=click&contentCollection=climate®ion= rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlac ement=9&pgtype=sectionfront
69% av USAs medborgare tycker att kolförbränning och CO2-utsläpp ska minska. I samtliga "congressional districts" (455 valdistrikt som var och ett väljer en kongressledamot) är andelen som vill minska kolförbränning och CO2-utsläpp över 50%.
–
Citat:
Oops:
The North Pole is melting.
The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday. At least for the time being, an ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, something that has presumably never before been seen by humans and is more evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate.
The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago.
''It was totally unexpected,'' said Dr. James J. McCarthy, an oceanographer, director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University and the co-leader of a group working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is sponsored by the United Nations. The panel is studying the potential environmental and economic consequences of marked climate change.
Dr. McCarthy was a lecturer on a tourist cruise in the Arctic aboard a Russian icebreaker earlier this month. On a similar cruise six years ago, he recalled, the icebreaker plowed through an icecap six to nine feet thick at the North Pole.
This time, ice was generally so thin that sunlight could penetrate and support concentrations of plankton growing under the ice. Dr. McCarthy said the icebreaker's Russian captain, who has made the voyage 10 times in recent years, said he had never before encountered open water at the pole.
The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday. At least for the time being, an ice-free patch of ocean about a mile wide has opened at the very top of the world, something that has presumably never before been seen by humans and is more evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate.
The last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago.
''It was totally unexpected,'' said Dr. James J. McCarthy, an oceanographer, director of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University and the co-leader of a group working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is sponsored by the United Nations. The panel is studying the potential environmental and economic consequences of marked climate change.
Dr. McCarthy was a lecturer on a tourist cruise in the Arctic aboard a Russian icebreaker earlier this month. On a similar cruise six years ago, he recalled, the icebreaker plowed through an icecap six to nine feet thick at the North Pole.
This time, ice was generally so thin that sunlight could penetrate and support concentrations of plankton growing under the ice. Dr. McCarthy said the icebreaker's Russian captain, who has made the voyage 10 times in recent years, said he had never before encountered open water at the pole.
Citat:
Correction: August 29, 2000, Tuesday A front-page article on Aug. 19 and a brief report on Aug. 20 in The Week in Review about the sighting of open water at the North Pole misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice there. A clear spot has probably opened at the pole before, scientists say, because about 10 percent of the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice in a typical summer. The reports also referred incompletely to the link between the open water and global warming. The lack of ice at the pole is not necessarily related to global warming. New studies of the polar icepack and its recent changes are reported today in Science Times on Page F3.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/19/us/ages-old-icecap-at-north-pole-is-now-liquid-scientists-find.html
Ibland är det regeringars experter som fabulerar friskt:
Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally
Citat:
Sir David said that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - the main "green- house gas" causing climate change - were already 50 per cent higher than at any time in the past 420,000 years. The last time they were at this level - 379 parts per million - was 60 million years ago during a rapid period of global warming, he said. Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million, causing a massive reduction of life.
"No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life," he said.
Sir David warned that if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels "we will reach that level by 2100".
"No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life," he said.
Sir David warned that if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels "we will reach that level by 2100".
http://web.archive.org/web/20100817023019/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/why-antarctica-will-soon-be-the-ionlyi-place-to-live--literally-561947.html
Och så har vi USA:s befolkning. Vad ska man säga? NIMBY? At the end of the day...
Voters Aren't Willing to Pay to Fight Climate Change
Citat:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters think the accord’s requirement that the United States reduce fossil fuel emissions by nearly 30% by 2025 would increase energy costs. Just 20% believe the requirement would decrease the cost of energy, while 23% say it would have no impact. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/voters_aren_t_willing_to_pay_to_fight_climate_chan ge
Skapa ett konto eller logga in för att kommentera
Du måste vara medlem för att kunna kommentera