This is a vital issue and concerns National Security who will drop this ball

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter amp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ball Drop Security
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of climate change and national security, particularly in relation to U.S. government actions and policies. Participants explore the reliability of sources reporting on these issues and the potential consequences of climate-related events.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the credibility of sources like The Observer and The Guardian, suggesting they often publish unreliable information.
  • There are claims that significant climate events, such as changes in the Gulf Stream, have been occurring for over a century and are not solely the result of recent political actions.
  • One participant argues that while extinction-level events may be probable, the Earth itself will not end, emphasizing the need for awareness of climate change impacts.
  • Another participant suggests that the U.S. administration should acknowledge the importance of man-induced climate change as a national security concern and explore technological solutions to address it.
  • Concerns are raised about the effectiveness of international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, with calls for a new agreement that is scientifically sound and practically implementable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the reliability of information sources and the extent of government responsibility regarding climate change. There is no consensus on the best approach to address these issues or the implications for national security.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various historical climate events and political actions, indicating a complex interplay of factors influencing current discussions. The discussion reflects differing opinions on the role of government and the effectiveness of international agreements in addressing climate change.

amp
as this article points out Bushco is well on their way to fumbling the ball.

see here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4864237-102275,00.html :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, I just could not bring myself to read any further than...

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer,
 
I'm getting a sense of deja vu here. Consider the source. The Observer is a cheap-ass lame newspaper that prints fake/rubbish news all the time, I don't think there are many people in Britain who take it seriously.

The same goes for the Guardian...
 
Last edited:
The world has come to an end several times during my life. You'll get used to it. Remember the coming ice age? I think that George Bush's great grandfather was responsible for that one. Thank god FDR canceled the funding for the ice age, thereby avoiding another republican disaster.
 
As far as I know, the EARTH won't end per se but extinction level events may occur. This situation is very probable. We will know for sure if the currrent known as the 'Great Conveyor Belt' shuts down by then it would be a bit late.
 
Amp needs to obtain his scientific knowledge from a more reliable source. I suggest the National Inquirer published in the US, as two or three times a year it prints a fact. Numerous articles, both pro and con, by learned writers have described the potentially disastrous Gulf Stream hypothesis. There is NO secrecy involved in this issue, nor that of 99.99% of similar, “secret” issues.

If climatic changes were to alter the flow of the Gulf Stream, the changes began at least a century before GW took office. In short, president Bush did nothing to initiate it, can do nothing to stop it in the short term of two decades. The emergence of China and other Asian countries as major contributors to climatic change (if such changes are not occurring via natural causes) will make any effort by the US meaningless. The Kyoto Treaty needs to be replaced by one having realistic means of implementation by all countries, one that embodies good science, one that does not embody feel good, socialistic, political dogma.
 
Geniere, Bush did not initiate such change. My point is his admin could get their heads out of the sand and stop pretending as if MAN induced climate change isn't an important NS concern. In fact, they should be exploring ways that technology, the expanding world populace, the dwindling resources(alternatives must be invested) and nature can be ecologically joined.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
13K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K