Massive Iceberg breaks off... photo's - Page 4

"earth heats up, some ice melts, more clouds are formed which insulates and keep earth cooler.
more co2 is available, plants grow faster (especially with the added rain) and more oxygen is produced."

Uh, yeah, you're not a scientist I take it.

when I want to school, the big fear was global freezing.......now its global warming........next will be that the sky is falling.......

Bullshit.  That global cooling crap was never accepted by mainstream scientists no matter how much Fux news tries to convince people otherwise.

in 1977, as we had to write reports on how we would survive when the cooling arrived. how food would be produced, where people could live, how we could survive.....my report was about, living in caves and harvesting mushrooms. using super insulated windows in green houses to grow meger crops....having small family groups to guard and protect the food we had from raiders.
i was terrified!

same crap they're making our kids deal with.......only heating, not cooling.


same as india.......

definately main stream media
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm 

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here. A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here.

We invite readers interested in finding out about both sides of the debate over global warming to visit our website: Climate Debate Daily — Denis Dutton

 

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

—PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports

"...main stream media..."

More bullshit.  Several studies have concluded that the media has a pronounced conservative slant and why wouldn't it?  The media is controlled by conservatives and their corporate interests.  "Mainstream media" is a cop out used by conservatives when they have no other way to explain why their politicians are as absolutely corrupt and moronc as they are much in the same way they use "his policies" to explain why they don't like Obama when what they really mean is that he's not white.

SM, I sure hope you are right, but you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong too. What's  the harm in all of us trying to do what we can to minimize our contribution to greenhouse gas production?  I'll betcha if Obama would have said - there is no such thing as global warming, you'd have a completely different take on this.

The tail is wagging the dog, the tail being politicans looking for re-election, the dog being the Obama/Democrat hating  sector of the American public who would rather watch cable news than do their due dilligence. Why shouldn't industry have to do their part to keep our environment as free of pollutants as possible? That's really what its all about, the dangers of greenhouse gases are well documented. Some politicans don't want their fat cat pals to have to pay for things like scrubbers, outfitting their workers with the appropriate person protection and developing alternative energy.  Less fossil fuel use, less oil produced, less profit for the oil industry. If you think that they have YOUR your best interests at heart, you are wrong. 

You say you are concerned about mercury, lead, benzene, why not CO2? What's the difference, all are pollutants. I worked within EPA regulatory confines for many years and was involved with OSHA training and inspections. I promise you if it were not for EPA and state regs our air would be a lot more contaminated than it is now. Do you really think industry would self-govern with our health mind? Ever drive by Love Canal?

This whole controversy is not about the dangers of greenhouse gasses, it's about the republicans et al trying to protecting industry from having to pay a fine if they don't keep their ommissions within the safe range and from purchasing the equipment necessary to do and training the workers how to use it safely. They don't want EPA "interfering" in their business practices.  If EPA is eliminated get ready for future health issues like we have not seen since the 19th, early 20th century when workers died form inhaling the fumes from lime burning furnaces, coal miners died at 40 from black lung, sawyers had their arms and legs amputed using unsafe equipment.

Keep on drinking the Kool Aid believing that industry will self-govern and do the right thing. They won't - money is the name of the game and we are pawns. You will never find a CEO of an oil company living where there is any chance of fall out from faulty or non existent scrubbers. They live in very pristine parts of the country far away from industrial pollutants. Why?


 

nope he's not 100% white, but not so black either.

His father is in fact Arabic Kenyan, not black Kenyan. Almost his entire family line on his father's side consists of Arabic males (which is where he receives his y chromosome from). The one black Kenyan ancestor in his family line is one generation removed. The chance of him being the male who passed on his y chromosome is too low to allow Barack Obama yo consider himself black as he would have had to "compete" with 7 other males. Therefore, Barack Obama is in fact Arabic American.

Arabic and Kenyan are not races. Those are ethnic labels. If his mother is white and his father is Kenyan, then he is white and white unless his father is a Black Kenyan.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_race_were_Barack_Obama's_parents#ixzz22OO587KV

that makes him about.......
6.25% Black
43.75% Arab
50.00% White



mainstream media in NOT conservative, and not controlled by conservatives it has been "bought and paid for"..... just one example...

The Soros media connections include:

• An investor in the Times Mirror Company, Soros funded the Project on Media Ownership, headed by Professor Mark Crispin Miller at New York University. Whose purpose was expose “media concentration.” A total of $300,000 over several years came from George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI). In 1999, a survey commissioned by the Project on Media Ownership and the Benton Foundation and paid for by OSI found that seventy-nine percent of adults would favor a law requiring commercial broadcasters to pay 5 percent of their revenues into a fund for public broadcasting.

• Eric Alterman of The Nation has hailed Soros for spending millions on “education campaigns with America Coming Together, voter mobilization drives with MoveOn.org and research activities with the Center for American Progress (CAP)–where I am a senior fellow?” Alterman says his own magazine, The Nation, is viewed as out of the mainstream in part because of “the continued appearance in its pages of a long-time Stalinist communist, Alexander Cockburn, whose unabashed hatred for both America and Israel … tarnish the reputation of its otherwise serious contributors.” Alterman’s mentor, I.F. Stone, was a paid agent of the KGB and a Stalinist.

• In the Los Angeles Times Book Review, Orville Schell said that Soros had written a ”succinct and well-reasoned book,” The Bubble of American Supremacy, which ought “to provide a welcome template for how the candidates might begin to think their way through to a more coherent view of America’s place in the world.” Soros had spoken on March 3 at the Goldman Forum on the Press and Foreign Affairs, sponsored by UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. The event was a conversation between Soros and Journalism Dean Orville Schell.

• OSI gave $60,000 to the Independent Media Institute , whose executive director, Don Hazen, is a former publisher of Mother Jones. Hazen has called Soros a “progressive philanthropist.” A story carried by the Independent Media Institute on its AlterNet project says Soros “believes in democracy, positive international relations and effective strategies to reduce poverty, among other things.”

• OSI gave a $75,000 grant to the Center for Investigative Reporting. The group’s board of advisers includes prominent journalists.

• OSI gave $246,528 to the Center for Public Integrity, headed by former CBS News producer Charles Lewis, “to support the continuing expansion of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.” A total of $1 million went for “the Global Access Project.” In total, it is estimated that the group has received $1.7 from Soros.

• OSI gave $200,000 to the Fund for Investigative Journalism. This group, too, features prominent journalists on its board.

• OSI’s “Network Media Program” gave $22,157 to Investigative Reporters & Editors.

• Soros Foundations have provided $160,000 to MediaChannel.org, a so-called “media issues supersite, featuring criticism, breaking news, and investigative reporting from hundreds of organizations worldwide.” The executive editor is Danny Schecter, a former news program producer and investigative reporter at CNN and ABC. It was created by Globalvision News Network, whose board includes “Senior executives from the world’s leading media firms.”

• OSI has contributed $70,000 toward the far-left Independent Media Center, or Indymedia, known as an “independent newsgathering collective,” whose servers were seized by a federal law enforcement agency on October 7. The action was apparently related to an investigation into international terrorism, kidnapping or money laundering.

• OSI provided $600,000 to the Media Access Project, a so-called telecommunications public interest law firm critical of conservative influence in the major media.

• OSI provide $30,000 to the Media Awareness Project, a “worldwide network dedicated to drug policy reform” and promoting “balanced media coverage” of the drug issue.

• OSI provided $200,000 to the Association for Progressive Communications, “an international network?working for peace, human rights, development and protection of the environment?”

Considering all of the money that Soros or his organizations have provided to news organizations, it should be no surprise to learn that journalists love him. His web site advises visitors to “read about George Soros from The New York Times, USA Today, Time Magazine, et al.,” all of which are reprinted on the site and highly favorable. His new web site features several complimentary statements about Soros from articles in the press and media figures.

Either the media fear his wealth and power, they favor his positions on the issues, or they want access to his money. The people have a right to know.

http://www.aim.org/special-report/the-hidden-soros-agenda-drugs-money-the-media-and-political-power/
 

 nevernenn


never mind

details are a bummer!