Search options (Page 1 of 3)

It's extremely rare that nobody survives a crash landing.

Look at this sat picture
Given the position of the debris, I can't believe that the plane was prepared for landing when it hit the ground.

The landing strip where it had to land is only patrtly visible on the top of the photo, several degrees off the plan direction.

Also there is no trace on the ground of the plane crashing track (fallen trees, earth removed, etc) which suggest the debris fell before the plane was destroyed. The debris themselves opened a way through the woods, but nothing before that. The area between the debris and the road for example is intact. The road itself whould have been cut.

This article excatly reflects my personal opinion.

1/ Attempts at reducing global temperatures will be without visible effect. I'll add that we are not able to change weather globaly with the current state of our technology and finances.

2/ Funds to fight global warming will divert, not add to, funds for third world aid where it will be more useful.

3/ Emerging countries think only about the money they expect us to give them. Won't happen.
But the worse is that emerging countries didn't get to the principle of reducing CO2 emissions. Only to the principle of getting cash from western countries.
Again 2/3 of the world is not in the bandwagon.

4/ Environementalist are way off the realities and way of the boundaries of reason whit their requests.

TBS, I don't agree with the pseudo-scientific argument that we don't have to do anything because anyway we had x cold period and y heat periods in the last z years.

IMO one should create a new word: Palinism

A meaningless phrase uttered by an intellectualy inept person in an attempt to give an answer or make a comment.

What an extra 2°C globaly would do?

I think that for most of the planet there shouldn't be catastrohpic changes. It can be even positive for the total biomass and rainfalls.
Even rising sea levels will be small and poeple will have time to relocate.

However there are 7 billions poeple on this planet and many of them live on the edge of the climate limits. This population have grown under a certain environement, adapted to it so well and so specificaly to the point of maximum density that a re-adaptation can be made only at huge economic and demographic costs.

A change in the environement wether it be more rain, more heat, more drought will put the populations at risk in jeopardy. Not humanity.
The problem is that population at risk are disproportionate today. We have seen that in the tragedy of the tsunami in eastern Aisa in 2004. A typhoon, aforest fire, a flood inevitably wipes out hundreds of poeple and displace thousands. The economic cost of every single natural event is in the billions.

Moreover, if one million poeple die in a natural disaster it won't make any significant difference in the global or even regional population. But the pain, the economic loss, the new poverty created and the social instability is huge because of the density of the population.
And the problem will remain despite all the deaths and disapeared.

We are 7 billions on Earth but we seem incapable of relocating one million as seen for example in the Palestinian conflict.
If the sea rises one meter, we will face 500 Palestinian conflicts.
We could adapt to anything if we had room to move. But we don't.
Everywhere you go, the land is already occupied by a population and this population is already living near maximum capacity. A treshold where more immigrant is causing an imbalance and an unacceptable loss for the locals.

That's why IMO, there is a wind of panic at the global warming issue.