It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SuperFrog
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: SuperFrog
california has plenty of water but they are mismanaging it over a SMELT. a fish that dont effect the environment hardly at all.
Can you provide evidence to your claim??
Year No. 4 of California's severe, long-term drought will be a turning point, because the state might not have enough water in the reservoirs to make it to next year, according to one NASA water expert.
Jay Famiglietti, NASA's senior water scientist, wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that the Golden State has depleted its water resources so much that it'll all be gone in about one year. He came to his conclusion by using NASA satellites to study maps of the San Joaquin and Sacramento river basins.
"We're not just up a creek without a paddle in California, we're losing the creek too," he wrote.
Source: www.weather.com...
For your info, snow that would help... well it's not there...
www.nbclosangeles.com...
March 2015 was the warmest March since record-keeping began in 1880, says the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association. And the first quarter of 2015 was the warmest first quarter on record in those same 136 years.
That gives 2015 a stab at trumping the hottest year on record -- which was 2014.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
Who in your mind actually pays taxes?
Does getting a refund mean you paid no taxes?
Also doubt ole barry is reading this, and if he was it wouldn't be his call alone
You think the current congress would allow such a vast amount of money to just be re-distributed out?
And of course it is only our 'liberal' gov that takes this stance, all over the rest of the world they agree with you I bet.
/sarcasm
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tridentblue
Yea, I can understand why people don't believe it. It's something that changes very slightly with each year and humans are notoriously short sighted. So it is no surprise that they wouldn't believe these things, but it should be noted that this past 2015 winter was the warmest on record. The only place that was cold, was the east coast. Naturally, these politicians are located on the east coast... Sooooo... They stupidly think the whole world shared similar temperatures.
originally posted by: yuppa
You wanted some more information i have it.
water shortage info
Yes i know Joe the plumbers site. I have another for ya that touches on the same issues
Water shortage info 2
SO im not just stating something blindly.
originally posted by: pikestaff
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tridentblue
Yea, I can understand why people don't believe it. It's something that changes very slightly with each year and humans are notoriously short sighted. So it is no surprise that they wouldn't believe these things, but it should be noted that this past 2015 winter was the warmest on record. The only place that was cold, was the east coast. Naturally, these politicians are located on the east coast... Sooooo... They stupidly think the whole world shared similar temperatures.
And yet all 50 states were cold, the great lakes started to freeze two weeks early, some states had four times their usual amount of snow, Arctic ice was at it highest in years, (just like the south pole is now), yes warm alright.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Is religion not a means of worship ? Science is looking for truth and true religion looks for the truth . Difference is that one looks to the material world while the other looks to the spiritual world . Religion is a difference of text books and the beliefs about those text books .
It is insulting to call science a religion
Not. EVEN. close. Science is defined by the scientific method that requires us to gather evidence and use that evidence to describe a process in the universe; it updates itself regularly as new evidence is brought to light. Religion is a dogmatic set of beliefs that is unchangeable. Religion doesn't leave room for being wrong. At no point do the religious ever consider that their beliefs could be wrong, because that would shake their faith. Science on the other hand REVELS in people doubting its claims.
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Good! As a taxpayer I am happy to see at least some judicious use of my money rather than wasting it on crackpot theories which have gained "consensus" purely due to funding threats and shouting down of dissent.
And by crackpot theories, you mean really good scientific work by some of the smartest, brightest people in the world?
And then even worse...the funding cuts proposed aren't really for any of "them dang crackpot theories" They're to collect data so that we'll have real and good information to make informed decisions.
You get that they're cutting science and data collection, so that we'll know what's really going on.
originally posted by: intrepid
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: amazing
But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?
When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.
Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.
That's the thing Beez. It's NOT politicized outside the US. Outside of the US it's scientific fact. There reason for the politicization is because it doesn't feed American lobbies and would actually cost money to do anything about this.
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: intrepid
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: amazing
But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?
When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.
Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.
That's the thing Beez. It's NOT politicized outside the US. Outside of the US it's scientific fact. There reason for the politicization is because it doesn't feed American lobbies and would actually cost money to do anything about this.
That is one of the more dumb things I could have read all day.
EVERYTHING is politicized EVERYWHERE, ALL OF THE TIME.
And this topic is likely even MORE politicized around the world than here.
What planet you on ??
originally posted by: ParasuvO
originally posted by: intrepid
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: amazing
But what about all the Scientists The "97%" ? of them? I'll admit the number probably isn't 97%, but it's a majority. And then you have good scientific organizations like NASA. If you don't believe them about climate change or man made warming, then why would you trust them on anything like aliens or the moon landings?
When science becomes politicised, then all data must be suspect.
Because you can't honestly sit there and state that it hasn't.
That's the thing Beez. It's NOT politicized outside the US. Outside of the US it's scientific fact. There reason for the politicization is because it doesn't feed American lobbies and would actually cost money to do anything about this.
That is one of the more dumb things I could have read all day.
EVERYTHING is politicized EVERYWHERE, ALL OF THE TIME.
And this topic is likely even MORE politicized around the world than here.
What planet you on ??
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Crackpot theories? Really?!? Crackpot theories is Congressmen Smith attending more meetings on aliens than on climate change real or imagined. How are you going to be informed on a matter if you don't even read up on the background reading? Then Smith has the GALL to say that climate change is unproven. Typical science denialism...
Dude, I've learned on here that most of the denialists have NOT read the actual studies. They frequently bring up such things as natural climate change, sun cycles, etc, when ALL of those are already addressed and accounted for.
Generally speaking, they don't have relevant scientific training either (if they have any at all).
Sorry denialists, your biochemistry degree or engineering degree doesn't make you magically a climate scientist.
originally posted by: ParasuvO
Scientific training, lol, that often means, being made wholly to believe in a flawed system.
Religion and science, no difference much of the time.