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.
REX TILLERSON: “I don’t see it as the imminent national security threat as perhaps others do.”
MERKELY: “One of the things that’s noted is how the changing climate in the Middle East concentrated Syrian villages into the towns and sparked the civil war that has now produced something like four million and counting refugees having profound impacts on European security, and that would be an example. Is that something you’ve looked at or considered to be real or perhaps misleading? Any thoughts in that regard?”
TILLERSON: “The facts on the ground are indisputable in terms of what’s happening with drought, disease, insect populations, all the things you cite, but the science behind the clear connection is not conclusive. And, there are many reports out there that we are unable yet to connect specific events to climate change alone.”
MERKELY: “What we’re seeing are a lot of scientific reports that will say we can tell you the odds increased, we can’t tell you any specific event was the direct consequence. For example, hurricane Sandy might have occurred in a hundred year period but the odds of it happening are higher with the higher sea level, the higher energy in the storms. So, do you agree with that view point that the– essentially that the odds of dramatic events occurring whether it’s more forest fires or more hurricanes with more power is a rational observation from the scientific literature?”
TILLERSON: “I think as you indicated, there’s some literature out there that suggests that. There’s other literature that says it’s inconclusive.”
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: VengefulGhost
Or focusing the real problem, environmental pollution. Of which carbon emissions are one aspect.
originally posted by: VengefulGhost
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: VengefulGhost
Or focusing the real problem, environmental pollution. Of which carbon emissions are one aspect.
But then the politicians wouldnt get their pocket money from scamming everyone . Then theres the doing things logically aspect to that which would totally elude the politicians .
originally posted by: Gandalf77
I believe Trump has indicated he thinks climate change is a conspiracy invented by China.
So my guess is that his administration will give climate change one giant, collective golden shower.
Why pump 600 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere when you can turn that waste product into something useful and make more money while doing so?