How to Solve Conflicts Between Countries AND Global Warming

[nakatago]

According to NASA, the answer is: a regional nuclear war.

NASA GISS' computer modelers (Luke Oman et al.) were trying to solve the "global warming crisis" and they found a solution: a regional nuclear war, for example between India and Pakistan, would reduce floods and cool the Earth by 1.25 °C - some places by 3-4 °C. After a decade, the temperature would still be 0.9 °C lower than before the war.

Sauce: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/02/nasa- ... rs-of.html

The war hawks are just gonna love this and they'll also get the tree huggers off their backs. Remember, the planet will be fine; it's humankind who's f***ed.

JR8, what sayeth thou?

[Expat_guy]

According to NASA, the answer is: a regional nuclear war.

The war hawks are just gonna love this and they'll also get the tree huggers off their backs. Remember, the planet will be fine; it's humankind who's f***ed.

JR8, what sayeth thou?

For some countries war is a business. Weapon industry contribute a major portion of their GDP and these countries can go to any length, can tell any sort of lies, to provoke other countries to go on war. No surprise if these countries provoke an nuclear war between India and pakistan.

[ksl]

There is no need to worry, nature will take its course on global warming, it will wipe out many humans and army's when the time is right! Nuclear war will not have much effect, on what is already in motion. We and our grandchildren will not see it, unless the 2012 prediction comes true!

The greed and the race to dominate is at fault, religion in itself is at fault too, though maybe Singapore will be spared, as it works hard for harmony

Can the clock be turned back, yes it can! But at what cost to society and will society accept it?

[intellectualsmuse]

According to NASA, the answer is: a regional nuclear war.

NASA GISS' computer modelers (Luke Oman et al.) were trying to solve the "global warming crisis" and they found a solution: a regional nuclear war, for example between India and Pakistan, would reduce floods and cool the Earth by 1.25 °C - some places by 3-4 °C. After a decade, the temperature would still be 0.9 °C lower than before the war.

Sauce: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/02/nasa- ... rs-of.html

The war hawks are just gonna love this and they'll also get the tree huggers off their backs. Remember, the planet will be fine; it's humankind who's f***ed.

JR8, what sayeth thou?

And what happens if NASA is wrong?

[nakatago]

According to NASA, the answer is: a regional nuclear war.

NASA GISS' computer modelers (Luke Oman et al.) were trying to solve the "global warming crisis" and they found a solution: a regional nuclear war, for example between India and Pakistan, would reduce floods and cool the Earth by 1.25 °C - some places by 3-4 °C. After a decade, the temperature would still be 0.9 °C lower than before the war.

Sauce: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/02/nasa- ... rs-of.html

The war hawks are just gonna love this and they'll also get the tree huggers off their backs. Remember, the planet will be fine; it's humankind who's f***ed.

JR8, what sayeth thou?

And what happens if NASA is wrong?

I guess I forgot to mention that aside from global cooling due to a nuclear blast, we'd also experience warmer Arctic/Antarctic regions, years without summer, famine, less crops and more holes in the ozone layer.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... te-change/

[intellectualsmuse]

According to NASA, the answer is: a regional nuclear war.
Sauce: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/02/nasa- ... rs-of.html

The war hawks are just gonna love this and they'll also get the tree huggers off their backs. Remember, the planet will be fine; it's humankind who's f***ed.

JR8, what sayeth thou?

And what happens if NASA is wrong?

I guess I forgot to mention that aside from global cooling due to a nuclear blast, we'd also experience warmer Arctic/Antarctic regions, years without summer, famine, less crops and more holes in the ozone layer.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... te-change/

Sorry, the sarcasm was obviously lost on me... am getting older *sigh*

[JR8]

According to NASA, the answer is: a regional nuclear war.

NASA GISS' computer modelers (Luke Oman et al.) were trying to solve the "global warming crisis" and they found a solution: a regional nuclear war, for example between India and Pakistan, would reduce floods and cool the Earth by 1.25 °C - some places by 3-4 °C. After a decade, the temperature would still be 0.9 °C lower than before the war.

Sauce: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/02/nasa- ... rs-of.html

The war hawks are just gonna love this and they'll also get the tree huggers off their backs. Remember, the planet will be fine; it's humankind who's f***ed.

JR8, what sayeth thou?

Ooh-err, I nearly missed this topic.

My opinion is that a lot of the tree huggers would not mind seeing humankind f'd. So in that respect it is the ideal solution for them.

Recall that John Holdren Obama's current science/climate was an advocate of enforced abortion/sterilisation back in the 70s, in order to control the climate in the face of the 'impending ice age'. Classy eh?!

Meanwhile enjoy this breath-of-sanity article...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... dependent/

[nakatago]

According to NASA, the answer is: a regional nuclear war.

NASA GISS' computer modelers (Luke Oman et al.) were trying to solve the "global warming crisis" and they found a solution: a regional nuclear war, for example between India and Pakistan, would reduce floods and cool the Earth by 1.25 °C - some places by 3-4 °C. After a decade, the temperature would still be 0.9 °C lower than before the war.

Sauce: http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/02/nasa- ... rs-of.html

The war hawks are just gonna love this and they'll also get the tree huggers off their backs. Remember, the planet will be fine; it's humankind who's f***ed.

JR8, what sayeth thou?

Ooh-err, I nearly missed this topic.

My opinion is that a lot of the tree huggers would not mind seeing humankind f'd. So in that respect it is the ideal solution for them.

Recall that John Holdren Obama's current science/climate was an advocate of enforced abortion/sterilisation back in the 70s, in order to control the climate in the face of the 'impending ice age'. Classy eh?!

Meanwhile enjoy this breath-of-sanity article...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... dependent/

That's it? I've been waiting all morning!

In any case, somebody better come up to construct one of his bleeping Dyson Shells/spheres or at least come close to the technology if our species has any chance of survival.

[JR8]

That's it? I've been waiting all morning!

In any case, somebody better come up to construct one of his bleeping Dyson Shells/spheres or at least come close to the technology if our species has any chance of survival.

Well, kinda helps if I know someone if posting something for me rather than just putting it through the main feed that (believe it or not ) I do not monitor post by post!

My take, is that NASA have modelled a prediction. And then this has kind of morphed via NatGeog to the linked blog, as almost a suggestion of hawkish positioning that regional nuclear war would have benefits.

It is of course hugely laid on and ironic. Hence my initial in-kind reply.

...er, what else were you expecting me to say?

[nakatago]

My take, is that NASA have modelled a prediction. And then this has kind of morphed via NatGeog to the linked blog, as almost a suggestion of hawkish positioning that regional nuclear war would have benefits.

Actually, NASA was studying the effects of a Nuclear war and it got posted several times and it turned out to be "to solve global warming, let's cause a nuclear winter." I back read the articles but I stopped short of reading the actual study.

I was sorta trollbaiting ya.

[JR8]

My take, is that NASA have modelled a prediction. And then this has kind of morphed via NatGeog to the linked blog, as almost a suggestion of hawkish positioning that regional nuclear war would have benefits.

Actually, NASA was studying the effects of a Nuclear war and it got posted several times and it turned out to be "to solve global warming, let's cause a nuclear winter." I back read the articles but I stopped short of reading the actual study.

I was sorta trollbaiting ya.

Yes, I did the same thing. And yes, I know you were!

[JR8]

And take this too!

[thwack!!]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... long-life/

I look forward to your analysis of this piece!

[nakatago]

And take this too!

[thwack!!]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... long-life/

I look forward to your analysis of this piece!

You want my analysis?

Here's my analysis:











TL;DR.

[JR8]

And take this too!

[thwack!!]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... long-life/

I look forward to your analysis of this piece!

You want my analysis?
Here's my analysis:
TL;DR.

Do you base your view of the world on having skipped the text and just looking at the pictures?

[nakatago]

And take this too!

[thwack!!]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... long-life/

I look forward to your analysis of this piece!

You want my analysis?
Here's my analysis:
TL;DR.

Do you base your view of the world on having skipped the text and just looking at the pictures?

No....it's just really long and I don't feel like reading it. Reading about a nuclear war is much more engaging.

Your article does not contribute nor take away from my understanding of the world because I did not read it.