Slashdot Mirror
Study Links Human Actions To Specific Arctic Ice Melt (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes from a report via Science Magazine: Since at least the 1960s, the shrinkage of the ice cap over the Arctic Ocean has advanced in lockstep with the amount of greenhouse gases humans have sent into the atmosphere, according to a study published this week in Science. Every additional metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) puffed into the atmosphere appears to cost the Arctic another 3 square meters of summer sea ice -- a simple and direct observational link that has been sitting under scientists' noses. If current emission trends hold, the study suggests the Arctic will be ice free by 2045 -- far sooner than some climate models predict. The study suggests that those models are underestimating how warm the Arctic has already become and how fast that melting will proceed. And it gives the public and policymakers a concrete illustration of the consequences of burning fossil fuels. For instance, a U.S. family of four would claim nearly 200 square meters of sea ice, based on U.S. emissions in 2013. Over 3 decades, that family would be responsible for destroying more than an American football field's worth of ice.
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs - with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic... Wait, no, it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!
Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.
Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece with High Priest Al Goreleone's nod of approval.
"The polar ice caps will be completely melted in 10 years."
--Al Gore, 11 years ago
yeah, it's porn
If greenhouse gases are truly a concern it is time to take nuclear seriously. As plenty of people on /. already know, our current reactors are based on nuclear submarine technology so there is cross pollination of ideas and techniques. However, there are plenty of alternative reactor designs such as pebble bed and molten salt reactors which are self modulating and are physically impossible to have a "melt down" or get into runaway situation. Similarly, there are plenty of ways to deal with waste that are safe and won't be disturbed for 100,000 years if we are willing to actually move forward and not get stuck in the same ruts we've been running in for the last 50 years. Nuclear is one of the few (if only) alternatives to oil that has the energy density to power a modern civilization like it or not. It's that or we continue to spew greenhouse gasses and in that case we should stop whining about it as we made our choice.
Think globally, act locally. Or individually.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Spoken like a true troll.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Um. Any one else see a problem with using surface area to describe a volumetric substance?
Trump says he will bring back the US coal industry by repealing stifling regulations put in place by the EPA, DOE and other Federal agencies.
Having kids is selfish and irresponsible just for the fact of overpopulation, let alone environmentalism.
If you *really* feel you need a house full of children, why not adopt from some Eastern European orphanage rather than make more humans? This seems like the much more sensible approach. As for me me, I'll chose to remain childless and stick to my two Argentinian tegus, thank you very much.
We're killing this planet and I don't know what to do about it.
Well, how hard are we killing the planet? Global warming is pretty mild stuff as such things go.
We're the only organisms on the planet that can't live in harmony with it (with the exception of maybe beavers).
Except for all the many, many other plants and animals that don't live in harmony with Earth either. Unlike the vast majority of plants and animals, we've actually figured out how to control our population (in the developed world, of course).
I know I'm not going to have kids for this reason.
There you go.
Artic ice melted and delivered at home via hurricane... Take that Amazon's drone.
Using the averages, arctic ice area/ football field area / (~330 million US citizens / 4= 1 family) * 30 years, comes out to 75 years left until the arctic ice is gone. should be interesting to see how this goes, assuming something doesn't come in to muck everything up. Say random asteroid, madrid fault line kicks off, sudden solar flare strike on the earth, or any other fun event. The new doomsday clock, will we kill ourselves (on purpose or by accident), or will we get wiped out by other motive forces.
Best and most honest comment of the thread.
Misquoting Al Gore is "funny" not "informative".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's not that Koch pays so well, it's that Soros is overextended with the election.
Everyone knows that the population of Australian jack rabbits predicts the US Dow Jones Industrial Average!
That perfectly explains why every Australian citizen is a multi-Billionary!
Ha ha
Jehovah's Witnesses have done this, as have other cults...
1 predict the end of the world...
2 screw up badly on prediction...
3 revise date of end of world...
4 GOTO 1
Replace "end of world" with "end of Arctice icecap", and you get the idea...
Sunday 21 August 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/en...
'Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice'
Saturday 4 June 2016 http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicts we could see 'an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year'
Monday 17 September 2012 https://www.theguardian.com/en...
One of the world's leading ice experts has predicted the final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months within four years.
Wednesday, 12 December 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/713... Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
Rinse... lather... repeat.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
How do we make him and the other extreme polluters (celebrities, businesses, etc) pay for the damage they've caused? You know it's at least several trillion dollars.
Climate change deniers on /. are busy modding the posts I see.
Traitors to civilization. YOU SUCK.
The way the title is worded, it implies that some human action was caused by ice melt. That would be a really interesting article to read.
Anyone who denies that human activity is causing global warming is a troll. There's a ton of evidence to the point that it can't be reasonably disputed. Nonetheless, stories like this predictably fill with posts claiming that global warming isn't occurring. Anyone who denies the overwhelming facts is obviously a troll and should not be taken seriously. Please do not feed the trolls.
Quoted for truth.
Your pet moderators are here in force. Let the lying begin!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
We don't need nukes to feed the grid, I'm sure we can do it with wind, solar, and a global HVDC power grid. Problem solved, 'cuz if its midnight and the wind stops blowing, we'll get our power from the Ukraine... or maybe some windy place is Argentina.
What we _don't_ have a solution for is transportation. We cannot power cars, trucks, ships, planes, and locomotives on battery or grid power. We might be able to eventually electrify all the locomotives but not any time soon. Otherwise, 18 wheelers and riverboats and such all require big batteries that do not exist. They don't exist because they need to be cheap and small and cheap and high capacity and cheap and rugged enough for automotive use and cheap and quickly rechargeable and cheap. They need to be cheap so Joe Blow can buy a $12K electric car that does everything that a $12K gasoline powered car can do now. And that's no small feat. For instance, in the 1987 1 Lap of America rally a 1987 Yugo drove 9000 miles in 10 days to circumnavigate the USA. No electric car can do that right now, not even the Tesla because those doing that rally chose their own routes between certain identified points, so there needed to be gas stations pretty much everywhere, and not even Tesla has enough "supercharger" battery exchange stations to do that. And, of course Teslas are not cheap, and will not serve the lower classes with little disposable income.
So there's no electric solution for transportation, and we're forced to keep burning fossil fuels until there is. We can't stop, because stopping the travel, even a little, will have an outsized economic impact from people not being able to purchase and spend as they otherwise would, so those involved in the businesses they would otherwise patronize will go out of business, go on welfare roles, and the economy will be greatly harmed with much human suffering for those cast into poverty until the whole thing becomes completely unsupportable and collapses. We MUST continue burning fossil fuels.
I suggest to those that want to continuously whine about CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere suspend their protesting and marching and seeking new laws, but instead get their PHD's in electrochemistry and materials science, get their butts into a lab somewhere, and invent for us the magic battery that will make gasoline cars more expensive to buy and run than electric cars because the electric cars are so cheap, and not because you've done something to tax gasoline cars. Do that, and we can fill in everything else with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. and the world will be saved, maybe even cast into pre-industrial temperature ranges eventually. But no LAW you can pass will do anything to make this happen, and will likely have unintended consequences that end up impeding the move to electric cars.
Sorry for all the environmental activists out there, but Mars has 5x as much carbon in the atmosphere than Earth, with wide ranging temperatures fluctuating between -80F to -11F. So why does such a dangerous and harmful gas (which has resulted in Earth having 14% more vegetation than before this crap was invented) cause such a wide variation in measured temps?
I guess if you repeat a lie long enough, even /. will believe it.
If only your parents felt the same way.
Someday one of your tegus may find a cure for cancer, or write an epic poem.
Even if every human committed suicide at the same time, all humanity wiped out, the planet would go on.
I know you're being sarcastic but I felt the need to point out the obvious to others who take this all way too seriously.
I don't need to get paid (unlike Hillary trolls) to come here and poke holes in your silly AGW religion.
The sky is not falling.
A softer or broken ice pack across Northern Canada would open a great shipping channel from Atlantic to Pacific avoiding the Panama Canal.
And in related news, US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation. http://tylervigen.com/spurious...
If two people have two children, how does that increase the population? That's not selfish. What's selfish is those asshats who have more than two (on purpose).
Don't blame the scientists for what some guy in politics trying to get elected at almost any cost says.
Humans are a virus
Humans are mammals. Would have thought the tits were a dead giveaway.
Many of us think that human activity causes some **small** global warming (without warmunists' proposed multifold amplification claims) and some think that this small amount might be good in several circumstances, along with CO2 fertilization. Some expect global cooling to become evident by 2020 for a few decades or perhaps, centuries.
The things that coal needs to cleanup are aerosolized particulates, SOx, NOx along with heavy metals.
Four, cow farts. Three, diesel engine chips that make black smoke. Two, Chinese food cooking in a billion woks. And the number one reason for arctic ice melting DONALD TRUMPS HAIR DRESSER
...there is no intrinsic necessity that the arctic be iced over.
You are absolutely correct. Just like there is no intrinsic necessity that New Orleans, New York, and Miami are above water.
No true Scottsman .... I'm starting to think that certain people are incapable of simple logic. They have believed the lie so thoroughly that they won't even allow themselves to think. And no there isn't a ton of evidence. A ton of confirmation bias, yes, but not evidence. Models aren't evidence they're automated hypotheses.
Why not just rename this website 'Climatedot' and have done with it? Daily propaganda from the 'catastrophic man-made global warming' alarmists. It's not as if the prospect of millions of pounds of funding is incentive for these fraudsters to make up LIES to keep the money rolling in, is it...
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Are you sick of this 'climate change' bullshit yet?
Science doesn't work like politics. Bandying about false equivalencies and complaints of need for "balance" or "fairness" and "both sides" have no meaning. Science is science - publish your counter evidence or shut the fuck up and get the hell out of the way.
Wow. Just... wow.
I think we can show a little bit of sympathy here; I know the gp is exaggerating and very negative, but it is easy to get depressed about the inadequate responses we have managed to mount so far.
I'm not worried about life on Earth, as such, but we should be worried about whether we are going to take much part in it. I think it is clear, if we look ahead to a far future - say in 500 to 1000 years - we will either have found a way to live sustainably on this planet, or we will be in rapid, possibly catastropihic, decline. The present time really is a sort of turning point, and we ought to be clever enough to adapt.
Except for all the many, many other plants and animals that don't live in harmony with Earth either. Unlike the vast majority of plants and animals, we've actually figured out how to control our population (in the developed world, of course).
Whether life in general lives in harmony or not, is much complex than people generally imagine. It certainly isn't as simple as whether they somehow cooperate (like in symbiosis) or compete - even competing species, or predators and prey, are normally in a sort of beneficial relationship, at least at the species level. The only cases where there isn't this balance, is when it comes to invasive species (another blot on humankind's cv), because they have escaped their predators and competitors, at least temporarily. Of course, at some point a balance will be achieved, because when an invasive species is overwhelming the native ecosystem, the processes that maintain the environment tend to break down, and the newcomer runs out of the resources that it has been so good at exploiting. We humans are in many ways comparable to invasive species: we over exploit resources, we drive other species to extinction - and at some point, we will either find a way to live sustainably with the ecosystem, or we will stand on the brink, with a huge population and no resources. And then nature will take it's inevitable course. We still have time to avoid that, and we are, as a species, clever enough. We just need to realise that, yes, we actually, really must.
Old joke:
Two planets meet:
"Hey, you look bad, what's the trouble?"
"Homo sapiens"
"Oh, don't worry, it will pass"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So the Arctic ice will be gone, but this time we are prepared: This is precisely the reason we have a backup Gentlemen, we have the AntArctic.
What?
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
What's selfish is those asshats who have more than two [children] (on purpose).
Bin Laden's father had 56. Bin Laden only had about 25 himself; such restraint.
Surely you are not suggesting that billionaire arabs should alter their lifestyle?
It increases the population relative to adopting two from an overpopulated region.
Flamebait is flamebait, no matter which side of the argument it is on.
(I won't call it "math"). This is exactly analogous to saying "five million penguin farts are unleashed every year. there are 300 million people in the USA. Therefore, over a 30 year period, a family of four is directly responsible for two penguin farts."
Whether life in general lives in harmony or not
My point is most life will consume as much resources and space as it can, they just don't have parking lots. They don't live in harmony any more than we do, they just don't have the same power to alter environments or transport themselves as we do.
I think it is clear, if we look ahead to a far future - say in 500 to 1000 years - we will either have found a way to live sustainably on this planet, or we will be in rapid, possibly catastropihic, decline.
I believe the developed world already figured that out. It's just a matter of spreading that knowledge to the rest of the world.
What's that in square light years?
scientists use the scientific method and conduct scientific experiments using controls and variables. when did we find Earth2??
these people are NOT scientists, they're mathematicians making models.
Unlike mayflies human parents don't tend to die immediately after reproducing, so for some period (50 or so years) there are twice as many people, and about 30 of which there are four adults.
Ah...I bet you're a Trump lover, too. They also are so stupid they'll cut their own throats for free.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Ni ggers and Mexicans are very selfish.
Density of the atmosphere is veeeeerrrrrrryyyyyy low, and the ice is frozen CO2.
probably better if you just read /. - try to look for comment that challenge your belief system, it will help you learn.
Better than paying Obama to cut them for us, friendo.
Many would agree that the world would be better off if one of those cities was under water.
What ?!?!?
The developed world has by far done and continues to do the most damage.
Now that would prove a real, long term benefit to the country, as it would give Republicans a structural advantage in upcoming elections.
Too bad it wouldn't, because sea ice melting doesn't raise sea levels (you blithering buffoon).
Silly scientists. Trump 2016 Make America Great Again!
there is no intrinsic necessity that New Orleans, New York, and Miami are above water.
This.
Our societies are set up in such a way that it is difficult, and causes all sorts of problems when people need to move. This doesn't jibe well with the fact that our settlements don't have nearly the permanence that we ascribe to them.
There are all sorts of pressures that build and destroy cities: Shifting Economics, Proximity to Resources, Geopolitics, the Environment... We'd be better off if we learned to build societies (and settlements) that can adapt to these realities, rather than attempt to control these factors, which is tantamount to pissing against a tsunami.
I'm so fucking sick and tired of this Bullshit.
Every time you get on Slashdot there is some retarded story about how we are killing the planet and to save it you have to live like a fucking pheasant while the alarmists fly around in jets and live in estates.
Fuck you
just to see how moronic and gullible the editors continue to be as they push their climate hoax agenda.
Basically, he's saying that the Jurassic period serves as an example case of greenhouse-induced global warming: it had higher carbon dioxide levels and as a result also had higher temperatures.
OK. We're working on putting in enough CO2 to start replicating the Jurassic, a time when the Earth had no ice caps. But we won't get the dinosaurs back.
The whole AGC platform is based on the premise that CO2 is the driver of global temperatures to a degree that makes all other sources infinitesimal in comparison, and its doctrine does not allow dissent from the premise.
The way science works in the real world is by comparing models to observations,and excluding the models that don't match the observations. The null hypothesis-- that the average temperature isn't warming-- is strongly excluded. So, if you want to propose that the effect is due to other variables: do the numbers. Make a model and show that it fits the data.
Right now, anthropogenic global warming is a model that fits the data. If you think it's wrong, find another model.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I believe the developed world already figured that out. It's just a matter of spreading that knowledge to the rest of the world.
How rude to declare the US undeveloped.
It's easy to make up shit that supposedly Al Gore said that he didn't ever actually say, and post it as anonymous coward.
Citation needed.
And not a citation to "well, here's something he said that was kinda vaguely on the same subject, I just posted that completely made up quote as clickbait to get you to engage." You put it in quotations marks. Give me a cite to that quotation.
I'm also puzzled as to why deniers are so fascinated with Al Gore. He's not a scientist. The people discussing anthropogenic global warming don't cite him at all, only the deniers. In the question of the science, it really doesn't matter what he said.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Would be interesting to know how much an open NE passage would save in annual carbon emissions.
The developed world has by far done and continues to do the most damage.
And by "damage" you mean? When I say damage, I mean actual harm now and in the future, not fantasy projections of the future based on exaggerated models.
Say this several times to yourselves over and over:
"Correlation does not imply causation."
Neptune's atmosphere is almost entirely methane and look at its temperature! Neptune temps hang around -200C! That's MINUS 350F! We all know that methane is the most potent greenhouse gas. So, why isn't Neptune a vat of boiling lava???
EmailGate: when you torture the numbers enough to make them fit your (broken/inaccurate) models.
you are a fucking idiot
The sea level does not rise when sea ice melts. Only when land ice melts.
you are a fucking poser
you mean this open shipping channel
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/
sad sad person you are
Meanwhile at the North Pole,-19 F. http://www.yr.no/place/North_P...
warmer polar regions = less ocean circulation.
less ocean circulation = more extreme climates. ie, if you live someplace cold, it's gonna get colder. live some place hot, its gonna get hotter. dry? drier. wet? wetter. ocean circulation is a gigantic moderator of planetary climate and weather.
and no, the NW Passage never existed with human memory, until now.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
What is also happening directly under your nose and other climate activists is that the Antarctic Sea Ice is at a record high level:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/qa-what-is-happening-with-antarctic-sea-ice/
Of course, if it was shrinking it would be listed as more concrete evidence of man made global warming.
Since the result doesn't agree with with the theories being advanced, this information is being minimized or spun to support man made global warming.
And of course my just bringing it up means I should be demonized or threatened.
How dare you suggest that the Earth orbits the Sun, Copernicus! In the name of science, I curse you and your family!!!
I'll never take anyone seriously when they make wild claims. The pseudo-science makes me want to vomit. If we had rational people investigating the climate without agendas who have been proven to fake data it would be different. I don't believe a word from these people.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
You know the drill. The atmosphere of this planet is INSANELY complicated, so much so that this is likely to be complete and total quackery.
"Every additional metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) puffed into the atmosphere appears to cost the Arctic another 3 square meters of summer sea ice"
That's an absurd statement. They're trying to correlate volume to area. Doesn't work. What is the thickness of the 3 sq-meters that is melting? 1 molecule? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 4 kilometers?
Sorry, but this is a nonsensical comparison. It is disinformation and propaganda. They need to stick with science.
I'm not sure that one data point is a great way to understand the trend over time. This animation shows sea ice evolution since the 1980s. It's quite dramatic: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4510
Yeah, I got depressed as a teenager in the 1980s because the Russians and Americans were gonna blow the world up with nukes...
and then I grew up.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
What kind of damage has the developed world done and continues to do?
Well, looking at greenhouse gas emissions:
http://www.wri.org/sites/defau...
http://www.wri.org/sites/defau...
And looking at issues like deforestation, species extinction, and fresh-water pollution, it is overwhelmingly the transnational corporations originating in the developed countries and supplying the developed countries which have had the largest destructive effects cumulatively, and are continuing to do so.
I don't have time to source all of that for you, but you can look it up for yourself.
You need to understand that just because, say, we've cleaned up the litter on our city streets better, and that we TALK about environmental issues more than the rest of the world, does not mean we are doing better than them on the serious global environmental destruction factors. We are still doing way worse, especially if you rate it on a per person basis. Way way worse. Orders of magnitude worse.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
You're obviously living like an ostrich with its head in the sand, not like a pheasant.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Spoken like someone who has no damn clue how close he came to not growing up.
Unlike the vast majority of plants and animals, we've actually figured out how to control our population (in the developed world, of course).
It isn't even working in the developed world. The people who actually want the Earth to become like the city of Coruscant, or like in Soylent Green, only use the relatively stable numbers of the indigenous people of the West as an excuse to import immigrants. Unfortunately the people who want this tend to be the more influential - business magnates who want the short term cheap labour, and politicians who love bigger crowds listening to them.
From your statement it seems that it's actually certain Eastern Europeans who are selfish and irresponsible. If one wants to adopt, that is a fine and noble thing to do- but it is pure idiocy to claim that having your own children is a selfish and irresponsible act.
Some of us grew up on tree farms and have always lived low impact lifestyles with renewables that made them carbon negative.
It's not hard.
There are simple things you can do. The easiest is make a run to Costco and buy up LED lights on sale, which literally saves you tons of dollars on your utility bill. The second easiest is replace your old fridge, washer, dishwasher, and dryer with modern Energy Star appliances (use your tax refund), which literally saves you tons of dollars on your utility bill. The third easiest is replace one of your cars or trucks with a modern plug-in electric car (which would still work when gasoline spikes to $10 a gallon and even today tends to cost about 1/10th the cost of buying gas (and has half the maintenance costs).
Did you notice that every single one of those things saves you money. So, why aren't you saving money? Seriously.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I was curious so I googled up some images of the data in question. This is what I came up with: http://i.imgur.com/L15Bxh7.jpg
Well, looking at greenhouse gas emissions:
Exactly. The only thing that the developed world emits more of per capita.
And looking at issues like deforestation, species extinction, and fresh-water pollution, it is overwhelmingly the transnational corporations originating in the developed countries and supplying the developed countries which have had the largest destructive effects cumulatively, and are continuing to do so.
Exactly, these are issues of the developing world, caused by themselves. Just because it is the fad to find some way, no matter how contrived, to blame developed world countries, it remains that the developed world has in reality solved these problems.
You need to understand that just because, say, we've cleaned up the litter on our city streets better, and that we TALK about environmental issues more than the rest of the world, does not mean we are doing better than them on the serious global environmental destruction factors. We are still doing way worse, especially if you rate it on a per person basis. Way way worse. Orders of magnitude worse.
And you need to look at who's actually solving problems rather than spin tales.
The people who actually want the Earth to become like the city of Coruscant, or like in Soylent Green, only use the relatively stable numbers of the indigenous people of the West as an excuse to import immigrants.
You do realize that third generation immigrants have dropped to that developed world low fertility? Immigration from the developing world helps reduce overall population growth.
Just saying. Science by computer model is rather new and the way most people do it is quite unreliable. Also the use of Stat packages by not very literate types is an abomination. But however nasty the warmists are, it does seem quite possible that we are killing the seas and part of the causation seems to be acidification from carbon dioxide. In particular, corel dying. And you can know it is true because the shills came out in force when it started to get attention.
Sub: Save earth Planet and life Support
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists says there are 16,300 nuclear weapons located at some 98 sites in 14 countries, a vast majority in the United States and Russia. There are also 25 countries that possess enough nuclear and radiological materials to build a weapon, with such material held at hundreds of sites, many vulnerable to extremists.
America is blind to realities. India is Lame by lethargic bureaucratic structure. Where Lies Wisdom ?
intellectually hollowed societies has less future leave alone Vision index.
History must be learned through Bhagavat Geetha and Wisdom should prevail upon not to fall prey to senses
Vidyardhi Nanduri {cosmology World Peace]