Close
Faqja 1 prej 10 123 ... FunditFundit
Duke shfaqur rezultatin 1 deri 20 prej 185
  1. #1
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,113
    Faleminderit
    0
    31 falenderime nė 20 postime

    Ngrohja Globale

    Ngrohja Globale

    Studimet shkencore mbi ngrohjen globale tregojne se ky peroblem behet gjithnje e me shqetesues nga dita ne dite.Ndryshimet e klimes jane te verteta dhe sa vjen e rriten me teper.Niveli i Dioksidit te karbonit ne ditet e sotme eshte rreth 30% me i larte se sa ka qene perpara evolimit te industrise.Ajo qe te ben me shume pershtypje eshte shpejtesia me te cilen niveli i CO2 eshte rritur.Nga njohurite geologjike te njeriut mbi boten per miliona vite bota kurre nuk ka perjetur nje rritje aq te shpejte.Firma e influences se neriut eshte krejtesisht e dukshme.Ska aspak dyshim qe ne kemi krijuar ndryshime te atmosferes nga djegja e lendeve kimike dhe gazrave.

    Evidenca e ngrohjes globale eshte e sakte dhe e panenflehtesushme!

    Konsidero:

    Qe ne fillim te shekullit te 20'te temperatura e siperfaqes kryesore te tokes eshte rritur rreth 1.1°F (0.6°C).

    Gjate 40 viteve te fundit temperatura eshte rritur rreth 0.5°F (0.2-0.3°C).

    Ngrohja ne shekullin e 20'te eshte me e madhe nga te gjitha koherat e 400-600 vitet e fundit.

    7 nga 10 vitet me te ngrohta te shekullit te 20'te jane ato te 90'tes.

    Malet e akullta te poleve jane ne levizje

    Akujt ne polin e veriut kane humbur rreth 40% te trashesise se tyre gjate 4 dekadave te fundit.

    Niveli global i detrave eshte rritur pothuajse 3 here me shpejt ne krahasim me 3000 vitet e fundit.

    Sdudimet e shumta tregojne se bimet dhe kafshet ndryshojne numrin dhe sjelljen e tyre ne baze te ndryshimeve klimatike.

    Ashtu siq Bota vazhdon te ngrohet,rritet dhe rreziku qe klima do ndryshoje ne menyre te tille saqe mund te demtoje ne menyre serioze jeten tone.Nderkohe qe nje pjese mesatare e vendeve te globit do behet me e ngrohte disa zona individuale do perjetojne tjeter lloj ndryshimesh te klimes,me rrjedhoja te dryshme per ambientin lokal.

    Disa nga keto jane...

    Rritje e shpejte e nivelit te detit

    Me teper vale te ngrohta dhe thatesire qe rezulton ne shume e me shume
    konflikte ne burimet e ujrave.

    Me teper mote ekstreme qe krijojne permbytje dhe shkaterrime banesash

    Nje potencial te madh ne semundjet dhe vdekjet qe kane te bejne me nxehtesine,gjithashtu nje shtrirje me te gjere te infeksioneve dhe semundjeve qe transmetohet nga insekte dhe mikrobe ne zona ne te cilat me pare nuk kane egzistuar.

    Nese ndotja kimike vazhdon pa u marre masa kunder saj,ngrohja globale do kercenoje shendetin,qytetet,bregdetet,dhe te gjithat bukurite natyrore apo krijimet e njeriut.

    Shkeputur nga ucsusa.org
    Fotografitė e Bashkėngjitura Fotografitė e Bashkėngjitura   
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  2. #2
    ...........
    Anėtarėsuar
    24-12-2002
    Vendndodhja
    home
    Postime
    681
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Pershendetje Zeri i Mirdites dhe urime per temen.

    Kete topic sapo e kam bere si report ne Language and Literature klase. Eshte vertet interesante dhe eshte ber objekt i rendesishem dhe vertet shqetesor.
    Neqofse eshte e lejueshme do ta postoj reportin per kte topic por problemi qendron qe eshte ne Anglisht.

    _AngelGirl_
    What we do does not define who we are. What defines who we are, is how we rise when we fall!!

  3. #3
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,113
    Faleminderit
    0
    31 falenderime nė 20 postime
    Faleminderit AngelGirl!

    Per mua nuk ka problem dhe jam i sugurte se nje pjese e mire e forumit e flasin Anglishten.Sjam i sigurte nese moderatoret do jene te kenaqur per postimen ne Anglisht!

    Gjithe te mirat
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  4. #4
    ...........
    Anėtarėsuar
    24-12-2002
    Vendndodhja
    home
    Postime
    681
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Mendoj se edhe po e postova moderatoret mund ta pranojne kete rradhe meqe ti e ke shkruar nje pjes te temes ne shqip. Gjithsesi do mundohem ta postoj me vone.

    Ciao
    What we do does not define who we are. What defines who we are, is how we rise when we fall!!

  5. #5
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,113
    Faleminderit
    0
    31 falenderime nė 20 postime

    Efekti i Greenhouse (Greenhouse effekt)

    Diqka qe duhet kuptuar eshte se shume nga c'flitet per ngrohjen globale jane opinione rreth senareve potenciale dhe asgje nuk mund te jete plotesisht e sigurte.Ajo qe te gjithe bien dakort eshte se ngrohja globale eshte gjithnje ne rritje.Pyetja eshte sa nga kjo eshte rezultat i natyres dhe sa nga kjo eshte nga influenca e njeriut.

    Kushtet e motit,ne qdo lloj vendi ndryshojne nga dita ne dite e nga viti ne vit por ne pergjithesi qendrojne ne parametra te caktuar per nje kohe teper te gjate.Keto parametra njeriu i quan 'Klime' Kur mendojme mbi problemin e ndryshimeve klimatike shpeshhere ne i referohemi termit greenhouse effect.(greenhouse effect eshte ngritja e temperatures ne siperfaqen e tokes si rezultat i energjise se nxehte te mbyllur mes gazerash ne hapesire.Kur rrezet e diellit kalojne nepermes atmosferes se tokes nje pjese e energjise pengohet po ama nje pjese tjeter kalon nepermes atmosferes) Edhe pse eshte e lehte per ta menduar si te tille po efekti i greenhouse eshte faktikish diqka e mire.
    Sidoqofte problemi qendron se ne po ndryshojme elementet e greenhouse effect.

    Greenhouse effect zhvillohet kur gazerat atmosferike rreth tokes (gazerat e Greenhouse) lejojne qe ne te marrim me teper ngrohtesi nga dielli sesa ajo pjese ngrohtesie qe humbet ne hapesire.Kjo e ben siperfaqen e tokes 30-35c me te ngrohte se sa faktikisht duhet te jete,gje qe e kthen ate ne nje planet te papershtatshme per njeriun.Problemi eshte se niveli i gazerave qe kryejne
    Greenhouse effekt jane ne ndryshim e siper.

    Evidenca e saj mund te shikohet ne ngritjen e temperatures globale.Kjo ka sjelle si rrjedhim shkrirjen e akujve dhe hollimin e shtresave te debores.
    Mund te kete pasur kohera teper te nxehta miliona vite me pare po kjo eshte ngritja me e shpejte e temperatures qysh nga koha e akullit.

    Konkluzionet jane se dioksidi i karbonit kontribon ne ndryshimet me te medha ne gazerat e greenhouse.Te tjera gazara te grrenhouse jane Methane,CFCs dhe Ozoni.Problemi eshte se keta gazera nuk mund te qendrojne ne atmosfere per dekada te tera!Nga djegja e lendeve Nafte,gaz,benzine e vajra te tjera nga industrite e renda,transporti etj,largimi i ketyre gazerave eshte rritur.

    Disa organizata kane perdorur modelime klimatike duke u munduar te parashikojne se c'fare do te ndikojne keta dryshime ne te ardhmen e planetit.Disa parashikime sygjerojne se temperatura globale do rritet nga 3 grade C gjate 100 viteve te ardheshme dhe niveli i detit do vazhdoje te ngrihet.
    Implikimet dhe qrregullimet jane fenomenale!

    Rrugezgjidhjet?
    Fotografitė e Bashkėngjitura Fotografitė e Bashkėngjitura  
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga BvizioN : 17-06-2005 mė 11:12
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  6. #6
    Dash...me kembore Maska e Toro
    Anėtarėsuar
    26-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    CALIFORNIA
    Postime
    1,407
    Faleminderit
    0
    15 falenderime nė 14 postime
    Ngrohja globale eshte nje mit dhe nje justifikim per te rritur taksat.
    Ndryshimi i klimes dhe fenomenet qe pasojne rritjen e temperatures ne planet sipas teoricienve te "Global Warming" eshte i bazuar ne modele kompjuterike te gabuara.
    Te dhena statistike nuk ka qe te kemi matje temperaturash te sakta ne shekujt e fundit. Keshtu psh nese kemi temperaturen e qytetit te Athines para 100 vjetesh , 1) Nuk e dime sa i sakte ishte termometri i atehershem,2)Mund te tregojne rritje ne qender ku ka male me beton, por jashte Athines temperatura eshte me e ulet.
    Nuk kam kohe ti perkthej por po postoj opinione dhe fakte qe e kundershtojne teorine e ngrohjes globale nga njerezimi. Nese ka ngrohje globale e ben vete natyra, jo njeriu.

    MYTHS OF GLOBAL WARMING

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Global Warming is a much publicised subject currently concerning many people. A United Nations summit in Kyoto Japan last Decemeber addressed this so-called threat to mankind. The President of the United States has committed himself to finalizing a treaty that would impose legally binding, internationally enforceable limits on the production of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). That decision was based on the belief that global warming is significant, that humans are its primary cause and that only immediate government action can avert disaster. It is now stated that President Clinton will use Executive Privilage to implment the United Nations enviromental agenda.

    There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem, or that humans are its cause. Even if current predictions of global warming are correct, delaying drastic government actions by up to 25 years will make little difference to global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty restrictions would produce little environmental good but great economic harm. In contrast, postponing action until we have sound evidence that human activity is causing global warming, and better technology to mitigate the problem, makes environmental and economical good sense.

    Much proposed environmental policy is based on myths. Let's look at the four most common.

    Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth is Warming. While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of all climate measurements, shows no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. Even if earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last several thousand years years. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries -- a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonised Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

    Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming.Scientists do not agree that human activity measurably affects global climate. The evidence supporting this theory is weak. Most scientific experts directly concerned with climate thoroughly reject the theory.

    A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions -- principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels.


    Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use.

    More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are NOT justified by the best available evidence.

    While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 -- before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

    Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. Underlying this myth is the belief that the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic, and prudence demands immediate government action.

    However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded that the world's governments can delay acting up to 25 years with no measurable disadvantage to the environment. T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific assumption that a realistic goal for global warming policy would be to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice preindustrial levels, or 550 parts per million by volume. Given that economic growth will continue with a concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists agreed that stabilization at this level is environmentally sound as well as politically and economically feasible. They concluded:-

    Governments can cut emissions to approximately 9 billion tons per year now, or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per year.
    Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of 550 parts per million.
    Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature rise of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.
    In short, policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


    Myth # 4:
    Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject these beliefs.

    Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have been rising for thousands of years -- far predating any possible human impact.

    Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, they reason, global warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data shows no increase in the number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest earlier models making such connections were simplistic and inaccurate.

    Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes.
    From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, even the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward trend.

    The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms.

    Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood, most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations.

    What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some scientists think a global warming trend would be an agricultural boon. Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life. Earth's plant life once thrived in a much warmer, carbon dioxide-filled atmosphere.

    Taking all the evidence into account, it is clear there is local warming, but overall, the planet has cooled over the past twenty years. The claimed 'global warming' is not due to mankind but to volcanoes and other natural phenonoma. It is estimated that humans have contributed about two percent to some local warming and many scientists are now exposing the myths of global warming. So rather than legislating in haste and ignorance then repenting at leisure, governments should maintain rational policies, based on scientific fact and new technologies. And they would do so were it not for the hidden agenda underlying the myth of global warming.
    "Who is John Galt?"

  7. #7
    Dash...me kembore Maska e Toro
    Anėtarėsuar
    26-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    CALIFORNIA
    Postime
    1,407
    Faleminderit
    0
    15 falenderime nė 14 postime
    [b]The Association of British Drivers

    Green Myths On Global Warming — Debunked [b]

    1 MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming
    FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

    2 MYTH Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die
    FACT In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.

    3 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
    FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

    4 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
    FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

    5 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
    FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

    6 MYTH Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet
    FACT The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

    7 MYTH The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming'
    FACT Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.

    8 MYTH The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.
    FACT As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.

    9 MYTH Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now.
    FACT Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
    The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.

    10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
    FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
    Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.
    "Who is John Galt?"

  8. #8
    Perjashtuar Maska e land
    Anėtarėsuar
    12-12-2003
    Postime
    7,554
    Faleminderit
    0
    Falenderuar 1 herė nė 1 postim

    Lightbulb

    E thene ndryshe, Te lumte dora o Toro!
    Te gjitha keto lloj teorish alarmuese, behen nga injorante qe nuk njohin historine e tokes, nga njerez qe nuk sine te bejne gje tjeter per profesion, dhe kane zgjedhur alarmin si menyre te vetme per te nxjerre buken e gojes...
    Sa per Zerin e Mirdites, ai vete duhet ta kuptoje qe shkrirja e akujve polare dhe akullnajave, do te thote ne menyre te pakundershtueshme; me shume shi, dhe detyrimisht me shume uje te pijshem neper rezervat ujore te njerezimit; dhe aspak te kunderten.
    Ngrohja e rruzullit, dmth ne menyre te pakundershtueshme rritje te perqendrimit te avujve ne atmosfere, dhe detyrimisht shtim te rreshjeve.
    Nuk ka sesi te ndodhe e kunderta, perndryshe duhet te hedhim poshte cdo lloj teorie deri me sot te pranuar si te vertete.
    Shtimi i perqendrimit te CO2-shit ne atmosfere, dmth ne menyre te pakundershtueshme, shtim te lendes se pare per biosferen(bimesine, boten e gjelber), perderisa bimet nuk mund te jetojne dot pa CO2. Shtimi i CO2-shit, dhe transformimi i tij ne O2 nga bota e gjelber, dmth shtim te rezervave te oksigjenit per njeriun...
    APO JO?
    Nese do t'i merrnim te gjitha gjerat ashtu sic i shohin disa, atehere dalim shume thjeshte ne perfundimin qe njeriu po i sherben shume per mire natyres dhe ambjentit ku po jeton ai vete...
    Efekti sere nuk ka lidhje fare me njeriun, madje ai mund te jete vertete inegzistent...
    Dihet qe pas shperthimit te vullkanit te Krakatoas ne Indonezi, kemi patur nje ftohje globale, per shkak te pluhurit dhe gazrave qe ky shperthim leshoi ne atmosfere... pse sot na ndodhka e kunderta, por me shifra te dhena te ngjashme?
    Nese ne 40 vitet e fundit jane shkrire 40% e akujve polare, kur na merrkan fund keto akuj? Po te ishte e vertete kjo gje, atehere, me keto ritme qe po ecen industria boterore, pas 10 vjetesh nuk do te kete me akuj polare, dhe me plot goje mund t'i themi LAMTUMIRE Hollandes, Belgjikes, e ndonje shteti tjeter...
    Per te tjerat, nuk kam cfare t'u shtoj atyre te Toros, i ka thene ballore fare!

    Mua me ben pershtypje vetem fakti qe disa persona i hane gjerat ashtu sic u serviren... (ne anglisht, do te thonit ju anglishtfolesit qe s'dini mire shqip; "hook, line and sinker", apo jo?)
    Per cfare me vjen keq mua eshte fakti qe ne shume zona te botes kemi nje shkaterrim te botes se gjalle, per shkak te pangopesise se njeriut... -shkaterrim te botes bimore, pyjeve... Sa per ngrohjen globale, jam shume i rritur per te degjuar perralla; por premtoj qe do t'ua tregoj nipave nje dite...

  9. #9
    Dash...me kembore Maska e Toro
    Anėtarėsuar
    26-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    CALIFORNIA
    Postime
    1,407
    Faleminderit
    0
    15 falenderime nė 14 postime
    E forta eshte se te njejtet persona qe flasin sot per shkaktim te "Global Warming" nga njeriu, ne vitet '70 flitnin per "Global Cooling"!!!!!!
    E verteta eshte se jemi ne fund te nje periode interglaciale, qe do te thote se shume shpejt relativisht ( 100-200 vjet) do te kemi nje Ice Age te re!!!!Dhe kjo nuk shkaktohet nga njeriu apo revolucioni industrial, por thjesht nga ciklet periodike te diellit. Cikle qe jane te ndryshme ne disa qindra vjet.
    Asnje "shkencetar" alarmist i "Global Warming" nuk shpjegon dot sot se perse temperatura e Planetit ishte me e larte se sot ne periudhen 1000- 1400 pas eres sone, kur Vikinget populluan Grinlanden e Kanadane ( ku cuditerisht ne atekohe mbillnin dhe vreshta!)....Vetem nese llogarisin sasine e CO2 qe vikinget perdornin per tu ngrohur (qe e shoqeruar kjo me gazra te tjera intestiale) rriten temperaturen e planetit! ( Kjo ishte me shaka)
    "Who is John Galt?"

  10. #10
    Dash...me kembore Maska e Toro
    Anėtarėsuar
    26-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    CALIFORNIA
    Postime
    1,407
    Faleminderit
    0
    15 falenderime nė 14 postime
    Nga ana tjeter kemi dhe "mbrojtesit" e ambientit, organizata si Greenpeace, motivet dhe menyrat e te ciles nuk jane dhe aq ...te sinqerta. Po nderkohe qe shtypi e kameramanet rendin te fitojne nje foto apo reportazh ekskluziv nga "aksionet", askush nuk shton se si jane bere montazhet e filmimet e ndryshme, qe kjo organizate i perdor per te hedhur opinionin publik kunder peshkatareve, gjuetareve dhe ekonomise se vendeve te zhvilluara ne pergjithesi.
    Ja dhe nje artikull me poshte:

    Greenpeace Wages Redwar
    by Bryan J. Ellison

    Originally published in The New American, November 19, 1990

    Because of the growing environmentalist fad of the last few years, much of the public has invested nearly blind faith in organizations claiming to play David to the Goliath of environmental exploitation. Among the leading beneficiaries of this public trust has been the international activist organization Greenpeace. The group began with a 1971 protest against U.S. testing of nuclear weapons, which it followed up with an attempt to physically block French nuclear testing in 1972 by sailing a boat too close to the testing area. Similar actions were carried out during the early 1970s, and Greenpeace offices were opened in several European nations. Restructuring in 1983 took the organization away from its previous broadly-based democratic structure, effectively concentrating policy control in the hands of a small international board; in the United States, all Greenpeace offices were united into a single national headquarters.

    Greenpeace today boasts offices in some 22 countries, and has expanded its activities to include a variety of environmental issues. The group's efforts to propagate its views to the press and the public, closely tied to its fundraising efforts, include confrontational tactics such as physically damaging property and blocking the efforts of whalers, sealers, and industrial producers. These "direct actions" are not peaceful, but instead nonviolent--Greenpeace seeks to provoke violent reactions from its targets, so as not to receive blame for using violence themselves.

    Whale of a Propaganda Blitz

    Among Greenpeace's most successful campaigns of recent years has been its effort to stop the hunting of whales and harp seals in the North Atlantic. By widely distributing films showing alleged brutality against seals, by claiming that whales and seals have become endangered, by organizing international boycotts against fish products from North Atlantic nations, and by lobbying governments in Europe and the United States, Greenpeace has succeeded in having the importation of sealskins banned by many industrial nations.

    The International Whaling Commission of the United Nations has also banned all commercial whaling in the North Atlantic for a four-year period that started in 1986. "Nine-tenths of the world's whalers are out of business," boasted two Greenpeace campaigners in the January/February issue of the journal Greenpeace, published by the organization's American lobbying arm.

    Greenpeace is not a popular name in Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, parts of Norway and Canada, and even Alaska. The economies of the North Atlantic have depended for centuries on the hunting of whales, seals, and fish. Now that these products have been banned, curtailed, or boycotted since 1985, people in those nations are suffering dislocations and hardships even worse than those created by their harsh climates. Families in the many small villages have been forced onto welfare or into the cities, where finding employment can be difficult. The sudden declines in productivity have left these economies reeling, just as the United States economy would be if its entire automobile industry were suddenly eliminated. The people of those nations are particularly offended by the Greenpeace campaign against their economies because of its incredible irony: Countries such as Iceland have led the world in enacting legislation for protecting their natural resources. Their people cannot understand why foreigners from Greenpeace and other multinational environmentalist groups should arrogantly decide how their resources will be managed.

    Fallout from this disruption has led several journalists into an extensive, ongoing investigation of Greenpeace and other environmentalist groups. Their research has revealed some shocking truths about these widely trusted organizations: Greenpeace and closely allied groups have used fabrications, actual violence, and even destruction of the ecosystem as tools in many of their campaigns. All of which have reaped such groups huge financial benefits, while allowing them to advance a political agenda many of their sympathizers would never knowingly support. Much of this startling information has been presented in the video documentary Survival in the High North, released last year on television in Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and the Faroe Islands.

    Disinformation, Damage Done

    Greenpeace has circulated a number of allegations regarding the hunting of mammals in the North Atlantic. One widespread misconception it has promoted holds that the hunted seals and whales are in danger of extinction. But even Paul Watson, cofounder of Greenpeace, admitted in a March 1978 interview on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the harp seal, long a publicity tool for Greenpeace, was never endangered as a species; according to Watson, the seal had been used because it is a powerful fundraiser, easily provoking the emotions of Americans and Europeans.

    In the case of whales, the results of the largest whale stock survey ever conducted, coordinated by the Marine Research Institute of Iceland, show that all "endangered" species have recovered since the early part of the twentieth century. This includes the humpback and blue whales, as well as the pilot whales, which now number at least 100,000 in the North Atlantic. Likewise, sperm whales have probably come to exceed 500,000 worldwide, while the International Whaling Commission reports that between 75,000 and 145,000 minke whales now reside in the North Atlantic alone. More than 500,000 minke whales also exist in the South Atlantic around Antarctica.

    As a result of the bans in recent years on sealskins and on whaling, seal and whale populations are now so high that they are beginning to deplete the fish populations of the area, this being the reason given by several North Atlantic governments for recently limiting fishing quotas. The major eaters of fish include not only the millions of seals in the North Atlantic, but such whales as the minke and the large humpback, which can consume as much as four percent of their body weight daily; this amounts to millions of tons of fish each year. The abundant whales are now also physically interfering with fishing nets, as they pursue the same fish sought by humans.

    Some environmentalists now admit the existence of a seal overpopulation problem, but, rather than taking the blame, they accuse such nations as Iceland and Norway of causing the problem themselves by hunting killer whales, a natural predator of the seals. This allegation is clearly intended for naive audiences in the United States and Europe, since many of these people are unaware that killer whales are not hunted for food in Iceland, and that Norway has legally protected its killer whales for about two decades.

    Tuna Rigamarole

    More recently, Greenpeace and other organizations have attacked tuna fishing in the Pacific because dolphins are often trapped in the nets and die. This attack ignores the adoption by U.S. tuna fishermen of methods that allow dolphins to escape the nets; U.S. tunaboats now release over 99 percent of all dolphins trapped. Boycott threats recently led several major tuna marketers to give in to environmentalist demands by deciding to catch only tuna found away from dolphins. Since this is less economical, the already beleaguered U.S. tuna fishing fleet will continue to shrink, allowing competing foreign fleets to take over more of this fishing. Ironically, the result will be greater numbers of dolphin deaths, because foreign fishing fleets on average kill 3.6 times as many dolphins per pound of tuna as does the U.S. fleet.

    There are other false claims:

    Whale intelligence has been one of the most incredible myths propagated by environmentalist groups. Behavioral scientists verify that the large baleen whales, major objects of whaling, appear to be similar in cognitive ability to cows and horses. These whales have no mental ability even remotely resembling that of humans.

    Cruelty against whales is also alleged. For example, the centuries-old hunting of pilot whales by the Faroe Islanders has been attacked by Greenpeace and others, who claim that the methods used cause slow and painful deaths for the whales. However, filmed recordings of the hunting process verify that each whale is killed within seconds, and relatively painlessly.

    Environmentalist groups have often claimed that seal hunting involves cruel procedures, including repeated clubbing. Professional hunters, however, are quite capable of killing seals with the first blow.

    Greenpeace, while privately admitting its error, deliberately continues to promote the impression that the seal hunters of Greenland kill baby seals. In reality, only the adult seals are hunted; indeed, baby seals are not found in Greenland, a country in which the seals do not even breed. But this false impression has caused tremendous economic hardship for these previously independent seal hunters, who are no longer able to sell their furs in many industrial nations.

    In an attempt to gain more publicity on dolphins killed in Pacific tuna fishing, environmentalists have accused U.S. tuna fishermen of reregistering under foreign flags in order to avoid U.S. regulations under the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act. This has not happened; in reality, U.S. regulations have forced at least half of all tuna fishermen out of business, and foreign fishing concerns have bought the U.S. boats at bargain prices.

    Film Fantasies

    Perhaps the most shocking disinformation effort can be found in the films that Greenpeace and closely allied groups have so widely distributed. In 1964 a Canadian film crew released film of a Newfoundland sealer skimming a seal--while it was still alive. The film prompted widespread outrage over this supposedly common practice by seal hunters. In the years since the making of this film, Greenpeace has exploited the widespread belief in live-seal skinning, combining it with photos of dead seals for use as a fundraising tool.

    Greenpeace has failed to point out that Gustave Poirier, the seal hunter in the film, later testified under oath to a Canadian Parliamentary commission that he had been paid by the film crew to carry out the seal-skinning. Seal hunters have never practiced skinning of live seals, simply because skinning dead seals is far easier to accomplish.

    Greenpeace produced another film in March of 1978 also allegedly portraying hunting brutality. An unidentified Newfoundland seal hunter was filmed killing a baby seal and tormenting its mother. But the film clearly shows the hunter waiting for a signal from the film crew to begin, using colored rope to get the attention of the mother seal, and repeating the procedure to allow filming from different angles. Observations such as these have led film experts at the University of Copenhagen to conclude that the episode was faked. Seal hunters who were nearby at the time of the filming did not recognize the supposed hunter carrying out the cruel and illegal acts, nor has he ever been identified as belonging to the crew of any sealing ship, nor is he known to the Canadian Sealers' Association.

    One of the largest boosts to Greenpeace's anti-sealing campaigns was the recruitment of the actress Brigitte Bardot into its promotions. One widely circulated photo shows Bardot cuddling a baby seal, supposedly hundreds of kilometers out on the ice off the Canadian coast, where she is claimed to have fought bare-handed to protect the baby seals from hunters in 1978. Sources affiliated with the Associated Press, however, have revealed that the famous photo of Bardot with the seal was not taken in Canada, but in a studio in southern France, months before she was claimed to have ventured onto the Canadian ice.


    Greenpeace co-founder Paul Watson has also been filmed carrying a baby seal to safety from hunters in 1977. Not only does the seal in the film clip not move at all, but its fur is clean and well-combed. Both of these facts suggest that Watson actually "saved" a stuffed seal. Watson has been involved in other publicity stunts. As head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society,. a more violent offshoot of Greenpeace, Watson distributed to media sources in the mid-1980s a film of himself broadcasting a call for help from his ship radio. In the film, he claims to be under weapons fire from pursuing gunboats of the Faroe Islands, presumably because they were angry at his anti-whaling efforts. Yet, no radio monitoring station anywhere in the North Atlantic has been able to confirm receiving the message.

    Photo Opportunities

    The environmentalist campaign against Pacific tuna fishing has also utilized the camera to generate publicity. Cooperating with such groups as the Earth Island Institute and the Marine Mammal Fund, former National Fisheries Service observer Sam LaBudde covertly filmed hundreds of dolphins being killed by a tuna fishing boat in 1987. The film was shown in 1988 on the CBS, ABC, and CNN television networks, creating public reaction against U.S. tuna fishermen. But the actual context of the film footage was not emphasized: The ship was under Panamanian registry, owned by Spanish nationals, and lacked standard nets and equipment. The procedures in the film bore no resemblance to standard U.S. fishing practices, nor even to those used by most foreign fishing fleets.

    The Greenpeace campaigns against animal products have extended even to Australia. In the mid-1980s, under the local leadership of Trevor Daley, Greenpeace acquired and distributed a film showing Australian farmers mutilating live kangaroos. The film, entitled Goodbye to Joey, was also made available in Europe and the United States. Using this tool, Greenpeace launched a determined campaign to ban kangaroo products in Europe; the organization even asserted that kangaroos were becoming endangered as a species, although every Australian is painfully aware how much of a pest the overabundant kangaroos are.

    The two Australians in the Greenpeace film were convicted in a Brisbane court for their illegal act; supported by their testimony under oath, the court concluded that the two had been paid by the film crew to perform the unusual cruelty. Although Trevor Daley was certainly aware of this information, he neglected to mention it, and Greenpeace was able to use the film as a successful fundraiser.

    The disinforming of the public by environmentalists has already cultivated tragic consequences. One example has been given by Bryan Roberts, a Canadian government official whose responsibilities included responding to letters during the height of the anti-sealing campaign. In a videotaped interview presented this past July to the International Whaling Commission, Roberts described his experience:

    One of the most frightening things for me . . . was an entire class of ten-year-olds, 28 or 30 ten-year-olds, writing in to the minister, saying, "Dear Mr. LeBlanc, If you don't stop [killing seals], I'm going to come and kill you. . . ." Who is teaching this person to say that, that if you want to resolve a problem, you threaten somebody with murder?
    Nonviolent Violence

    Although Greenpeace insists that its activities are entirely nonviolent, growing evidence suggests that it may covertly participate in direct violence against people and property. Indeed, even animals are not exempt. As reported by Robert W. Lee in the November 20, 1989 issue of The New American, members of the group have in the past sprayed Canadian baby seals with brightly colored dyes, making their fur economically useless but also increasing the susceptibility of the seals to cold and to predators. Greenpeace also appears to work closely with other organizations that more openly boast of violence.

    Formed by Greenpeace co-founder Paul Watson in the late 1970s, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has a history of taking militant action against whalers. In the early 1980s, Watson loaded his ship, the Sea Shepherd, with heavy concrete and rammed and sank several whaling ships off the coast of Portugal. Then, in September of 1987, a sabotage team from Watson's group used the cover of darkness to board and scuttle two whaling boats in the harbor of Iceland's capital, Reykjavik. That same night the saboteurs broke into a whaling station and destroyed its underground communications station.

    The covert ties between Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd become more apparent from investigations following the destruction of the Icelandic communications station. The Sea Shepherd saboteurs could not have found their way around the station at night without having previously scouted it. This job was probably performed by a "journalist" who had previously visited the station, since she was the only outsider who had ever gained access to the facility; this "journalist" turns out to have been a member of Greenpeace.

    Greenpeace also maintains unofficial ties to the violent sabotage organization Earth First!, a group of environmentalists who destroy equipment and endanger human lives. According to the July 1990 Organization Trends, published by the Capital Research Center, some of Greenpeace's events have been organized by one of Earth First!'s founders, Mike Roselle. Greenpeace employees have also gathered signatures for a 1986 petition circulated by Earth First!, and the September/October issue of Greenpeace encouraged readers to contribute to the legal defense of four Earth First! members arrested by the FBI for trying to cut electrical power lines.

    Eco-Lobby Growing Powerful

    The ban on commercial whaling by the International Whaling Commission was the central topic of debate at its annual meeting in early July. While the data show whale stocks to be plentiful, the IWC has become almost completely dominated by the ecological lobby. As a result, the Commission was unable to reach any decision on whether or not to renew the whaling ban. This theoretically should allow the member nations to legalize whaling again, but none of the North Atlantic nations is likely to do so soon. The reason: The United States is threatening these nations with economic sanctions unless they continue the ban themselves. This treatment is particularly shocking, because these countries are generally considered friendly to the U.S. Nevertheless, the U.S. has been using the threat of economic sanctions since 1974, to restrict hunting by these nations.

    The IWC itself appears to be completely under the control of the environmentalists. Many representatives to the Commission are either former members of Greenpeace or current sympathizers. Indeed, the new head of the U.S. delegation, chosen by Secretary of Commerce Robert Mosbacher, was a Greenpeace representative who went to Iceland in 1980 to protest whaling. Because of this loaded situation, the North Atlantic nations are now strongly considering withdrawing from the IWC following next year's annual meeting.

    Greenpeace's cynical use of seals and whales, as well as endorsements by rock music stars and actors, have brought the organization millions of dollars of support from the unaware public. Nevertheless, all of the sources of its financing cannot be known, since it keeps such information confidential. This is not a trivial concern, since the organization's 1989 income amounted to about $100 million. This money pays for a large international staff, a fleet of ships, helicopters, buildings, and much other equipment. Greenpeace claims to receive money only from individual contributions, rather than from governments or corporations, but the July 1990 Organization Trends reports that U S West, Xerox, and ARCO have been among the companies donating money to Greenpeace.

    "New Economic Order"

    Aside from the obvious financial motives, what reasons could the leaders of Greenpeace have for their campaigns? The evidence suggests that they are pursuing ideological goals largely unknown to their supporters. Greenpeace leaders are not sympathetic to the idea of free enterprise. Interviewed by In These Times last April, Greenpeace USA's Executive Director Peter Eahouth stated, "I don't believe in the market approach. . . . When companies have a bottom line of profit you won't have them thinking about the environment." An editorial in the March/April issue of Greenpeace called for replacing the "cruel calculation of the marketplace" and the "savage capitalism practiced by the United States" with a new "social order" patterned somewhat along the lines of the "rapidly evolving social democracies of Western Europe and Scandinavia." Those nations, of course, are rapidly preparing for merger into a United States of Europe, with increasingly centralized planning of people's lives.

    Greenpeace presented an article in January/February of 1989 boldly stating: "Through the 1990s, pressure groups and campaigning organizations like Greenpeace will have to take the lead in promoting the shift to a new economic order." According to the article, free market principles would be replaced by a form of socialism in which local governments would exert "ownership and control" over the economy. Barry Commoner argued in the September/October 1989 issue for "sweeping changes in the major systems of production," which "would be undertaken for a social purpose: environmental improvement. This represents social (as contrasted with private) governance of the means of production. . . ." And an article in the May/June issue for this year attacked automobile ownership, proclaiming that, in order to move into a "post-auto age," we must "restrict car ownership to one car per family on average and ration gasoline."

    What sort of people run an organization favoring such ideas? The 1985 sinking, by French agents, of Greenpeace's ship Rainbow Warrior resulted in the death of Fernando Pereira, whose background was reviewed in the October 1985 issue of the intelligence newsletter H du B Reports. The official photographer for Greenpeace, Pereira had previously been a member of the Baader-Meinhof gang, a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group based in West Germany. He had later become editor of the Dutch Communist Party's paper, Der Waarheld, and was finally arrested by the Dutch government as a Soviet agent. Pereira secured his job with Greenpeace through his membership in the World Peace Council, a front organization controlled by the Soviet KGB.

    William Arkin, now director of the Nuclear Information unit at Greenpeace, was previously a fellow at the radical Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a think tank defending the activities of Marxist revolutionaries around the globe. S. Steven Powell, author of the 1987 book Covert Cadre: Inside the Institute for Policy Studies, documents how Arkin released classified information regarding U.S. nuclear defenses while he was at the IPS, in 1984 and 1985. Greenpeace is also connected to the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE), a nuclear freeze organization formed by leading members of the IPS, which has sponsored such people as Italian Communist Party candidate Nino Pasti to speak in Washington DC. Covert Cadre notes that Greenpeace helped SANE form a computer network to coordinate the disarmament movement in the United States.

    The high-level presence in Greenpeace of people like Pereira and Arkin raises serious questions about the true goals of the organization's leadership. Additional information in the October 1985 H du B Reports supports the suspicion: French intelligence discovered in 1985 that Greenpeace was making plans to agitate the natives in Polynesia against French control of the area, a strategic region of the Pacific in which the Soviets were already sponsoring revolutionary movements. Could the Greenpeace campaign against North Atlantic nations have similar goals? Iceland, for example, lies squarely in the corridor for Soviet naval access to the Atlantic.

    Red Support for Greenpeace

    Greenpeace achieved a remarkable status last year when it opened an office in Moscow. Although Greenpeace often postures as an opponent of Soviet whaling, Danish news reported that the organization was granted diplomatic immunity by the Soviet government, allowing its ships and personnel to travel with freedom unprecedented for private organizations in any country, much less the Soviet Union. The head of the new Moscow office has an interesting background: Michael Gylling Nielsen was the author of a confidential 1983 report to the chairman of Greenpeace International. This document outlined a plan to destroy the economy of Norway through American and European boycotts of its key industries.

    Not only were fish imports from Norway successfully prevented, but the report also contained plans for having foreign contracts for Norwegian oil canceled, and for pressuring foreign tourist agencies not to book tours to Norway or on Norwegian cruise ships. Nielsen even suggested in the report that "we do some direct actions against the Cruise Lines." Norway shares a border with the Soviet Union, and also lies along the route used by Soviet ships and submarines to reach the Atlantic; destabilizing Norway could prove strategically useful to the Soviets.

    The Soviet Union has done even more to help Greenpeace. A rock music promotional album was issued last year by the organization, featuring such major rock groups as the Eurythmics, U2, and DireStraits, and has already raised tens of millions of dollars. Known as Rainbow Warriors in Western nations and Breakthrough in East Bloc countries, the album was released as a joint venture through Melodiya, the record company owned by the Soviet government. The Soviet magazine New Times proudly announced in March 1989: "Everyone who buys the album can consider himself a member of Greenpeace, which means It will soon have millions of new members here in the Soviet Union."

    Half the profits went to Greenpeace, helping to open the new Greenpeace office in Moscow; the other half went to help establish the International Foundation for the Survival and Development of Humanity, described by the August 22, 1989 Financial Times as "an East-West Soviet 'think tank'." This institute is co-directed by Greenpeace and the Soviet government, and its chairman is none other than Michael Nielsen, head of Greenpeace's Moscow office. Thus, the Soviet government helps Greenpeace raise funds, while the environmentalist group helps formulate Soviet propaganda.

    Erasing Borders

    Leaders of Greenpeace may indeed support the goal of a world government, which is also a Soviet goal. The February 1990 issue of World Marxist Review, policy journal for the Communist Parties throughout the world, featured an interview with David McTaggart, chairman of Greenpeace International. He described his efforts as "helping to erase the borders between East and West, North and South. He emphasized that "you can't talk about the survival of your nation or your economic system or your way of life at the expense of the survival of the planet we live on." When asked what he thought were the main obstacles to global environmentalist efforts, he responded, "To my mind, nationalism is the biggest enemy of global thinking."

    An article in the March/April issue of Greenpeace describes a Greenpeace-designed curriculum now being tested on eleven- to fourteen-year-old students in a number of government schools in North America, Europe, and the Soviet Union. The educational project coordinator for North America boasts that, in addition to indoctrinating students in methods of convincing the public to support environmentalist goals, the program promotes "internationalism." Summer camps and an international computer network will be included, and the program will soon be made fully available to teachers around the world.

    Greenpeace Redfaced?

    Exposures of Greenpeace disinformation and violence have already caused difficulties for the organization. Normally accustomed to having the full cooperation of the news media, Greenpeace suddenly found itself on the defensive last year when the video documentary Survival in the High North was aired in several European nations. Janus Hillgaard, acting chairman of Greenpeace Denmark, publicly declared shortly alter the broadcast that "our future is now at stake." Greenpeace first attempted to prevent airing of the program in Denmark and Norway, and in Iceland filed for legal action to censor the documentary only hours before its broadcast; in all three cases the actions failed. Pal Bugge, Greenpeace spokesman in Norway, declared before the broadcast in his country that "we are going to try to get it banned here."

    Greenpeace then threatened lawsuits against Danish television, but decided instead to sue the two journalists most responsible for compiling the devastating information. One of these reporters is Leif Blaedel, a recipient of the prestigious Cavling Prize for Danish journalism; when Greenpeace threatened him with legal action, elements in the Danish press began to turn against the environmentalist organization and its popularity slipped. Leif Blaedel's written exposes of Greenpeace's tactics led even the Danish pro-environmentalist paper, Information, to condemn the organization in 1986. One Greenpeace lawsuit over the documentary is currently in progress in Norwegian courts, with the group citing lost members and contributions as damages. Ironically. such legal actions appear to be costing Greenpeace a substantial sum of money and thereby affecting its campaigns.

    Other parts of the environmentalist movement in Europe have also suffered from the exposure. Last year, the Danish newspaper DetFriAktuelt quoted Svend Bichel, chairman of the Danish Environmental Association: "All this has not only turned public opinion against Greenpeace, but against other environmental organizations as well."

    If this sort of exposure spreads, public pressure may begin to force the U.S. Congress to reevaluate several policies. Seals would have to be removed from the endangered species list, allowing import of sealskins and furs, while the Marine Mammal Protection Act might have to be repealed. Further, Congress might become inclined to reduce U.S. contributions to the United Nations, at least until the International Whaling Commission lifts its whaling ban. Congress might also stop the threats by the Bush administration against the North Atlantic nations. And the rush to sign environmental treaties empowering the UN might be slowed or stopped.

    An editorial in the March/April Greenpeace admitted that the true goal of environmentalism is "a natural world free of human impact." If people wish to reserve room for themselves in this world, they will need to begin questioning the environmentalist claims of the government, the mass media, and organizations such as Greenpeace.
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga Toro : 18-06-2005 mė 11:09
    "Who is John Galt?"

  11. #11
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,113
    Faleminderit
    0
    31 falenderime nė 20 postime
    Pershendetje

    Seshte hiq per tu quditur qe qdo teori,ide,spekulim apo c'fare do ta quash do kete kundershtuesit e saj gjithesesi! Persa i perket global warming une e kuptoj se kapitalizmi do mundohet ta hedhe poshte per arsye se masat kunder ngrohjes globale do kene efekt potenial mbi ekonomie (pa i dhene kesaj teme nuanca politike,por nuk eshte aspak ne interes te kapitalizmit marrja e masave kundrejt global warmin)

    Perpara se te shpreh opinionin time personal mbi ngrohjen globale dhe te citoj disa thenie te banished dhe Toro me siper, desha te sjell disa satistika mbi opinionin e pergjithshem te njerezve mbi ngrohjen globale.

    Dhe banished,po te isha ne pozicionin tend to lxoja me teper ne lidhje me kete subjekt para se ti quash njerezit qe besojne ngrohjen globale injorante dhe njerez qe nuk e njohin historine e globit per arsye se mund te jete pjese derrmuese.

    Realiteti dhe urgjenca e ngrohjes Globale

    Nje pjese teper e madhe e publikut Amerikan perkrah idene se ngrohja globale eshte e vertete dhe eshte problem serios,dhe nje pjese tjeter(ana kundershtuese)argumenton qe marrja e masave kunder saj eshte teper e veshtire nga ana ekonomike.Kjo pjese perqendrohet ne dy pika: nese problemi
    eshte urgjent dhe duhtet te behen hape qe kushtojne shume apo ky problem mund te eleminohet gradualisht duke bere hapa me kosto te ulet.Politikanet qe jane ne favor te marrjes se masave kundrejt ngrohjes globale shikohen ne menyre me te favorshme.Padeijenia eshte e madhe per ngrohjen globale por jo proqesi qe rrethon Kyoto Treaty.

    Pjesa me e madhe afirmon realitetin e ngrohjes globale

    Virtualisht ne te gjitha sondazhet qe jane bere, nje pjese teper e madhe beson se ngrohja globale eshte nje problem i vertete.Vetem nje pjese teper e vogel e publikut (me pak se qereku) dyshon ne realitetin e ngrohjes globale.Sidoqofte qysh nga fillimi i administrimit nga Bush perqindja e pjeses qe dyshon eshte
    rritur.

    Nje pjese e vogel kundershton ngrohjen globale




    Ne shtator 2002,74% eshte thene te "besoje qe perhapja e gazerave si dioksidi i karbonit po shkakton rritjen e temperatures globale" ndersa 23% nuk besonte (Time/CNN)

    Ne Gusht 2002 Harris sondazh,72% thuhet se besojne teorine e ngrohjes globale nderkohe qe 20% thuhet te mos e besojne.Nga Djetori 1997 ne pegjigje te te njejtes pyetje 67% thuhet te besojne dhe 21% jo.

    Ne Korrik 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Jurnal sondazh,vetem 11% qendruan ne pozicionin qe "Shqetesimi per ngrohjen globale eshte i pajusifikueshem.

    Ne Shtator 1998 Wirthlin sondazh,74% shprhen besimin se ngrohja globale eshte e vertete nderkohe qe 22% thone se nuk besojne.

    Ne Tetor 1997 Universiteti i Ohio's te pyetur mbi idene e temperatures se globit te ngritur ne menyre graduale gjate 100 viteve e fundit rezultoi ne 77% e tyre te besoje se ky proqes eshte i mundur te jete zhvilluar nderkohe qe 22% e tyre thone se mbase jo.Keshtu qe 74% mendon se temperatura mesatare e globit te jete ne ngritje gjate te ardhmes nderkohe qe 22% mendon se nuk mundet.

    Kur PIPA ne 1998 dhe 2000 oferoj nje nje reagim ne tre pozicione te mundeshme te ngrohjes globale,me nje nga varjantet qe ngrohja globale eshte e vertete por nuk kerkon aktivizim me kosto te larte,me teper se 80% zgjodhen varjantin qe deklaron realitetin e ngrohjes globale (Shiko me poshte) Dhe kjo te ben te mendosh se disa pjesmarres ne sondazhet e tjera te cilet nuk kane perkrahur realitetin e ngrohjes globale faktikisht jane munduar ti shmangen varjantit e kostos se larte dhe nuk kane votuar besimin e tyre mbi ngrohjen globale.

    Pjesa me e madhe po ashtu beson se shkaku i ngrohjes globale ka lidhje me aktivitetin e njeriut.Ne Mars 2001,Gallup shtroi nje pyetje mbi rritjen e ngrohjes
    globale dhe pastaj arsyjet e saj.61% besonin se rritja e temperatures nglobale gjate shekullit te fundit eshte me tepre rezulatt i aktiviteteve te njeriut nderkohe qe 33% besonin se ngrohja globale eshte me tepr rezulat i ndryshimeve natyrale te ambientit dhe jo rezulat i akteve te njeriut.Ne menyre te gjashme muajn tjeter Los Angelos Time pyet 86% te atyre qe kane njohuri apo lexuar mbi ngrohjen
    globale se c'mendojne mbi shkakun? 60% e tyre mendone se eshte shkaktuar nga aktivitetet e njeriut si psh...ngarja e makinave..djegja elendeve kimike etj nderkohe qe vetem 20% e tyre mendonin se eshte shkaktuar nga ndryshimet natyrale te klimes.Pjesa tjeter 15% zgjodhen te dyja variantet.

    Perqindja e atyre qe mendojne se ngrhoja globale eshte problem serioz eshte e larte.Duket sikur eshte rritur nga fundi i 90'tes eshte stabiluzuar dhe tani rreth tre qereku i Amerikaneve.Shumica mendon se media nuk po egzagjeron seriozitetin e
    ngrohjes globale.Kur Gallup (Mars 2001) shtroi pyetjen se qfare mendonin nga te dhenat ne lajme,vetem 30% mendonin se serioziteti i ngrohjes globale eshte ne pergjithesi i egzagjeruar.Dy te treat mendonin se pamja e medias mbi seriozitetin e ngrohjes globale eshte ne pergjithesi korrekte(34%) apo ne pergjithesi e nenvlehtesuar 32% Shiko satistikat ketu http://www.americans-world.org/diges...nnaire1.cfm#11

    Pjesa me e madhe beson se egzston konsencus midis shkencareve mbi realitetin e ngrohjes globale,edhe pse ky besim eshte konsiliduar kohet e fundit.Ne ditet e sotme,61% mendon se "Shkencaret besojne se ngrohja globale po zhvillohet (30% mendon se shumica e shkencareve nuk eshte e sigurte.




    Persa i perket pyetjes mbi llogaritjen se kur mund te behet i ndjeshem efekti i ngrohjes globale,shumica mendon se ka filluar te behet i ndjeshem qe ne kohet e sotme dhe vetem nje majnoritet i Amerikaneve pranon se ngrohja globale do kete efekt dramatik ne jeten e tyre aktuale.Ne Mars 2001 Gallup shtron pyetjen mbi efektet e ngrohjes globale dhe arrin ne konkluzion se 58% mendon se kjo ka filluar te ndodhe (54%) do filloje te ndodhe pas disa vitesh (4% Gallup) nderkohe qe 18% mendon se nuk do ndodhe gjate kohes se jetes se tyre por do kete efekt ne generatat e ardheshme (dhe vetem 7% mendon se ngrohja globale nuk do ndodhe kurre)

    Sidoqofte ne pyetjen " A mendon se ngrohja globale do jete kercenim serioz gjate jetes tuaj" vetem 31% thote po nderkohe qe dy te tretat (66%) thote jo.
    Ne Shtator 1998 Mellian grup sondazh,57% mendon se ngrohja globale eshte nje problem i ambientit qe po zhvillohet aktualisht,26% mendon se ngrohja globale do ndodhe ne te ardhmen (dhe vetem 8% mendon se ngrohja globale nuk do ndodhe fare)

    Argumente ekonomike kundra masave te duhura





    Shumica e Amerikaneve nuk jane te bindur nga argumentimet se marrja e masave per te ulur ngrohjen globale mudn te behet subjekt i nje kstoje ekonomike te papranueshme.Duke u kerkuar te zgjedhin midis dy deklaratave ne Janar 1999 Zogby sondazh vetem 24% voton ne tae qe "US duhet ti shmanget qdo "reagimi mbi NG (NGROHJE GLOBALE) qe e zhyt US ne disavantazhe konkurruese.Hedhja e hapave te medha mbi uljen e e perhapjes se ndotjes nga lendet vajgurore mund te jete negative per ekonomine dhe menyren e jeteses.Pjesa me e mire,63% voton per argumentin me te forte qe "NG eshte nje kercenim serios.Ne duhet te marrim te gjitha masat e demosdoshme per te ndaluar perhapjen e ndotjes nga lendet vajgurore dhe duhtet te bashkebisedojme me nacionalitetet e tjera per realizimin e saj.

    Sidoqofte,duket sikur egzison ne dendence ne drejtimin e dhenies se ekonomise nje prioritet me te madh,mase nga konditat e papranueshme ekonomike apo ofertat e uleta te Bushit ne administrimin per ambientin krahasim me ekonomine.Ne Janar 200,70% thote se mbrojtjes se ambientit i duhet dhene prioritet,qofte dhe pse rrezikohet rritja e konomise dhe vetem 23% mendon se ekonomise i duhet dhene nje prioritet me i larte.

    Pjese e shkurtuar!
    Nese do lexosh me teper burimi eshte http://www.americans-world.org/diges...arming/gw1.cfm
    Fotografitė e Bashkėngjitura Fotografitė e Bashkėngjitura  
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga BvizioN : 19-06-2005 mė 07:02
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  12. #12
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,113
    Faleminderit
    0
    31 falenderime nė 20 postime
    E forta eshte se te njejtet persona qe flasin sot per shkaktim te "Global Warming" nga njeriu, ne vitet '70 flitnin per "Global Cooling"!!!!!!
    Interesant!! Toro,a mund te sjellesh ndonje evidence qe e mbeshtet kete thenien tende?

    Le te shprehim thjesht opinionin tone persanal me aq pak njohuri sa kemi.
    Pike se pari dhe fakt i pamohueshem! Atmosfera e tokes eshte nje nder gjerat me kryesore qe e ben token tone te ndryshme nga planetet e tjera.Pa atosfere toka do kthehej pothuajse direkt ne nje Merkur!

    Fakt tjeter i pamohueshem! Ndotjet e shkaktuara nga lendet e dryshme kimike,provat berthamore,industria e rende etj ndikon negativisht ne atosfere.Ndotja e atmosferes nga gazrat e ndryshme pengon largimin e energjise se tepert te tokes.

    Ja nje shembull me skice





    Sa per Zerin e Mirdites, ai vete duhet ta kuptoje qe shkrirja e akujve polare dhe akullnajave, do te thote ne menyre te pakundershtueshme; me shume shi, dhe detyrimisht me shume uje te pijshem neper rezervat ujore te njerezimit; dhe aspak te kunderten.
    Mrekulli sikur te ishe aq e tjeshte ! Me shume shi,me teper burime me uj te pishem, e rezuarvare per te vaditur... thua se behet fjale per boren e korabit!

    Po le ti hedhim nje shikim me te afert!

    Rrymat detare ne oqeanin atlantik terheqin energjine e ngrohte nga ekuadori drejt hemisferes se veriut duke i dhene nje stabilitet klimes.Vershimi i rrymave detare eshte i ndertuar nga balance delikate mes ujrave te kripura dhe ujrave te embla.Shkrirja e akujve ne polin e veriut si rezultat i ngrohjes globale shkakton vershimin e me teper ujrave te embla ne oqean gje qe i qrregullon rrymat detare dhe si rrjedhim sjell prishjen e klimes.

    Plus qe niveli i ujrave do rritej ne menyre kolosale duke shkaktur permbytje te medha.

    Argumentime ne kete subjekt mund te jene te pafundshme.Personalish besoj se njeriu eshte ne pozicion te zoteroje nje tekologji me miqesore karshi ambientit.Psh...perdorimi i me tepert i paneleve solare per marrjen e energjise direkt nga dielli (ne vend te termocentraleve berthamore) dhe shume shume te tjera por kur e mendon se burimi me i madh i ekonomise i ka rrenjet egzakt aty ku qendron dhe shkaku i ngrohjes globale.....atehere e kupton se gjithcka ngelet argument dypalesh dhe i veshtire per tu zgjidhur.

    banished dhe Toro !
    Ju lutem mos e merrni personale se eshte thjesht argumentim qe ne bazohem nga qfar kemi mesuar.Une nuk jam dhe as ju nuk besoj te jeni te specializuar ne kete drejtim.Po nje gje kuptoj....per para njeriu eshte i gatshem te shkaterroje gjithcka sebashku me te ardhshmen e generatave te tjera (nese gjenerata jone nuk do kete ndonje pasoje)
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga BvizioN : 19-06-2005 mė 07:58
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  13. #13
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,113
    Faleminderit
    0
    31 falenderime nė 20 postime
    Citim Postuar mė parė nga banished

    Te gjitha keto lloj teorish alarmuese, behen nga injorante qe nuk njohin historine e tokes, nga njerez qe nuk sine te bejne gje tjeter per profesion, dhe kane zgjedhur alarmin si menyre te vetme per te nxjerre buken e gojes...
    [/FONT]
    Mbase shumica nuk mendon ashtu siq mendon ti!!!

    Sondazhe si ky http://www.misterpoll.com/1603832259.html apo http://www.maineenvironment.org/energy/CI_poll_pr.htm jane te pafundme!

    A eshte e mundur qe shumica te jete gjithmone gabim??
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga BvizioN : 19-06-2005 mė 07:50
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  14. #14
    Perjashtuar Maska e land
    Anėtarėsuar
    12-12-2003
    Postime
    7,554
    Faleminderit
    0
    Falenderuar 1 herė nė 1 postim

    Lightbulb

    Meqe po flasim per sondazhe, i dashur Zim,,, mos do na dalesh te na thuash tani se ishin amerikanet(rreth 300 miljon) qe e pushtuan Irakun? Mos na ishin gjithe anglezet qe e pushtuan Irakun? Apo, meqe edhe Shqiperia paska trupa ne Irak, 3 miljon e gjysem shqiptare jane pushtues te Irakut?
    E cfare rendesie ka mendimi i shumices, kur gjerat merren ne menyren qe na i servirni ju? A nuk mendonte shumica e botes para nja 400 vjeteve qe Toka ishte e sheshte? Sa shpejt ndryshoi ky mendim? Puna nuk eshte ketu, i dashur; qendron me teper qe ju duhet te arrini te kuptoni, te pakten ate qe shkruajme ne te tjeret, qe te mos na i quani shkrimet si ofenduese, apo pa lidhje me ate qe shkruani ju.
    Se pari, une nuk e mohova fare faktin qe ka nje fare rritjeje te temperatures se pergjithshme globale. Kjo, mund te jete shume e vertete. Dhe une gjithe diskutimin tim e nis nga kjo pike. Une po them qe pasojat nuk jane ato qe na jepen; pasojat alarmante qe injorantet e green peace-it na shkruajne dite per dite neper gazeta scoopesh. Nuk jam dakord qe shkaktari i kesaj "rritjeje" te temperatures se rruzullit te jete njeriu; me cfareolloj shkopi t'ia bejme matjen,- dhe ne kete kontekst, kurrsesi pasojat nuk jane aq tragjike.
    Nderkohe, meqe eshte fjala tek faktet, pasojat dhe parashikimet, pse ju(Zimo) nuk merrni mundim qe te kundershtoni ato qe ka shkruar Toro, apo ato qe kam shkruar une? Me te tilla gjera doni te diskutoni ju? Me disa sondazhe te kota, te pakontrolluara, ose te kontrolluara me mire sec duhet? Me falni, por, te mos kesh gje per te thene per gjithe ato qe ka shkruar Toro dhe une me siper, dhe te paraqitesh me te tilla argumente(si psh: shumica beson keshtu, e shumica beson ashtu...) do te thote dhune vizuale, ndotje vizive;(te forumit, faqes aktuale)... Nese ju argumentet i beni me llogjike, urdheroni, ja tek jemi, merrini pike per pike ato qe kemi shkruar, dhe jemi ne rregull.
    Gjithsesi, ju beni shume mire qe hapni te tilla tema, sepse eshte e vertete qe shume njerez jane vertete te alarmuar nga disa fakte te servirura.
    Gjithe te mirat...

  15. #15
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,113
    Faleminderit
    0
    31 falenderime nė 20 postime
    banished...menyra se si je pergjigjur me len te kuptoj se gjerat i merrni shume personale! Me vjen keq por une nuk jam ketu per te kundershtuar ty,Toron apo dike tjeter,kushdo qofte! Shtjellimi i mendimeve dhe opinioneve rreth nje problemi apo rreth nje tjetri nuk do te thote aspak Alarmim.Teke fundit forumi per gjera te tilla eshte!

    Citova vetem dy gjera nga ato qe the ti,shkrirjen e akujve qe nuk eshte nevoja ti kthehem perseri prap atij diskutimi si dhe menyren se si e shkion ti problemin e NG (domethene si nje alarmim injorantesh)

    Dhe pse duhet te humbas kohe ne argumentime me shkrimet e Toros (qe faktikisht jane Copy and paste nga nje burim qe Toro nuk e ka adresuar ne fund)
    kur shume me mire mund te sjell ato nga te cilat eshte formuar opinioni im! Dhe nese dikush deshiron ti kundershtoje,bukur fare.

    Nuk e kuptoj pse nje pjese njerezish ne kete forum mendojne se qdo teme duhet te kthehet ne debad mes dy palesh qe kane opinione te ndryshme!! Dhe pastaj do stergjaten me posta kundershtuese e citime pas citimesh te irritueshme.E ku te shpien argumentime te tillla? Ne krijimin e nje opinioni te njejte? Kurresesi!

    Per tu kther perseri ne teme! Besoj se nuk mund ta kundershtosh se nje volum teper masiv gazerash i shtohet atmosferes qdo dite nga industria e rende,makinerite e lloj lloj burimesh te tjera.
    Dhe nese teoria shkencore mbi procesin e Green house (Serrat,per ta thene ne shqip fare) se gazrat ne amosfere e mbyllin ate nxehtesi qe si rregull duhet ti riktheshet hapesires,atehere pse u dashka mohuar se ngrohja globale eshte diqka ne te cilen ndikon njeriu? Mbase nuk mund te kete pasoja tani,mbase as pas 200 apo 300 vitesh!

    Shenjat mbase jane jo te dukshme por mbase dhe jane! Moti sa vjen dhe ndryshon ne menyra te quditshme(babai im para 10 vitesh thoshte se verat vine gjithnje dhe behen me te nxehta ne krahasim me ato te viteve me pare!) por nese ky proces zhvillohet gradualish do kete pasoja ne te ardhmen.

    Persa i preket sondazheve ke te drejte.Mbas gabova disi per arsye se polle te tilla nuk mund te shprehin opinionin e gjith puplikut ne pergjithesi,dhe prsa i perket satistikave te mesiperme personalish besoj se jane te sakta.Sidoqofte nga gjithe programet televizive mbi kete teme apo nga leximet qe kam bere pjesa me e madhe e shikojne si shqetesim ndotjen e atmosferes,dhe nje pjese jo e madhe e shikojne si problem alarmant.

    Persa i perket green peace une kam mendim tjeter nga aij qe ke ti.Mbase egzagjerojne disi gjerat sidoqofte synimi i tyre eshte pozitiv dhe ka te beje me ate qe shumica e njerezve nuk duan tja dine, nje te ardhme stabel te planetit.

    Me te mira
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  16. #16
    i/e regjistruar Maska e Irfan
    Anėtarėsuar
    08-07-2002
    Vendndodhja
    Aty ku Allahu me krijoji
    Postime
    469
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Ēdo gje qe eshte krijuar apo eshte lindur, nje dite do te mbaroj.Kjo eshte realitet.
    Mos u merziteni kaq shume se a po ngrohet apo ftohet,le ti shikojme ngjarjet me fatale te njerzimit.Ēdo dite vdezin dhe vriten me mira e mira njerze,kjo a nuk eshte me fatale se ēdo gje....!!!
    Shqiperi eshte aty ku flitet shqip.....aty ku u nda toka dhe qielli

  17. #17
    Perjashtuar Maska e land
    Anėtarėsuar
    12-12-2003
    Postime
    7,554
    Faleminderit
    0
    Falenderuar 1 herė nė 1 postim

    Lightbulb

    EEEEhhh Zimi, Zimi...
    As une nuk po debatoj me ate fryme qe thoni ju!
    Megjithate, pak fare keni thene ne kete postimin tjeter.
    Gjithashtu, edhe postimet tuaja jane copy/paste nga interneti, se nuk eshte e mundur qe te na jepni grafike te tille nga vetja juaj! Prandaj, pak mund te thoni per Toron, se sidoqofte, ai qe shpreh Toroja ketu, shume mire mund te jete dhe mendimi i tij personal... Apo jo? Megjithate, une nuk e mora aspak personalisht shkrimin tuaj, thjesht argumentova me te, sepse e di qe ka shume njerez qe mendojne ashtu.
    Thjesht, dua te ritheksoj qe ju nuk i keni marre fare parasysh ato qe jane shkruar, as prej meje, as prej Toros. Nuk e di nese ju futeni ne forum per te hedhur nje fjale e pastaj per te avulluar ose jo, por, gjithsesi, duhet ta pranoni qe ne nje menyre apo nje tjeter, edhe ju synoni te shprehni mendimin tuaj, dhe si rrjedhim edhe te influenconi mendimin e te tjereve duke bere ashtu. Te njejten gje synojne te gjithe ketu, dhe ju, Zimi, jeni nje prej personave qe une do te influencoj me mendimin tim, pavaresisht sesa i hapur mund te jeni ju per te pranuar nje te drejte apo nje mendim te nje tjetri.
    Gjithsesi, per t'iu kthyer temes edhe njehere; ju e dini mire qe eshte thene dhe sterthene qe viti 1985 ka qene nje nga vitet me te ftohta te shekullit XX. E pra, ky eshte nje vit ne mes te epokes se bumit teknologjiko industrial, ne nje periudhe kur leshimi i gazrave te demshem(te demshem per njeriun, por te dobishem per njeriun nga ana tjeter, perderisa i sherbejne botes se gjelbert, mushkerive te planetit, dhe rrjedhimisht njeriut duke i dhene oksigjen te paster) ne atmosfere arriti kulme te reja.
    Tani, ju do te benit mire qe t'i merrnit keto pika nje nga nje, dhe nese jeni ne gjendje t'i argumentoni me ane te atyre artikujve qe postoni ketu, jeni mese i mirepritur. Perndryshe, kundershtoni sa te doni, por, mos harroni qe te shtoni se e beni nga qejfi, jo nga fakti.
    Nese une, psh, nuk shoh ndonje ndryshim ne postimet tuaja, atehere do te mendoj qe jeni nje bot; nese nuk keni deshire qe t'ju kundershtojne, atehere na thoni, dhe une i pari do te terhiqem.
    Deri ketu vate mire...
    Gjithe te mirat Zimi...

  18. #18
    i/e regjistruar
    Anėtarėsuar
    27-12-2004
    Postime
    1,681
    Faleminderit
    2
    12 falenderime nė 10 postime
    Elexova qe ne fillim kete teme por nuk desha me u pergjigj njehere por shoh se postimet kan evoluar dhe mund te them qe jam me Toron dhe banished ,duke ju sjell nje fakt te vogel por shum kuptim plot .

    Kur shkon neper male shpesh gjen guaska deti te ngurtezuara neper shkembinj po nuk i patet pare beni nje xhiro nga mali i dajtit se do ti gjeni, pra deti ka qene deri ne dajt dhe para se te vinte deti deri ne dajt kane qene akullnajat qe jane shkrire dhe kan ngritur nivelin e detit,
    por kjo ka ndodhur ne kohen kur njeriu nuk egzistonte dhe rrjedhimisht ngrohja ka pasur arsye tjeter , Me von deti u terhoq per arsye te avullimit dhe te rritjes se perimetrit te tokes kur kontinentet ishin ende te bashkuar por ne ate kohe skishte kemb njeriu mbi toke dhe ngrohja egzistonte .

    Nuk kam kohe tju shkruaj me gjeresisht , sot.

  19. #19
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,113
    Faleminderit
    0
    31 falenderime nė 20 postime

    Gjithashtu, edhe postimet tuaja jane copy/paste nga interneti, se nuk eshte e mundur qe te na jepni grafike te tille nga vetja juaj! Prandaj, pak mund te thoni per Toron, se sidoqofte, ai qe shpreh Toroja ketu, shume mire mund te jete dhe mendimi i tij personal

    Ne rregull banished! Del qarte se edhe ju nuk ia keni hedhur syte fare statistikave qe kam postuar se po ta kisht lexuar imtesisht atehere do kuptonit se nuk jane nga mendja ime...gjithashtu ne fund te postes kam treguar qarte se nga e kam marre duke dhene edhe linkun,nje gje e cila ty nuk te ka rene ne sy fare!!

    Po ama nuk eshte thjesht copy & paste! Kam konsumuar njefar kohe me aq sa di nga anglishtja per ti perkthyer ne Shqip!(Jo te gjithe ne forum mbase flasin Anglish) Po te ishe per copy & paste do kisha sjelle nje mori postash nga te pafundmet e internetit,por as qe e kam ndermend!

    Citim Postuar mė parė nga banished

    Gjithsesi, per t'iu kthyer temes edhe njehere; ju e dini mire qe eshte thene dhe sterthene qe viti 1985 ka qene nje nga vitet me te ftohta te shekullit XX. E pra, ky eshte nje vit ne mes te epokes se bumit teknologjiko industrial, ne nje periudhe kur leshimi i gazrave te demshem(te demshem per njeriun, por te dobishem per njeriun nga ana tjeter, perderisa i sherbejne botes se gjelbert, mushkerive te planetit, dhe rrjedhimisht njeriut duke i dhene oksigjen te paster) ne atmosfere arriti kulme te reja.
    Pasojat e ngrohjes globale nuk eshte e thene qe te jene thjesh nje ngrohje masive e planetit! Po tu bazohesh teorive shkencore ngrohja globale eshte me e mundur te riktheje nje kohe akulli! Dhe e vetmja arsye eshte qrregullimi i sistemit klimatik te tokes si rrjedhim i shkrirjes masive te akullnajave (qrregullon vershimin e rrymave te ngrohta nga ekuadori ne dy hemisferat) Mendohet se pasojat e saj te jene me teper stuhira,horrikane, dhe ngrice masive!

    Tani ketu ka diqka! Teoria e ngrohjes globale shpreh qarte arsyet se pse dhe ne qmenyre ndikon? A mund te me sjellesh disa nga arsyet qe te shtyjne te mendosh se ndotja e atmosferes me lende kimike nuk eshte e demshme per atmosferen dhe planetin?

    A je ne gjendje te kundershtosh humbjen e ozonit (O3) nga stratosfera(gropa e ozonit),fillimisht ne menyre masive mbi Antraktide por kohet e fundit edhe ne hemisferen e veriut?Teorikisht humbja e ozonit eshte rrjedhim i qlirimit te lendeve kimike si oksid nitrogjeni (NOx) CFC's te cilat jane produkte qe perdoren ne sistemin e frogorifereve,kpndisionereve,areosols si dhe nga avionet. Vetem nje hair spray ka kapacitet te djege nje number te pabesueshem M3 (meter kub) Ozon gje e cila shkruhet ne materila tamam sikur shkruhet ne nje pakete cigaresh 'Duhani mund te sjelle kancer'

    Te njejten gje synojne te gjithe ketu, dhe ju, Zimi, jeni nje prej personave qe une do te influencoj me mendimin tim, pavaresisht sesa i hapur mund te jeni ju per te pranuar nje te drejte apo nje mendim te nje tjetri.
    Nje mendim te nje tjetri po...nje te drejte??? Lol,kush vendos se c'far eshte e drejte dhe c'far nuk eshte

    Nejse,jeni me se i mirpritur te kundershtoni! Vetem do me pelqente sikur te illustroje me fakte se pse ndotja kimike (e cila eshte veper e njeriut) nuk ndikon negativisht ne atmosfere!

    Oh..dhe diqka! Shume nga shoferet (personat qe mbajne makine) u pelqen te mos e marrin aspak parasysh faktin qe makinat e tyre ndikojne ne ndotjen e atmosferes! Une kam makine vete dhe kohet e fundit (deri sa ta shes e te blej nje tjeter ) nje Rover dizel te vitit 1995 qe e ben vazhde te zeze nga pas me skapamenton e saj si me qene avion

    Seriozisht tani...ne ditet me diell del diku jashte qytetit dhe hedh nje sy mbi qeillin e saj qe edhe pse nuk ka re eshte e zbehte ne menyre te dukshme! Pse? Nga skapamentot qindra mijera makina qe qarkullojne rrugeve te saj!

    Une nuk dua te them qe makinat nuk duhet te qarkullojne sepse kohes nuk mund ti kthehesh prapsht.Mirpo eshte koha e zoterimit te nje teknologjie te re me te favorshme per ambientin (me energji solare psh) Po a do ishe ne favor te ekonomise se superfuqive qe bazohet me se shumti ne trgtine e naftes?? Sma merr mendja!

    Me te mira
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  20. #20
    Dash...me kembore Maska e Toro
    Anėtarėsuar
    26-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    CALIFORNIA
    Postime
    1,407
    Faleminderit
    0
    15 falenderime nė 14 postime
    ZIM,
    Statistikat qe ke sjelle megjithese mund te jene te sakta ( per hir te debatit e zeme se jane te sakta), nuk tregojne asgje ne lidhje me fenomenin e shkaktimimit te Ngrohjes Globale nga Njeriu! Tema jone eshte a shkaktohet Ngrohja Globale nga Njeriu apo jo! Eshte dicka shkencore dhe ekzakte. Nese disa statistika tregojne sesa besojne apo jo tregon sesa njerezit mund te jene genjyer-informuar-ndergjegjesuar- ne lidhje me fenomenin, por kurresesi nuk mund te perdoret si fakt shkencor qe meqe shumica e njerezve beson se Ngrohja Globale shkaktohet nga Njeriu, atehere keshtu duhet te jete! Ne statistikat e mesiperme gjithashtu nuk permenden ata qe e studiojne Global Warming.....shkencetaret! Vetem nje perqindje e vogel shkencetaresh e perkrah idene se Ngrohja Globale eshte e shkaktuar nga Njeriu....Pjesa derrmuese thote jo!

    Megjithate urdhero dhe fakte te tjera shkencore nga web site shkendcore, jo statistika gazetash! 90% te njerezve besojne dhe ne Zot, por asnjeri prej tyre nuk e ka pare Zotin me sy......Prej ketyre 90%, fatkeqesisht, Zoti u beson vetem nje 5%! ( lol)





    COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
    Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

    Fact: Temperatures have increased around urban areas (“heat islands”) which distorts the overall picture; whereas accurate satellite, balloon and long-term mountain top measurements have observed no increase at all.



    Myth 2: The “hockey stick” graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

    Fact: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average" global temperature has been rising at a rate of 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Celsius per 100 years; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare. The hockey stick not only ignores historical fact, but is also scientifically flawed.




    Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

    Fact: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. The CO2 increase was only 0.4% over the last 50 years, rather than the 5% per 100 years quoted by Kyoto. However, as measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this. There is solid evidence that as temperatures rise naturally and cyclically, the earth naturally produces more CO2 as a result.




    Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

    Fact: Water vapour or clouds, which makes up on average about 3 % of the atmosphere, is the major greenhouse gas. CO2 makes up only about 3% of the greenhouse gases, or about 0.03% of the atmosphere. Moreover, because of its molecular weight and absorptive capacity, water vapour is 3000 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.



    Myth 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

    Fact: Unfortunately, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of including the effects of the sun and the clouds. Further, the main cause of temperature variation is the sun. Its radiation changes all the time, partly in cyclical fashion. The number of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which is CO2.



    Myth 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

    Fact: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
    1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
    2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ………..man–made causes”



    Myth 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

    Fact: This is absolutely not true. In fact, CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth and its intake causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.




    Myth 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

    Fact: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claimsGrowing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density and escalating development value.



    Myth 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

    Fact: Glaciers have been receding for hundreds of years; that’s because we are still coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating.
    It’s normal.



    Myth 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
    Fact: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, but the eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling.
    "Who is John Galt?"

Faqja 1 prej 10 123 ... FunditFundit

Tema tė Ngjashme

  1. Ku shtrihet perandoria globale e SHBA
    Nga Gunnar nė forumin Problemet ndėrkombėtare
    Pėrgjigje: 0
    Postimi i Fundit: 07-03-2007, 10:52
  2. Stuhi Globale Rere Erresojne dhe "Perzhisin" Token
    Nga Darius nė forumin Shkenca dhe jeta
    Pėrgjigje: 3
    Postimi i Fundit: 19-04-2006, 00:56
  3. Hegjemonia amerikane dhe e mira e pėrbashkėt
    Nga Davius nė forumin Problemet ndėrkombėtare
    Pėrgjigje: 0
    Postimi i Fundit: 02-01-2006, 17:55
  4. Menyra e komunikimit ne nje ekonomi Globale.
    Nga Estella nė forumin Ekonomi & biznes
    Pėrgjigje: 0
    Postimi i Fundit: 01-06-2002, 10:38
  5. Njerėzit qė dirigjojnė ekonominė globale
    Nga ILovePejaa nė forumin Ekonomi & biznes
    Pėrgjigje: 0
    Postimi i Fundit: 03-05-2002, 23:11

Ruaj Lidhjet

Regullat e Postimit

  • Ju nuk mund tė hapni tema tė reja.
  • Ju nuk mund tė postoni nė tema.
  • Ju nuk mund tė bashkėngjitni skedarė.
  • Ju nuk mund tė ndryshoni postimet tuaja.
  •