Close
Faqja 2 prej 10 FillimFillim 1234 ... FunditFundit
Duke shfaqur rezultatin 21 deri 40 prej 185
  1. #21
    Dash...me kembore Maska e Toro
    Anėtarėsuar
    26-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    CALIFORNIA
    Postime
    1,407
    Faleminderit
    0
    3 falenderime nė 3 postime
    Urdhero dhe nje artikull te Newsweek, te vitit 1975 ne lidhje me "Glabal Cooling", meqe doje fakte!

    FROM
    Newsweek
    April 28, 1975


    The Cooling World
    There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

    The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

    To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

    A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

    To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

    Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

    Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

    “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

    Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

    Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000

    All Material Subject to Copyright.


    Ja dhe nje tjeter:

    2005-02-28
    Global cooling, again.
    I wrote about the Global cooling myth on RealClimate a while ago; and there is a more complete but less organised set of stuff at http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/. I had hoped that the RC peice would throw up some interesting new references; but only one appeared:

    From Physical Geology by Eugene Mitacek, 1971:

    WILL THE ICE AGES RETURN? Climatologists report that the world's weather is turning sharply cooler. Signs of this are evident. Drifting icefields have hindered access to Iceland's ports for the first time in this century. Since 1950 the growing season in England has been shortened by two weeks. Director Reid Bryson of the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin reports that, if this trend continues, it will affect the whole human populace.

    A long term study of climactic conditions would place the first half of the twentieth century into an exceptionally warm period. The warming trend peaked in 1945, and the temperatures have been dropping since. The drop to date is on 1.5 degrees C, far from the 10 degrees C drop necessary for a new Ice Age. If this trend is not reversed, however, the planet may be caught in an ice-forming cycle similar to that of the Pleistocene.

    That quote is probably copied from http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/3/2/03449/27856. Note that the drop-to-date of 1.5 oC is wrong (by todays climatology, and probably by what they had then). The global cooling from peak (1940's) to trough (1970's) is barely 0.2 oC (see the SPM) and the northern hemisphere only somewhat larger (about 0.3 oC: see fig 2.7). If you took peak-to-trough for individual years (which you shouldn't, because only slightly different years would then get you a warming) you might get 0.6 oC. But not 1.5 oC. However, thats from modern records: what was available at the time might be wilder.

    The reference turns out to be wrong (initially I suspected it might simply be invented, but no). The real ref is Physical Geology, Principles, Processes, and Problems by Charles J. Cazeau, Robert D, Hatcher, Jr.; and Francis T. Siemankowski, 1976 (not 1971; thats a relief because 1971 would be an implausible date for a quote of this sort). The confusion arises because the endpapers are a geological chart by Mitacek, which *is* copyright 1971. With the ref sorted out (thanks JM) I got a copy from abebooks, which arrived today (the wonders of the internet; once apon a time getting hold of a copy would have been too tedious to bother with).

    However although the ref needed correction the quote, somewhat to my surprise, is in context (you wouldn't believe the out-of-context quoting that goes on elsewhere). The book continues (thanks JM):

    Long range weather forecaster Edward M. Brooks believes that the present cooling trend follows a 40-year cyclic pattern. He feels that this trend will continue until 1985. We will not need to wait much longer to see if the trend will reverse. Both Bryson and Brooks are in agreement, however, that the world is heading into a period of weather unfavorable for agriculture. This is extremely bad news because of the explosion of population in many countries of the world. It appears as if we will be producing less, rather than more, food. As food reserves dwindle we may move into a period of massive, unimaginable tragedy. Long-range plans to feed as ever-growing population must be made.

    In the last paragraph of the chapter it also says the following:

    It is difficult to forecast the outcome of the present cooling trend. Climatologists differ regarding whether a new Ice Age lies ahead. There is agreement, however, in predictions of shorter growing seasons and lower crop yields for the next 10 years.

    Now, what do I say to this? Bad news for the good guys? Well no (surprised?). I think it accurately reports Brysons views, but not the general views of the time. The views of the time were "we don't have good enough theory and measurements to predict the future (100 years) climate, and we know it" (see, e.g., the conclusions of the NAS report, 1975). This is a textbook, not the primary literature. So how do we explain the presence of this stuff in a textbook? Its only a tiny fraction (less than one page out of more than 500) and its a geology book not a climatology book. Textbooks are (I presume) not peer-reviewed in the way papers are; and even if it was reviewed it would have been sent to geologists, since its a geology book. People often make mistakes when they go out of their field...
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga Toro : 20-06-2005 mė 15:13
    "Who is John Galt?"

  2. #22
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,105
    Faleminderit
    0
    7 falenderime nė 6 postime
    Statistikat qe ke sjelle megjithese mund te jene te sakta ( per hir te debatit e zeme se jane te sakta)]
    Toro..opinioni juaj mbi saktesine e statistikave nuk duhet te ndikohet nga fryma e debatit! Nese ke arsye te besosh se jane te gabuara mund ti kundershtosh lirisht.(tek e fundit une nuk jam autori i tyre,thjesh i besoj)

    ************************************************** ***************
    Myths/facts qe e ka origjinen nga Friends of Science( http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4 ) qarkullon ne nje mori faqesh te internetit si nje prove mohuese mbi ngrohjen globale dhe per mendimin tim ka teper pak gjera me te cilat mund te bie dakort.Diqka qe me ben pershtypje;Friends of Science shkruajne ne web sitin e tyre se....Ajri i planetit tone eshte pastruar ne dy dekadat e fundit duke lejuar me teper rrezatim te diellit qe te depertoje ne toke.Ulja e ndotjes nga qlirimi i gazerave industriale ne disa shtete sebashku me perdorimin e filterave ne skapamentot e makinerive duket sikur e ka ulur sasine e pisllekut ne hapeisre dhe e ka bere qiellin me te paster.Mendimi im: A ka ku te veje me ironike se kaq??Ska si te kundershtohet fakti qe sasia e pisllekut qe qlirohet nga toka ne atmosfere eshte gjithnje dhe ne rritje!

    Po do citoj vetem disa nga "Mythet" te cilan mendoj se ja vlent per ti cituar!
    ************************************************** ***************
    Myth 1.....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.
    Te tjeret mendojne se temperatura globale e spirfaqes se tokes dhe detrave ne pergjithesi (dhe jo vetem ne ishujt e ngrohte dhe zonat urbanistike)ne May 2003 eshte regjistruar si e dyta per nga shkalla e lartesise qe nga fillimi i regjistrimit te saj ne 1980.Duke konsideruar temperaturen e tokes vetem May 2003 eshte me i ngrohti ne rekordet.10 vitet me te ngrohta ne gjith historine 143 vjeqare te regjistrimit global te temperatures jane te radhitura te gjitha qe nga 1990 me tre vitet me te ngrohta 1998,2003 dhe 2003.Bota e pa stabilizuar e ndryshimeve klimatike ka qene per nje kohe te gjate parashikim.Tani eshte realitet.

    ************************************************** ***************
    Myth 2......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.
    Ne vend te programimit te komjuterit qe thjesht te dyfishoje shtresat e dioksidit te karbonit,modelet e fundit tentojne te zbulojne ndryshimet gjate kohes ne menyre me te sakte.Zbuluesit shkencore ne laboratorin e Geophysical Fluid Dynamics thone se supekomjuteri i tyre tregon rritje te CO2 nga 1% qdo vit qe nga fillimi ne 1958.Nga jeta 30 vjeqare e kompjuterit temperatura globale e pergjitheshme eshte rritur ne nje mesatare prej 0.7 grade C.(Te kesh parasysh se keto jane stimulime komjuteristike dhe nuk japin rezultate identike me ate qe ndodh aktualish ne boten reale)Mbas 50 vite stimulimesh temperatura eshte rritur mbi 1.4 grade C.Pas 70 vitesh kur dioksidi i karbonit eshte dyfishuar,temperatura eshte ngritur mbi 2.1 grade C(3.8f) Supriza me e madhe!!! Ujerat rreth Antraktides deshtuan ngrohjen qe ish parashikuar nga ana shkencore.(flas ne piken e fundit per kete)

    ************************************************** ***************
    Myth 3.....Fact: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise,
    Mire te pakten qe e pranojne se niveli i dioksidit te karbonit ka ndryshuar dhe per shkak te aktiviteteve te njeriut.
    ************************************************** ***************
    Fact: Myth 4.... Water vapour or clouds, which makes up on average about 3 % of the atmosphere, is the major greenhouse gas..
    E vertete....sidoqofte kjo nuk do thote se CO2 (qe eshte gradualish ne rritje) nuk eshte greenhouse gas dhe qe nuk ndikon negatifisht ne ngrohjen globale!

    ************************************************** ***************
    Myth 9....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.
    Po,ne rregull! Jane ne shkrirje gjate shekujve! Por te dhenat shkencore tregojne se vetem gjate shekullit te fundit prgresi is shkrirjes eshte shtuar ne menyre masive!Qe mbase mund te mos jete dhe "Aq normale"

    Foto me poshte tregon ndryshimin e akujve ne South Cascade, Washington nga viti 1228 ne 1979 dhe ne 2003.Ndryshimet gjate pak viteve?? Masive po ta konsiderosh me ndryshimet e shekujve!!


    ************************************************** ***************
    Myth 10:.......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.
    Teper e vertete!Antraktida eshte ftohur me teper gjate 35 viteve te funndit edhe pse temperatura e pergjithshme e globit eshte rritur. Renia e temperatures ne Antraktide eshte nje pikpyetje per arsye se shumica e modeleve klimatike sugjerojne se rajonet polore duhtet te shfaqin te parat dhe ne menyren me te shpejte ndryshimin e temperatures globale.Nje nder profesoret e universitetit te chikagos Peter Doran thote se spjegim i nje fenomeni te tille mund te jete sistemi klimatik unik ne rajonet polare."Anrtraktida eshte disi e izoluar per arsye te rrymave oqeanike qe qarkullojne rreth kontinentit dhe ne njefare menyre e izolojne ate,dhe ajo qe pikerisht e ben nje vend te ftohte" Dhe kjo mund te jete nje faktor ne qeshtjen e ftohjes se Antraktides nderkohe qe pjesa tjeter e globit ngrohet.
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga BvizioN : 21-06-2005 mė 09:28
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  3. #23
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,105
    Faleminderit
    0
    7 falenderime nė 6 postime

    32 fakte historike te globit

    1) Toka eshte formuar rreth 4.560.00.000 vite me pare

    2) Ne fillim atmosfera e Tokes permbante shum pak oksigjen (o2) me pak se 1%

    3) Bimesia e pare filloj te zhvillohej 2.000.000.000 vite me pare

    4) Gjate fotosintezave bimet terheqin dioksidin e karbonit dhe qlirojne oksigjenin

    5) Gjate periudhave gjeologjike,oksigjeni i eshte shtuar gradualisht atmosferes duke krijuar masen prej 21% te gazerave momentalisht.

    6) Gjate periudhave gjeologjike teprica materialesh organike jane fsheur ne lithosfere si fosile materialsh organike.

    7) Kafshet me te hershme filluan krijimin rreth 543.000.000 vite me pare

    8) Kafshet funksionojne ne menyre te ndryshme nga bimet: Terheqin oksigjen,konsumojne materiale organike (ushqim) dhe qlirojne dioksidin
    si prodikt jashteqitje

    9) Krijimi i neriut filloj rreth 5.000.000 vite me pare

    10) Kushtet me te ftohta klimatike kane qene gjate 1.000.000 viteve te fundit.Speciet e ashtequajtura Homo Spaiens evoluan si rrjedhim i ketyre kushteve te ftohta klimatike.

    11) Homo Spaienskane kane zgjatur deri ne 300.000 vite me pare

    12) Varieteti Homo Sapiens sapiens ,te cileve i perket gjith rraca njerzore figuron 120.000 vite pas

    13) Koncentrimi i dioksidit te karbonit ne atmosfere ka qene me i ulet se 190ppm gjate kohes se fundit te akullit (last Ice Age) rreth 21.000 vite me pare.

    14) Koha e fundit e akullit filloj te pesoje ndryshim 18.000 vite me pare

    15) Revolucioni agrokulturor ku njeriu filloj te shnderroje pyjet ne ferma prodhuese filloj krijimin 9.000 vite me pare

    16) Revolucioni agrokulturor pesoj uljen e nivelit te bimesise ne biosfere (biosfere eshte gjithcka qe permban jete,nga shtresat e para te tokes,deterat dhe oqeanet si dhe shtresat e uleta te atmosferes) duke ulur ne njefar menyre konsumimin e CO2,nje kontribim indirekt dhe teper i vogel ne ngrohjen globale.

    17) Perberja e dioksidit te karbonit ne atmosfere eshte shtuar ne menyre graduale nga 190ppm,21.000 vite me pare ne 299ppm ne vitin 1900 ne nje mesatare prej 0.00519ppm qdo vit

    18) Revolucioni indstrial ku njeriu filloj krijimin e kafsheve artificiale (kafshe artificiale:Sepse makinerite konsumojne lende djegese nafte,benzine etj qe jane lende organike) filloj 135 vite me pare.

    19) Ne tetor 1999 popullsia boterore arriti ne 6.000.000.000 qe eshte dyfishi i popullsise ne vitin 1960.

    20) Shkalla e rritjes se popullsise boterore eshte 90.000.000 c'do vit.

    21) Popullsia boterore momentalish eshte 6.427.842.214 (050401)

    22) Numri global i automjeteve ne perdorim eshte 750.000.000 (ne 2003)

    23) Numri global i automjeteve ne perdorim eshte rritur kohet e fundit ne nje shkalle prej 16.000.000 c'do vit.

    24) Automjetet rrugore (makina,autobuse,maune apo motorqikleta) supozohen si 80% e mjeteve energjitike te transportit.

    25) Perberja e dioksidit te karbonit qe ish 299ppm ne vitin 1990 eshte ngritur ne 316ppm ne vitin 1959 (5.6% ne nje periudhe 59 vjeqare) ne nje mesatare prej 0.228 c'do vit.

    26) Rezultatet e perberjes se dioksidit te karbonit qe nga viti 1959 kane treguar nje rritje prej 376ppm ne vitin 2003,19% ne periudhen e fundit 44 vjeqare ne nje mesatare prej 1.36ppm c'do vit.

    27) Dhe perberja e CO2 eshte rritur ne nje shkalle prej 1.5ppm ne dy dekadat e fundit.

    28) Perberja e dioksidit te karbonit eshte shturar ne 2.87ppm ne vitin 1988,me teper se qdo vit tjeter ne historine e regjistruar.

    29) Regjistrimet e temperatures se botes kane filluar te mbahen qe nga viti 1961.Dekada e fundit e shekullit te 20'te ish me e nxehta.Viti 1998 eshte me i nxheti ne regjistrime,viti 2001 vjen i dyti per nga shkalla e regjistrimit.

    30) Rreth 75% e shtimit vjetor te dioksidit te karbonit vjen si rrjedhim i djegjes se lendeve vajgurore.

    31) Rheth 25% eshte pasoje e ndryshimeve anthropogenice te rilievit e cila ka si efekt shkallen e konsumit te CO2 nga bimesia.

    32) Ndnryshimet anthropogenice jane psh kur nje zone pyjore kthehet ne nje territor te kufizuar nga njeriu,pastaj ne nje vend agrokultural dhe pastaj ne nje zone urbanistike,gje qe kontribon (ne menyre fare te vogel) ne ngrohjen globale.

    Burimi nga http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  4. #24
    Perjashtuar Maska e land
    Anėtarėsuar
    12-12-2003
    Postime
    7,559
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime

    Lightbulb

    Brravo Zimi per durimin qe keni...!
    Nje gje s'arrij ta kuptoj, si mundoheni kaq shume per te mbrojtur nje teme, apo me mire, dukuri, qe edhe vete pranoni me siper qe ndoshta pasojat mund t'i shihen mbase pas 300 vjetesh!
    Gjithsesi, shifrat i keni shume te sakta, por, interpretimi qe u jepet, dhe parashikimi qe mundohet te nxirret me ane te ketyre shifrave eshte shume i gabuar!
    Faktikisht, ajo qe nuk kuptoj une eshte se paska organizata te tilla qe bertasin kaq shume per nje dukuri te tille, nderkohe qe mezi u degjohet zeri organizatave te mbrojtjes se te drejtave te njeriut, apo me mire te jetes se gjalle; kjo e fundit, ne kuptimin me urgjent te saj.
    Psh, na u dashkan marre masa per te eleminuar nxehjen e globit, nderkohe qe nje Afrike e tere vuan nga uria, semundjet, varferia e paimagjinueshme; shkelja e te DREJTAVE Hyjnore te njeriut pikerisht nga shtetet te ashtuquajtura demokratike, qofte ne Angli, qofte ne Luksemburg, Itali, France, Gjermani, Belgjike(ne mbare BE-ne), pse jo edhe ne Amerike!
    A nuk arrini te kuptoni ju qe ulerimat per nje problem inegzistent, ose quajeni si te doni; te dores se dyte: i mbysin zerin nje problemi mese shqetesues,-mbrojtjen dhe respektimin e jetes njerezore?
    E pra, i dashur Zim, Green Peace, apo edhe mbare universitetet Amerikane, prej nga ju merrn iketo te dhena, as qe nuk do te dilnin prej shtepise po te fillonim e te flisnim per Afriken, e lere me te dalin e te protestojne ne det te hapur me nje qerre me anije dhe te arrijne edhe te sabotojne misione te superfinanciuara, sic ndodh kur bie fjala per mbrojtjen e ambjentit...
    Kur te filloni e te informoheni me teper per te tilla organizata, atehere do te kuptoni fare qarte qe pas tyre fshihen sekte fetare nga me te erretat, te lidhur edhe me boten okulte, qe jo ne pak raste jane edhe me te vjetra sesa mund te na shkoje spangoja e kokes ne te dyve.
    Prandaj, i dashur Zim, as mos u alarmoni fare me te tilla shifra, sepse tani kane filluar te mblidhen, dhe krahasimet nese behen, behen ne menyre abuzive, e jo me te dhena te sakta shkencoro-historike. Gjithsesi, pergezime per gjithe kete durim qe po tregon....
    Me te mira vella.

  5. #25
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,105
    Faleminderit
    0
    7 falenderime nė 6 postime
    banished...me sinqeritetin me te madh nuk di asgje per green peace si organizate!
    Di vetem disa pika rrugezgjidhje qe ka kerkuar green peace qe per mendimin tim jane teper apsurde!!

    Edhe per sa i perket temes nuk kam ate ambicien qe te dominoje opinioni im,biles me vjen keq qe e gjithe kjo po zhvillohet mes mua ty dhe toros! Do me peqente gjithsesi qe edhe te tjeret te shprehnin opinionin e tyre!Keshtu qe kjo mund te jete posta e fundit qe hedh!

    Thjesht diskutoj problemin e ndotjes qe mund te mos jete urgjent per momentin por qe mund te krijoje seriozitet ne nje te ardhme po nuk u moren ca masa.

    Ke shume te drejte kur shprehesh se ne bote ka plot probleme te tjera qe kerkojne vemendje me urgjente! Jam ploteshit dakort, mire po egzistenca e nje problemi nuk mund te mohoje faktin e egzistences se nje problemi tjeter! Dhe ky topik i takoj ti perkiste problemit te ngrohjes globale po gjithsesi nuk do te thote se opinioni apo mendimi im eshte i sakte per arsye se eshte i bazuar nga leximet dhe informacionet qe dhe ato mund te mos jene absolutisht te sakta.

    Vetem diqka ngelet unike dhe e pandryshueshme nga opinioni im! Fakti qe atmosfera ngarkohet dita dites me gazera ndotese! Opinioni mbi rrezikshmerine apo seriozitetin persa i perket asaj eshte dicka qe mund te ndryshoje ne baze te fakeve reale bindese qe mund te sjelle shkenca ne vazhdim.

    Personalisht jam cool dhe as nuk dua tja di per green peace si organizate.Faktikisht nuk jam aspak dakort me rrugezgjidhjen qe jep Green peace persa i perket ketij problemi.Perdor biciklete ne vend te makines,perdor me pak mjete elektrike,mos lind femije (njelloj sikur te thuash kthehu dhe nje here prapa ne histori)......kjo eshte absolutisht e papranueshme.

    Mendimi im....gjysmen e fondeve qe shpezon per te derguar robote ne nje planet te thate si MARSI perdori per te shpikur nje teknologji me te avancuar! Krijo automjete me energji solare.Perdor panelet solar ne shtepite banuese.Perdor energjine elektrike ne menyre masive ne transport etj.Teknologjia me e avancuar eshte rrugegjidhja per te dyja palet..ekonomi dhe ambient mendoj une.

    Me te mira
    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga BvizioN : 21-06-2005 mė 13:11
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  6. #26
    i/e regjistruar Maska e leci
    Anėtarėsuar
    14-01-2003
    Vendndodhja
    Goetheanum,Italy
    Postime
    1,746
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Une nuk e kam ndjekur shume kete teme edhe pse eshte shume interesante.
    Dua te nisem nga parafolesi.
    Greenpeace na thote qe nuk duhet te lindim femije???
    Shikoni se po shkruani diēka qe nuk eshte aspak e vertete dhe absurde.
    Kjo organizate nuk pretendon te kete pergjigjen per ēdo problem ambiental,por te jep nje variant tjeter.
    Perse duhet te perdorim nafte kur makinat mund te jene elektrike ose me hidrogjen.
    Perse duhet te shkaterrojme me miliona metra pyje per te bere mobilje.
    Perse nuk i kushtohet me shume vemendje ndotjes dhe mbeturinave,si psh qe te fillojne nga shkollat fillestare per te mesuar femijet me edukate ambientale.
    Dhe absurditeti qendron qe ne vend qe te mbrojme keto organizata qe marrin seriozisht te ardhmen tone,i sulmojme me faktet banale qe ka gjera me te rendesishme.
    Normal qe ka njerez qe vdesin urie dhe ka njerez qe harxhojne per kafshe shtepiake shifra qe do mbanin me buke mijera femije ne vendet e prapambetura.
    Dhe para se te sulmoni nje organizate si Greenpeace filloni te studioni,keshtu te pakten te dini se ēfare flisni.
    Kjo organizate lufton perdite per te ulur ndotjen,per te ulur sasine e gazrave industriale,per te ndaluar shfarosjen e pyjeve ne mbare boten,dhe ka njerez qe kane humbur jeten.
    Quod timor cladis.
    Sed intuitum amet elit vitae est

  7. #27
    Dash...me kembore Maska e Toro
    Anėtarėsuar
    26-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    CALIFORNIA
    Postime
    1,407
    Faleminderit
    0
    3 falenderime nė 3 postime
    ZIM,
    Gazrat me kryesore shkaktare te fenomenit global warming jane .....avujt....H2O....qe perbejne 99% te gazrave. Dioksidi i karbonit perben 0,3% te ketyre gazrave qe shkaktojne kete fenomen. Te ulesh nivelin e dioksidit te karbonit ( cfare ka shkaktuar njeriu) do te thote te ulesh nivelin e 0,3 % ne 0,28 %...Pra njeriu sipas statistikanteve me alarmante shkakton 0,02% te fenomenit te ngrohjes globale....Eshte njesoj sikur te kerkosh ne nje grataciele qe digjet e tera me 1000 persona brenda, qe 2 prej tyre te fikin cigaren se po u prishet ajri te tjereve!!!!!!! Qe ta cosh kete 0,02 % ne 0,01% do te thote qe reduktosh ne 50% sasine e dioksidit te karbonit ne gjithe boten me deme ekonomike te medha dhe si perfundim nuk besoj se do te kete ndonji rezultat serioz ne fenomenin e Global Warming-ut!

    Harron dicka ZIM, se natyra eshte aq e forte,aq e fuqishme, saqe njeriu eshte e pamundur ta kontrolloje. Nje supervullkan i tipit Krakatoa ose Jelloustone, per 2 ore ( vetem per dy ore) mund te leshoje ne atmosfere me teper dioksid karboni e gazra te tjera sesa ka leshuar njerezimin qe nga viti 1870 deri ne momentin qe po flasim!!!!!!

    Dioksidi i karbonit qe leshohet nga njeriu ne natyre perben nje sasi teper te vogel te cfare leshon vete natyra ne atmosfere...Nuk jam i sigurt per perqindjen, por eshte aty tek 2.5%...Pjesa tjeter leshohet ne atmosfere nga oqeanet, vullkanet , kafshet etj.

    Megjithe perparimin e shkences dhe teknollogjise, shkencetaret dhe ato modelet kompjuterike qe "parashikojne" ngrohjen globale, jane te pamunduara te parashikojne se cfare rruge do te ndjeki nje uragan i thjeshte, lindjen e te cilit e shofin ne satelit, e monitorojne me qindra kamera e shkencetare, sonda e ballona speciale, aeroplane e radare dhe perseri nuk japin parashikim te sigurt se ku do te bjeri ne toke. Uragani Francis vjet, u monitorua qe nga lindja e tij si stuhi tropikale ne Atlantik dhe kur te gjithe e prisnin te kapte brigjet e Floridas, uragani ndryshoi drejtim momentin e fundit dhe kaloi ne Karolinen e Jugut, ndersa mbeturinat e tij erdhen deri ne Nju-Jork!!!!

    Eh pra nje cope uragan qe monitorohet si asgje tjeter eshte e pamundur te parashikohet se ku do te shkoje, ti me thua se shkencetaret mund te parashikojne sesi do te jete klima 40-50 apo 100 vjetet e ardheshem!!! Dhe aq me teper te kalosh ne konkluzione qe njeriu e paska ne dore te ndryshoje klimen e planetit!
    "Who is John Galt?"

  8. #28
    Perjashtuar Maska e land
    Anėtarėsuar
    12-12-2003
    Postime
    7,559
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime

    Lightbulb

    Toro, ca korrigjime te vogla per ju.
    Nese eshte 0.02% atehere do t'i takonte 2 veta ne 10 000. Nejse, edhe 2/1000 ka boll kuptim.
    Gjithsesi, nuk mund te perjashtohet krejtesisht ndikimi i njeriut mbi natyren, ose me mire, fuqia qe ka njeriu per te ndryshuar gjerat, qofshin ato edhe kaq te stermedha si klima e nje planeti. Psh, arsenali atomik i botes se sotme eshte ne gjendje te shkaterroje Token krejtesisht, sikur te mos kish egzistuar ndonjehere; e jo me te flitet vetem per klimen.
    Puna qendron se faktikisht, gjendja nuk eshte aq alarmante sa na e paraqesin; njeriu me ritmet e sotme te zhvillimit nuk perben aspak rrezik per klimen e planetit. Ndoshta mund te perbeje rrezik per specien njerezore, por kurre per klimen dhe nje ekosistem ne shkalle kaq te gjere.
    Tani po degjohet kaq shume te flitet per shtresen e ozonit dhe per gjendjen e saj... Por, harrohet qe po behet fjale per nje shtrese qe zor se i kalon 3 milimetrat e trashesise... Nderkohe qe flitet per hapjen dhe zgjerimin e "vrimave" te ozonit; duhet kuptuar mire se krahasimet nuk mund te behen kurre, kurre, kurre ne ate shkalle saqe te dilet ne perfundime qe qenka faji i njeriut! Kur na paska filluar vrojtimi i shtresave te atmosferes qe gjendja na dilka kaq alarmuese? Pastaj, pasi iu dika thelbi problemit, kaq e veshtire qenka zgjidhja? Meqe gazrat qe leshoka njeriu ne atmosfere jane kaq te demshem per shtresen e ozonit, a mendoni ju qe prodhimi i O3-shit qenka i pamundur per njeriun? Per mendimin tim keto te gjitha jane pallavra pafund.

  9. #29
    Perjashtuar Maska e Dito
    Anėtarėsuar
    02-04-2004
    Vendndodhja
    Ne Bahēen time
    Postime
    3,890
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Natyra ka ligjet e saj qe askush nuk mund ti ndale, qofshin keta edhe 6 miliarde njerez. Uroj mos perjetoj ky brez ndonje apokalips.

    Dito.

  10. #30
    Dash...me kembore Maska e Toro
    Anėtarėsuar
    26-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    CALIFORNIA
    Postime
    1,407
    Faleminderit
    0
    3 falenderime nė 3 postime
    Silent Propaganda
    By Joseph Kellard

    January 1997




    The virtually imperceptible manner by which false ideas are often propagandized was poignantly demonstrated on Bill Maher's ABC talk show Politically Incorrect(1-13-97).

    "Recently its come to light," Maher commented to his guests, one of whom was musician/environmentalists Don Henley, "that some of these original books that were written about the environmental problems, like Silent Spring and The Population Bomb, made predictions that didn't come true. They said, basically, we'd be gone by now--and we're not. They said the sky is falling--and [it] didn't. And Paul Erlich said, I think, that that's OK to exaggerate. To basically lie in the service of a good cause."

    Environmentalist Paul Ehrlich wrote in his best-selling 1968 book "The Population Bomb" that, "In the 1970's the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." His predictions were off by hundreds of millions. Contrary to his predictions, life expectancy has increased sharply, along with world health and productivity in food supplies and natural resources.

    "Well, there's a great deal of lying going on on the other side of the question," Don Henley said. "By big oil companies, by chemical companies, by agriculture, by mining companies, and by timber companies. They have spin doctors in Washington, they have PR firms in Washington that they pay hundreds of millions of dollars to make everything OK. So there is lying going on on both sides.''

    Observe that Mr.Henley leaves the lies and the liars unnamed. Nonetheless, why do businessmen, like many other people, often seek out special government protections when facing environmentalists? Richard Salsman, an economist at H.C. Wainright & Co., submits that one must "recognize the brute political force wielded by radical environmentalists at taxpayer expense--at the so-called Environmental Protection Agency, at the Department of the Interior, at the National Park services, and on the local zoning boards. These activists are not on the fringe. They wield power over millions of people. Even if the radicals represent only ten percent of the environmental population, they represent one hundred percent of the environmentalists committed to government action, which means, committed to forcing their views on others."

    Environmentalism's fundamental purpose is not to preserve a clean 'environment' for man. As evidenced by its fundamental philosophy, environmentalism views man as being outside of, and a cancer on, nature, of which it regards as having value apart from man. It is a pseudo-science that presents half-truths and truths taken out of context as objective facts, which, in reality, are often grossly misleading. Such methods lend themselves to the environmentalists' other tactic: outright lies. They then lobby these misrepresentations and falsehoods, and use government's monopoly on force to enact non-objective laws and regulations (i.e, guilty until proven innocent) which violate or abrogate individual rights, and their corollary, property rights. They impose these laws on others allegedly for man's sake, but really for the alleged 'rights' of the environment. This causes individuals to form into pressure groups that then lobby in order to counter these injustices. Such abuses of and by the state divides its citizens into warring gangs. Thus, the environmental movement is fundamentally committed to arresting the very qualities that are necessary to human life and a cleaner world: property rights, capitalism, industry and technology.

    Bill Maher then asked Don Henley, in effect, if lying was justified in fighting lying. Mr.Henley said matter-of-factly that he supposed it was. What they both failed to question is why must environmentalists resort to exaggerations and lies? And what does their sanction of falsehoods breed?

    In his book "EcoScam," author Ronald Bailey writes that a young woman once told him "...even if the ozone 'crisis' was not so bad, it was all right to exaggerate the situation to get the people's attention. Incredulous, I asked, 'So then your saying it's all right to lie in what you think is a good cause?' With complete earnestness, she replied, 'Yes, sometimes you have to lie in a good cause.'"

    If the opposing arguments to one's beliefs are false, one must reveal their fallacies by a logical, objective method--not by lies. The environmentalists, however, offer only a veneer of using an objective method to oppose others, including businessmen, who challenge their exaggerated claims. To do so would only reveal their fallacious claims, which are also under an veneer of objectivity.

    CNN producer Barbara Pyle doesn't cloak her environmentalist bias: "I switched from being an 'objective reporter' to an advocate ..." Nor does scientist Stephen Schneider:"[W]e [other environmentalists] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective[in getting loads of media coverage] and being honest."

    In his book "Science Under Siege," author Michael Fumento writes "Both science writers and the public often suffer from the absurd belief that scientists can have no politics, and that even if they did this would never spill over into their own work.''

    Mr.Henley shares this naiveté. "You have to remember," he continued, "that a lot of the scientists who are giving these so-called dire predictions have really nothing to gain. These are academics. Whereas the other side, there is a great deal to gain -- in profit."

    Observe how bare and undefined "profit" appears at the end of his comment. What implications are left by it? Profits--like factual discoveries to a scientist -- are a businessman's gauge for his achievements, which, in a free market, he obtains through his production and his satisfied, paying customers. Mr.Henley's implication is that a scientists' achievements are free from the inherently corrupting activity of profit-seeking, of 'gain', which businessmen are guilty of. The corollary implication is that all businessmen achieve profit at the expense of 'harming' the environment and others. Scientists, however, are not as innocent as Mr.Henley tried to portrait them.

    As Ronald Bailey notes: "Of the scores of scientists I interviewed for this book, I could count on the fingers of one hand the number who did not mention funding and the scarcity of research monies. Lab directors are not only scientists; they are also public relations officers and politicians who must navigate the dark byways of Congress and government agencies in search of the wherewithal to keep their organizations going. Consequently, they feel enormous institutional pressure to hype the work of their laboratories and to tie it to the solution of some looming mediagenic crisis."

    Mr.Henley continued: "The environmental problems in this country are well documented...You need look no further than your own backyard to see. If you want to talk about the environment you have to start with population." He then proceeded to quote statistics of the world's population and the average yearly and hourly percentage of worldwide birth rates, without any explanation as to why or to whom population growth is a threat. He simply assumes it to be a self-evident 'problem'. This peephole-narrow view of population is exactly that which Paul Ehrlich's outrageously false claims rested--and fell -- on. Despite Ehrlich's apocalyptic falsehoods, his premise nevertheless paved the road for others to travel with their population-growth-is-a-problem claims. Mr.Henley makes none of Ehrlich's outrageous predictions, but Ehrlich's entrenchment of the idea that population growth is a problem thus allows Mr.Henley to make simple, contextless statements, all with the intent of alarming people about populations alleged "problem." But, in reality, population growth per se is not a problem.

    It is considered a self-evident threat to man and nature because environmentalists often portrait a new individual on Earth as a life-long, parasitic consumer -- not as a potential producer. But responsible parenthood involves knowing one can feed and raise a child, and teaching him that adulthood requires the responsibility of becoming a producer, of working to feed himself and his child. Increased population is a potential problem for man primarily when governments stifles freedom, which renders production and technological advances either scarce or non-existent, or when irrational cultural customs cause parents to disregard long-range living.

    It's no accident that the freest and therefore the most productive and technologically advanced nations (with expanding resources), are generally the wealthiest and cleanest -- with the most contained populations; while the more statist and therefore the least productive and technologically advanced nations, are generally the poorest and dirtiest--with the largest and fastest growing populations; who in turn rely greatly on the freer nations for survival. As a citizen of Soviet Russia once noted: "We don't recycle to save the environment, we recycle in order to survive." It's only comparatively wealthy countries that can afford labor-, time- and money-wasting environmental programs and regulations. That cannot last.

    As Nicholas Eberstadt of Harvard University's Center for population Studies wrote in The True State of the Planet "World population has increased tremendously in our century--more than tripling, it appears, between 1900 and 1990--and it continues to grow...with extraordinary speed... This demographic explosion, however, has not plunged humanity into penury and deprivation. Quite the contrary, the global population boom has coincided with an explosion of health, and of productivity, around the world. On average, the human population today lives longer, eats better, produces more, and consumes more than at any other time in the past."

    Bill Maher then continued: 'The problem is that if you lie to people and then they know it's a lie, doesn't that down the road erode [your]credibility?"

    "I don't think it's fair to make a blanket generalization that everybody in the environmental movement, so to speak, is lying or exaggerating" Mr.Henley said. "There are scientists at the NASA...Institute who are predicting global warming. There is a consensus among world scientists[my emphasis] that global warming is a reality. The question is when and what's going to happen when it does happen."

    This claim is offered as a fact not because it is self-evident, but because a 'consensus' of scientists say it is true. Presuming that all scientists are innocent of politicizing their claims, is a claim true simply because a majority of scientists say it is? Everyone once believed that the Earth was flat and stationary, until a very small minority of persecuted astrologers and scientists showed everyone objectively demonstrable facts that it is round and it revolves around the sun. That most people support a belief doesn't mean that in reality it is true. Furthermore, since every scientist now believes that the earth is round, a rational man believes it is true not because every scientist says it is so, but because it is an objectively demonstrable fact.

    As with their other claims, the environmental consensus is wrong on their global warming claims since they disregard certain relevant facts pertaining to them, such as, to name a few, that the computer models that predict "global warming" sport huge inaccuracies; that volcanic eruptions have far more of a negative effect on ozone than man-mad pollutants; that the Earth's temperature for the past hundred years has varied almost identically with variations of the sun's energy for that time; and that the global climate has been constantly fluctuating for millennia -- not just since the Industrial Revolution. Global warming becomes a particularly absurd claim when one considers that during the 1970's the consensus among environmentalists was that the Earth's atmosphere was cooling. Therefore, in less than a mere two decades, the impending threat to the Earth has switched from an Ice Age to a vast desert.


    Thus, an objective methodology shows us that the Earth may or may not be warming. What is going to happen if and when it warms? If warming occurs, it will be minor, it will probably be almost entirely due to natural factors, such as volcanoes, and it will probably have a beneficial effect on man, since warming increases Co2's, which in turn increases plant, i.e. food, production.

    No, not everyone in the environmental movement is deliberately exaggerating or lying about environmental problems. However, such falsehoods are the inevitable outgrowth of a movement whose science is based on an anti-objective approach toward assessing all relevant data. "It's like apple pie and motherhood--you've got to be for it[environmentalism]," remarked another guest on Mr.Maher's show. Naturally, a cleaner world is beneficial to man, but because environmentalism pollutes our world with false, noxious ideas, it is thereby a threat to man--and nature. By undermining truth, and scapegoating property rights, capitalism, industry and technology as 'the problems', the environmentalists deceive a consensus of people into decrying these assets; the very preconditions necessary for man's survival, health and happinessin a cleaner world.


    * Joseph Kellard is a journalist and freelance editorialist living in New York. He also publishes a cultural-political e-mail newsletter. To receive information about his writing services and publication, contact Mr. Kellard by e-mail at: Josephkellard@theai.net
    "Who is John Galt?"

  11. #31
    Promete (i lidhur) Maska e Kryeplaku
    Anėtarėsuar
    12-09-2002
    Vendndodhja
    nė realitetin e hidhur
    Mosha
    31
    Postime
    2,080
    Faleminderit
    0
    Falenderuar 1 herė nė 1 postim
    Urime zerit te mirdites per dokumentet qe solli. Por qe te theme te drejten nje jete kam qene person praktik dhe nuk pres te dalin statistikat qe te ndryshoj mendje.... mendjen ma ndryshojne gjerat qe has dita dites. Dhe ja ca has une dita dites:

    Nje here e nje kohe na thonin ne fillore se viti ka 4 stine, Pranveren, Veren, Vjeshten edhe Dimrin. Nese di ndokush sot ndonje vend qe ka 4 stine do i lutesha te ma tregoj ku ndodhet se do marre plackat e do shkoj te vendosem atje (biles a doni te dini dicka tjeter, ketu ku jetoj une duket se edhe ca vjet duhen qe viti te mos ket asnje stine, PSE?).

    Dikur babai im me nxirrte tere diten ne Diell sepse me thoshte se te bene mire ('helioterapi' i thonin doktoret)..... tani me del doktori dhe me thot nese nuk do te marresh ndonje kancer ne lekure mos dil ne Diell oret e mesdites (mos eshte edhe doktori komunist?). Ne Australi dhe vendet e tjera te nxehta po ia ndalojne fare te dalin ne Diell (dhe kjo nuk ndodhte gjithmone). Me vone cfare do na thone?

    Banoret e Talivalit, nje shtet ishujsh poshte A. Latine, po bejne plan se ku te vendosen... sepse atdheu i tyre po mbytet!

    Para tre vjetesh ne France vdiqen 12 mije vet nga vapa. Nese jeta e perditshme nuk perben argument, atehere cfare argumentesh doni ju?

    Saper ata qe thone se nuk e ka fajin njeriu per ndryshimet e ambientit, nje keshille praktike: Hypni nje mengjes ne Dajt dhe shikoni njecik Tiranen nga siper, nese jeni ne moshe te pjekur mundohuni te kujtoni si dukej Tirana nga Dajti para 15 vjetesh? Pastaj zbrisni Dajtin dhe beni nje xhiro ne qytet, sa minuta do duroni pa ju dhembur koka dhe pa ju u marre fryma? Para 15 vjetesh ne Tirane mund te shetisje 24 ore pa asnje dhimbje koke ose marrje fryme! Sigursisht Tirana eshte ndotur teper.... por edhe qytetet e gjithe botes vazhdojne te ndoten, pavarsisht nivelit.


    Fatkeqsisht.... njeriu eshte kthyer si puna e atij vampirit qe kur shikon gjakun i verbohen syte edhe truri dhe e vetmja gje qe i intereson eshte si ta fus gjakun ne trupin e tij pa menduar kostin dhe te ardhmen! Vampiri nuk njeh nene,nuk njeh shtepi, nuk njeh femije! Keshtu edhe njeriu vampir vret nenen e tij Toke, shkatron shtepine e tij dhe i heq femijeve te tij te drejten per te jetuar! Si perfundim cfare perfitoi ai vampiri nga gjaku qe piu (nese duke vrare cdo gje qe shikon perpara, do vije dita qe nuk do gjej me gjak per te mbijetuar)?

  12. #32
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,105
    Faleminderit
    0
    7 falenderime nė 6 postime
    Citim Postuar mė parė nga leci
    Une nuk e kam ndjekur shume kete teme edhe pse eshte shume interesante.
    Dua te nisem nga parafolesi.
    Greenpeace na thote qe nuk duhet te lindim femije???
    .
    Leci..ke te drejte! Sot kontrollova per here te pare Faqen e Greenpeace( http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ ) dhe nuk egziston nje ide e tille,megjithese jam i sigurte e e kam lexuar diku po qe thjesht mund te jete interpretim i dikujt tjeter ne emrin e Green peace!

    Toro...dakort! Avullimi i H2O krijon pjesen me masive te gazerave mirpo balanca e gazerave dhe efekti i "Serres" ka qene pothuajse stabel dhe me nje ndryshim fare fare te vogel deri ne shekullin e fundit.Shtimi i gazerave qe krijon efektin Greenhouse (serre) do te thote prishja e balances,gazera me te dendura dhe me teper nxehtesi! Se besoj qe mund te mohohet !!

    Shpyllezimi perseri nuk mund te mohohet se ndikon ne jeten tone! Me pak oksigjen dhe me teper dioksid karboni!

    Gjerat mund te mos jene alarmante per momentin por nuk do te thote qe nuk kerkojne vemendje! Green peace apo c'do organizate tjeter mbi mbrojtjen e ambientit nuk jane te motivuara nga ambicia per te fituar valute (ndryshe nga shumice e organizatave ne bote) Synimi i tyre eshte veshtrimi i larget ne te ardhmen.
    Eshte njelloj sikur dy njerez ecin nje rruge,njeri kontrollon rrugen deri ne largesi per te qene ne dijeni te c'do lloj problemi...e tjetri shikon vetem nje gjysme meter perpara deri sa mund te gjendet ne buze te humneres!

    Kryeplaku...me pelqeu shume aij shembulli jot mbi stinet! Teper e vertete!
    Stinet sa vijne dhe behen shume te ngjashme me njera tjetren.Ketu ne Angli eshte dhe karekteristika e klimes disi e tille por te them te drejten shpesh ben dimer ne mes te Veres apo vere ne mes te Dimrit!Dhe ndonjehere te kater stinet mbrenda nje dite!! Edhe pse nuk mund te thuhet se eshte faji i njeriut ne menyre absolute,njeriu perseri po jep influencen e tij ne menyre te dukshme.
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  13. #33
    Dash...me kembore Maska e Toro
    Anėtarėsuar
    26-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    CALIFORNIA
    Postime
    1,407
    Faleminderit
    0
    3 falenderime nė 3 postime
    Kryeplak,
    Eja ne Nju-Jork te shohesh kater stine! Dhe po deshe per pasterti ajri....Nju-Jorku eshte qytet me 9 milion banore, cdo dite qarkullojne mbi 6 milione makina, autobuza, taksi e kamiona te medhenj dhe nuk ka as nje te njeqindten e ndotjes se ajrit qe ka Tirana apo Athina!

    Tirana natyrisht do te kete ndotje. U ndertua pa baza e pa prespektive. Cdo pallat ka gjeneratorin e vet, sepse energjia e paster elektrike nga hidrocentrali nuk ka transformatore qe ta shpendajne!!! Cdo varreze makinash ne Gjermani , Itali e Greqi perfundoi ne rruget e Tiranes! Ata qe i bene keto gjera, ndoshta per ty futen tek kategoria e njerezve, por une preferoj ti fus tek kafshet! Shqiperia e sotme i ngjan Londres se 1870 dhe NYC te 1890.....Gradualisht, por ngadale, do te vije dhe tek ne civilizimi! Do pak durim! Deti nuk behet dot kos per 14 vjet!
    "Who is John Galt?"

  14. #34
    vintermark Maska e Legjion
    Anėtarėsuar
    06-02-2005
    Postime
    492
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Nuk e kuptoj pse u shua shkrimi im ironik kur pakuptimėsi tė tilla dyfaqėshe nė anglisht akoma mbahen nė temė?

    Kur unė pyes se pse i djeg disave kaq thekshėm ēėshtja e mjedisit, e cila ėshtė e faktuar nė ēdo Institut Gjeofizik qė ekziston nė Botė (dhe nė vetė Amerikėn e korporatave, tė cilėn disa kanė marrė mundimin "ta mbrojnė", po se nga se po "e mbrojnė" dhe nga se po "rrezikohet" Amerika, qė kėta disa kanė dalė ta mbrojnė me "fakte" tė vjetruara e tė rrėzuara, nė njė temė tė ngrohjes globale, dhe ē'lidhje kishte tema me Amerikėn qė "disatė" na u indinjuan, tė bėn tė mendosh apo jo?) dhe pėrbėn njė ēėshtje madhore, shkrimet mė fshihen. Pse?

    Nėse unė do sillja nja 2000 e ca faqe (si fillim) copy-paste nė anglisht, japonisht dhe frėngjisht, do tė konsiderohesha gjė brenda temės, siē konsiderohen falsitetet e mėsipėrme apo do tė mė shuheshin dhe ato?

    Kjo temė tregon se kėtu metėrmend nevojitet njė nėnforum pėr ndėrgjegjėsim ndaj mjedisit sepse pėrveē qė ka injorantė kundrejt ēėshtjeve tė mjedisit, ka dhe injorantė militantė (pa qėllim ofendues se disa metėrmend qė nuk dinė, por megjithatė kanė opinion™, kanė tė drejtė opinoni™ dhe madje tė gjithė duhet tė bien dakord me opinionin™) qė imponohen tėrė prepotencė me "fakte" qesharake me burim nga OJQ tė ngjitura pas qeverive e nga gazetarė tė pakualifikuar.
    P.P.S. *Kush jena ne or ti tė ēajmė trepin me ambientin e na lej rehat, qol. U bon shqiptart me u mor me "ēėshtje ambienti", ik e fshini qurrat aty. Ēa o ky ambienti iher, si i hajn prrallat ky milet bobob*
    Alle Serben müssen sterben

  15. #35
    musketjeri Maska e dardajan
    Anėtarėsuar
    27-12-2004
    Vendndodhja
    ke shpia ime
    Postime
    1,670
    Faleminderit
    2
    11 falenderime nė 9 postime
    Hajde Kryeplak hajde po un degjova qe vdiqe 120.000 nga vapa dhe jo 12.000 te jete e vertete valle ??

  16. #36
    Perjashtuar Maska e Prototype
    Anėtarėsuar
    10-05-2002
    Mosha
    31
    Postime
    1,452
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    cdo vit po vdesin njerez nga global warming po ce do qe spo behet gje per kete se ...kot qe llapim ne ....

  17. #37
    Curva Sud Milano Maska e niku-nyc
    Anėtarėsuar
    20-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    With God...
    Postime
    3,333
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    Global Warming po e con boten drejt zhdukjes se madhe sic ka ndohur shum her me miliona vite me perpara...
    Perpara se te mari fund nga nxetesia, shkrirja e akujve do rrisi nivelin e oqeaneve dhe bota mund te behet si "waterworld".
    Global Warming ka me qindra menyra qe mund ti japi fund botes...

  18. #38
    Shqiperia eshte Evrope Maska e iliria e para
    Anėtarėsuar
    24-04-2002
    Vendndodhja
    Cunami ne Indonezi zgjati per disa minuta, kurse ne trojet tona 500 vjet. Unė jam larg cunamit
    Postime
    4,437
    Faleminderit
    68
    44 falenderime nė 36 postime

    Cka po ndodhe me planetin tone

    Akullnajat po shkrihen, liqenet po zvoglohen, pyjet po thahen.
    Ne Google Earth mund te shihen ndryshime te medhaja ne toke.





    Ndryshuar pėr herė tė fundit nga iliria e para : 21-09-2006 mė 05:50
    Lumi ka ujin e paster ne burim


    Kombi mbi te gjitha

  19. #39
    progress Maska e BvizioN
    Anėtarėsuar
    18-03-2005
    Vendndodhja
    UK
    Postime
    3,105
    Faleminderit
    0
    7 falenderime nė 6 postime
    Asgje me "rendesi" ,thjesh nje ngrohje globale
    Bukuria eshte ngado, varet se nga cfare kendi e shikon.

  20. #40
    i/e regjistruar
    Anėtarėsuar
    01-12-2005
    Postime
    365
    Faleminderit
    0
    0 falenderime nė 0 postime
    une kam pershtypjen se gjendja eshte shume me alarmante se sa ē'thuhet. do me interesonte vertet te dija si eshte e verteta: ēfare do ndodhe, kur, ēfare mund te behet per te ndaluar a ngadalesuar kete proēes, a do behet?

Faqja 2 prej 10 FillimFillim 1234 ... FunditFundit

Tema tė Ngjashme

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