- The worst hit country of the 2004 tsunami was Indonesia (circa 150,000 deaths). - Most of those deaths occured in the province of Aceh on the island of Sumatra. - Aceh is historically a Muslim province where Islam was allegedly first established in S.E. Asia.
Oh, I didn't realize you were discussing which was the predominant peacekeeping country in 1945. Because now it's not the US. Not even in the top ten. Not even in the top twenty. When the UN wants peacekeeping done, they currently go to countries such as Bangladesh. Sixteen industrialized countries have successfully met their Kyoto obligations, and the treaty has only just begun. Yes, Gore championed Kyoto. But since then, and before ratifications, the US has opposed it, attempted to kill it, and tried to distract from it. And yet it succeeded in being passed. Another example would be the treaty against child soldiers, which the US opposed. Another example would be the treaty against landmines, which the US opposed. The concept that the US leads the UN is false. Well there's no question that the UN has had problems and does not have a 100% success rate, but there's a bunch of problems with this as with most generalizations to try and fit a predefined political viewpoint. One off the top is that some governments tried to prevent any aid whatsoever from reaching their own people.
You are arguing that the UN should be bigger, not that it shouldn't exist. And yes, there have been failings. No organization of any sort will be perfect.
Actually, I didn't argue one way or the other. I just pointed out a monumental failure, which doesn't give me confidence in their actions.
LOL. So Bangladesh is the UNs go to country? LOL. At least you have a good sense of humor. The world according to BigDave. UN Guy1: Holyshit. The world is completely falling apart. What are we going to do? UN Guy2: Its time to call Bangladesh, they are the ones who can save us now.
Does CO2 really drive global warming? Arctic Ocean model The postulated driver, or mechanism, developed some 30 years ago to account for the âmillion-yearâ temperature oscillations, is best known as the âArctic Oceanâ model (2). According to this model, the temperature variations are driven by an oscillating ice cap in the northern polar regions. The crucial element in the conceptual formulation of this mechanism was the realization that such a massive ice cap could not have developed, and then continued to expand through that development, unless there was a major source of moisture close by to supply, maintain, and extend the cap. The only possible moisture source was then identified as the Arctic Ocean, which, therefore, had to be openânot frozen overâduring the development of the ice ages. It then closed again, interrupting the moisture supply by freezing over. So the model we now have is that if the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as is the case today, the existing ice cap is not being replenished and must shrink, as it is doing today. As it does so, the Earth can absorb more of the Sunâs radiation and therefore will heat upâglobal warmingâas it is doing today, so long as the Arctic Ocean is closed. When it is warm enough for the ocean to open, which oceanographic (and media) reports say is evidently happening right now, then the ice cap can begin to re-form. As it expands, the ice increasingly reflects the incoming (shorter-wave) radiation from the sun, so that the atmosphere cools at first. But then, the expanding ice cap reduces the radiative (longer-wave) loss from the Earth, acting as an insulator, so that the Earth below cools more slowly and can keep the ocean open as the ice cap expands. This generates âout-of-syncâ oscillations between atmosphere and Earth. The Arctic Ocean âtripâ behavior at the temperature extremes, allowing essentially discontinuous change in direction of the temperature, is identified as a bifurcation system with potential for analysis as such. The suggested trip times for the change are interesting: They were originally estimated at about 500 years, then reduced to 50 years and, most recently, down to 5 years (2). So, if the ocean is opening right now, we could possibly start to see the temperature reversal under way in about 10 years. Note that this was published in May of 2001. Open the link to read the full article, it offers the best explanation of global warming that I have seen. When I was in school I was a research assistant for the professor who wrote this.
It's a good idea for readers to keep in mind that just late last year bigdavediode was fervently arguing that our beloved King Hussein was not in any way, shape, form or fashion MUSLIM. Now of course his chosen one openly brags about his Muslim roots. For those unable to put two and two together let me spell it out. bigdavediode was full of shit Now I claim no expertise in climatology. But I'm confident that the earth's climate was cycling between one extreme and another long before man was able to have any impact. That coupled with the fact of WHO is arguing for man made global warming, well, puts a large question mark on the whole debate for me.