Amazon River Disaster & Global Warming Facts
- Thread starter Heiko Bleher
- Start date
democracy is going to have to die pure and simple and the masses are going to have to be ideologically controlled against their will
Gunner if you think the US ever was, is now, or ever will be a democracy you need to retake 7th grade civics class. Look up the term "constitutional republic". To briefly sum up the difference in a constitutional republic the power of govt is (supposed to be but not so much any more) limited to powers granted specifically to it by a written constitution. In a democracy the power of govt is limited only by the will of the majority. So if this country had been a democracy in the 50s do you think that communists would have had any rights then? While I certainly don't agree with communism in any way shape or form, even those ignorant enough of their own best interests to support it deserve protection under the law. There are many points in our history in which hysteria would have driven a democracy to seriously violate the rights of some segment of our population. And we've done that enough even with a constitution to protect us.Read my sig to see what I think of democracy.
Gunner if you think the US ever was, is now, or ever will be a democracy you need to retake 7th grade civics class. Look up the term "constitutional republic". To briefly sum up the difference in a constitutional republic the power of govt is (supposed to be but not so much any more) limited to powers granted specifically to it by a written constitution. In a democracy the power of govt is limited only by the will of the majority. So if this country had been a democracy in the 50s do you think that communists would have had any rights then? While I certainly don't agree with communism in any way shape or form, even those ignorant enough of their own best interests to support it deserve protection under the law. There are many points in our history in which hysteria would have driven a democracy to seriously violate the rights of some segment of our population. And we've done that enough even with a constitution to protect us.Read my sig to see what I think of democracy.
while i wont try to hurt my self dealing with some of the insanity in this thread..... this is a devastating natural disaster. its effecting many counties. i read about it before the PFK article was posted.
by the sound of it they seem to be having a whole range of problems.
The term "global warming" is just a term that stuck. There have been other terms such as "global climate disruption" that have been kicked around, but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it, now does it? Many people say climate change instead, it doesn't make them more or less educated if they are both talking about the same thing.
I find it a little bit audacious that you are posting in the author's own thread, kind of implying that he is undereducated (along with anyone else who chooses to use this term, which is interchangeable with "climate change" for the most part).
Sub, I would think that his use of hyperbole (if he means it as such, I agree it was perhaps not the best choice of words) is from personally witnessing these cataclysmic events firsthand, something that very likely none of us have. Since you do hate the mixing of emotional and factual, I can understand how this especially rubs you the wrong way.
However, frankly, I don't see what the big deal is, since he clearly said "...and I think that global warming is 100 times worse than what we are told." Before, he says that the media blames El Nino, CO2, and deforestation, but his personal viewpoint is that global warming is also to blame - and kind of implies that it is to blame even more so.
IMO, this article does not seem to purport itself to be a science piece (at least not a hard science piece, ala Scientific American) for one thing it is an extremely brief article. Heiko never says he is a scientist, but he has been doing research on this subject for about ten years - can any of us say we have done anything comparable? Many voices in this discussion seem to have little else besides opinions on this matter.
I have read a few books and many articles on this subject, that doesn't make me an expert by any means, but I tend to assume the people who shrug it off have probably not even gone this far, since it's just "political propaganda" after all. (And yet we, who choose to use the term global warming, are undereducated?)
And I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the whole "scientists don't agree it's even happening"...I believe that scientists do agree, for the most part, that it is happening.
The whole enchilada, the whole bit about the greenhouse gasses, and that it's been happening ever since the Industrial Revolution...not just natural climate change as part of an evolving weather pattern, ho hum, but oh **** we've got to do something now, desperation - is the tone that I am picking up from most of the 'best and most renown' scientists. And no, I'm not talking about Al Gore!
CWO4GUNNER
USN/USCG 1974-2004 Weps
All Im saying is that regardless of our individuals passions on this subject we all need to support the people's (that's us collectively) right to vote major changes on this issue. If there is one thing I have learned recently is that FDR was right "you cant fool all of the people all of the time" which was recently made very clear.
Let the people decide.
Let the people decide.
Gunner you have posted many things about your personal life on this forum including many truly sad stories. But this post demonstrates that all of the years that you spent defending the US were quite possibly wasted, since you apparently didn't even know what you were fighting to defend. Imo that's the saddest thing you've ever posted. Please don't construe this to mean that I'm not grateful for your service, for I am.
Yes, to human causes. I say we fix what humans have screwed up (all those highways and cities preventing species from fleeing the danger zones, for one) and then hope that we were not to late to let those species save themselves.
I do not see the logic in that. The cause is not as important as the solution. Its barely even relevant in my mind. IMHO, humans can only fix what we have broken, the natural cycle is not for us to meddle with. But what we CAN do is try to remove all the damage WE have done. Re-plant those forests we've cut down, rip up those roads that block the path of animals migrating, condense our cities so that we can use less space for more people, make our factories smaller and more efficient. Do our best to lessen or remove our footprint from earth before its wiped away forcefully.
:nono: unnecessary to make fun of my way of typing and thinking.
1. IMO, its not political, govs should just get over using it that way. Being the ruler of a nation won't do you dip**** when that nation is wiped off the face of the earth.
2. Neither. Humans cannot stop things like that (yet) but we can do our small part to help keep this planet alive, and not wipe life from its surface.
3. Both. It is human nature to assume we can control things, if it wasn't then we would still be "animals" and would never have tried wielding fire.
4. Yes, but even the elephants *** hair is important, or it wouldn't be there.
"The people" can't even agree whats causing it, and you want to let them decide what to do about it? Not a good plan IMO. I'm not brilliant, never claimed to be, but IMHO, a good dictator who considers his people important would be the best kind of leader. Democracies can't decide, Republics take to long, Communism's are to complex, and monarchies are to self centered. But a Dictatorship that cares for its people, that would work, and would work well. Thast my opinion, and i do not care what you think of it.
Humans cannot stop nature, in fact thats a really stupid idea to try. But what we can do is set ourselves apart from nature, make it so we have as little a footprint on earth as possible. People here seem to think that I've been saying that we should try to cool of the sun, or stop climate change. We shouldn't. Messing with nature never works. IMHO all we need to do is try to keep our hands off nature and the natural way things work. Right now, we aren;t doing that. We're chopping down forests, stealing water from the earth, putting our cities everywhere that isn't already taken, and even as we watch our world fall apart around us we cannot decide what to do about it.
Should we flee earth, creating tech that can take us to another living planet? Or should we try to meddle with evolution and nature and the ways things work? Or should we go with the option i believe in, which is to remove ourselves from the equation as best we can? Its up to humans, but we had better choose soon, because if we wait to long we will not get a second chance. Soon, humans will be wiped out by a combination of natural events and human idiocy. So we don't have much time left to debate our choice.
Right now, with the condition earth is in, it won't be able to handle a major climate shift. Not completely, not as well as it used to. Humans have blocked migration paths, isolated species, destroyed environments that would otherwise have survived this event. And we have weapons that can destroy earth utterly, if used to often. When humans go to war over food, water, and farmable land, what will happen? Will we be able to work together? Or will we wipe ourselves out, will the civilization we built fall to never again rise up? Thats the choice we will have to make, if we cannot aid the earth.
As for those of you who say "humans are a part of nature" well then we can't "Interfere" with it if we are it, now can we? No, if we are a part of nature then stopping something like climate change would just be another thing that happened naturally. So that argument is stupid.
Ok, im done for now, and my mac is almost dead. Cya. And no PMing me.
I'm sure you've heard the story of the blind men and the elephant. For anyone who hasn't, here it is...
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
:silly: show me the money!!!
this is one thing that even if all the right parameters need to be met... and the likelyhood equates to nearly impossible... it's still not worth the risk, imo. anything that can happen, eventually will...
any industry so riddled with secrecy should not be allowed to have and/or harness such power. :drool: like the evening news... or government weapons technology...
i, personally want the truth... not what i want to hear. truth holds no secrets... or surprises!
ok... so they can recycle old nuclear weapons... but they should have never been made in the first place... and there's still the issue of waste buildup with the potential to eradicate almost all planetary lifeforms known to man. just like the thought that "saving the extra fish empowers the company to continue selling sick fish", recycling nuclear weapons might just be an excuse to make more... when in fact we've not yet figured a way to rid ourselves of reactive material completely... just reduce it to a different reactive material... and bury it. brilliant minds at work.................. :footinmouth: ........... every material known to man has a finite life ...... what if life on earth outlives the finite life of those containers??????????? hmmmm... thinkers, sigh..... thought it out, have they?
roaches don't do so well in the wrong temps. enough nuclear energy to wipe out our entire civilization (which has recently become one global entity) surely would have effect on our climate, no?
cow flatulence can be dealt with, re-claimed and used. we just have to be willing. :uhoh: burn it or breathe it... it's our choice... :grinyes:
green roofs can be incorporated. the price has to be right.
mg:ground temps can be utilized. the price has to be right. :22_yikes:
solar lighting can be utilized. the price has to be right.
rain barrels can be used. the price has to be right. :idea:
green materials can be used. the price has to be right. :shakehead:
air can be cleaned with plants... and they do a better job than a filter. the price has to be right. :cry:
etc., etc., etc. ... the price has to be right, etc. ....
for the price to be right, anything we can do has to be done... on a scale that makes economical doable. :wall: we all have to get on-board. :hang:
it's going to be a while before we're doing our part as a whole. we'll probably find out the hard way...
reality is usually harsher than fantasy...
maybe i'm a little loopy... :screwy:
