The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
News & Current Events

How Can You Not Consider This Criminal?

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#46New Post! Jun 08, 2017 @ 05:16:04
@Ghyda Said

The histeria reminds me of the British witch trials during the seventeenth century.


That's spelled "hysteria".

Look, if you're going to pretend to be smarter than climatologists in your denial of this problem, at least read the links I posted for your education and specifically tell me which piece of conclusive data of theirs' you find erroneous and why.

Then perhaps you might actually begin to look smarter than you are coming across here.

Heck, you may even start to understand why this is completely different than hunting imaginary witches.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#47New Post! Jun 08, 2017 @ 11:51:05
@Ghyda Said

The hoopla around either or both could compare to witch trials in England several decades before the Salem trials. For a while, people obsess over the situation, and then they don't.



By that logic you can compare someone who's mother is shot and killed in front of her to someone who just got in a minor car accident with some slight cosmetic damage to her car reacting the same way (yes, people go into hysterics over things like that).

I mean, they're both hysterical and then a little while later aren't, right? So the situations that made them that way just have to be comparable. Right?

Just because reactions are similar does not make the proximate cause of those reactions comparable. Basic logic.
Ghyda On February 11, 2020




Anaheim, California
#48New Post! Jun 08, 2017 @ 13:03:37
@chaski Said

Except the witches weren't real.

Terrorism on the other hand is very real has been with us a fairly long time as has the hoopla about terrorism.

Climate change is also real. The ecology vs pollution part of the climate change issue is also very real and has been with us for quite a while.

One can argue that the human impact part of climate change, but the changing climate part and the reality of human caused pollution are irrefutable.

How long the hoopla will last remains to be seen.


Yes, of course. I think you have it right, but whether or not the threats have any reality is not important. The threats come and go regardless of human action.

Take the Vietnam War for example.

The United States wanted to protect freedom of the seas, an American foreign policy, which dates back to the Barbary Wars, even though we didn't call it that until Wilson was president.

Also, the United States wanted something called containment, which referred to preventing the spread of Soviet style dictatorships.

These and several other things led to the Vietnam War.

As of right now, the United States has achieved all of those objectives, but I don't see how this success has anything to do with the war. Seems to me that the result would have been the same without all that effort.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#49New Post! Jun 08, 2017 @ 14:09:05
@Ghyda Said

Yes, of course. I think you have it right, but whether or not the threats have any reality is not important. The threats come and go regardless of human action.

Take the Vietnam War for example.

The United States wanted to protect freedom of the seas, an American foreign policy, which dates back to the Barbary Wars, even though we didn't call it that until Wilson was president.

Also, the United States wanted something called containment, which referred to preventing the spread of Soviet style dictatorships.

These and several other things led to the Vietnam War.

As of right now, the United States has achieved all of those objectives, but I don't see how this success has anything to do with the war. Seems to me that the result would have been the same without all that effort.



You're using one example to represent a macrocosm though. The Vietnam conflict was a lost battle in the greater won war.

You yourself state above that the United States has achieved those objectives, and it achieved them precisely through the human action you are trying to claim does not change anything. That the Vietnam conflict portion of that action failed does not mean that all action relative to the same goal lacks any efficacy.

If you're climbing a ladder to the top and on the way break a rung, you can't reach the top and then point at the broken rung saying that it's an example of a fruitless endeavor that didn't lead anywhere can you?

I also don't know that I agree that human action doesn't make a difference, even in things like the witch trials. Human beings, through education and the fomenting of the sciences, ended up becoming less superstitious and we eventually learned that witches do not exist, resulting in the perceived threat being extinguished.

I guess the bigger question in my mind is, what do you propose humans do in response to a perceived threat if it isn't action against that perceived threat? Should we ignore them?

Or are you just making the observation that humans tend to have to feel threatened by something, and that when one thing is resolved another will take it's place? I can actually agree with that.

I'm seriously asking.
Ghyda On February 11, 2020




Anaheim, California
#50New Post! Jun 08, 2017 @ 15:02:27
@Eaglebauer Said

You're using one example to represent a macrocosm though. The Vietnam conflict was a lost battle in the greater won war.

You yourself state above that the United States has achieved those objectives, and it achieved them precisely through the human action you are trying to claim does not change anything. That the Vietnam conflict portion of that action failed does not mean that all action relative to the same goal lacks any efficacy.

If you're climbing a ladder to the top and on the way break a rung, you can't reach the top and then point at the broken rung saying that it's an example of a fruitless endeavor that didn't lead anywhere can you?

I also don't know that I agree that human action doesn't make a difference, even in things like the witch trials. Human beings, through education and the fomenting of the sciences, ended up becoming less superstitious and we eventually learned that witches do not exist, resulting in the perceived threat being extinguished.

I guess the bigger question in my mind is, what do you propose humans do in response to a perceived threat if it isn't action against that perceived threat? Should we ignore them?

Or are you just making the observation that humans tend to have to feel threatened by something, and that when one thing is resolved another will take it's place? I can actually agree with that.

I'm seriously asking.


Seems to me that the achievement of the Vietnam objectives happened mostly by accident, but who knows?

Witches do exist in the sense that they used spells and potions. Today, we refer to the purveyors of potions as drug dealers, which suggests another area which sucks up resources with little result.

To ignore a threat may not become possible when the hysteria rises above a certain level, but I do think that the environmentalist would help their case if they offered their solution as the more efficient solution, rather than the mandatory solution.

My chemistry teacher participated in the antinuclear demonstrations like I mentioned earlier, so I asked him why he no longer considers it a threat. He believes that it is no safer, but he believes climate offers a bigger threat, and the world may need need nuclear power.

And yes, we always seem to have a boogieman. DDT, for example.
chaski On about 18 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#51New Post! Jun 08, 2017 @ 15:27:11
@Ghyda Said

Seems to me that the achievement of the Vietnam objectives happened mostly by accident, but who knows?


If you are referring t the "achievements" of the Cold War, weren't by accident, but also not related to the Vietnam War.

There were a number of "achievements" based primarily on socio-economic factors, most of which boil down to the fact that Communism is not actually a viable form of political ideology when applied to large countries. To way over simplify it: The fall of the Soviet Union was essentially due to the nuclear arms race that was economically unsustainable on the part of the Soviet Union. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI0 (sometime called Star Wars ) was final blow.

As to the Vietnam War, the only real achievements obtained by the USA were:
1. Field or remote medical triage & response
2. "Lessons learned" that resulted in better military (individual soldier) body armor
3. And fighter air craft advancements.

Almost every other aspect of the war was a failure and complete waste of time.

...oh and the war was "good" for the music industry of the 60-70's.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#52New Post! Jun 08, 2017 @ 17:20:45
@Ghyda Said

Seems to me that the achievement of the Vietnam objectives happened mostly by accident, but who knows?

Witches do exist in the sense that they used spells and potions. Today, we refer to the purveyors of potions as drug dealers, which suggests another area which sucks up resources with little result.

To ignore a threat may not become possible when the hysteria rises above a certain level, but I do think that the environmentalist would help their case if they offered their solution as the more efficient solution, rather than the mandatory solution.

My chemistry teacher participated in the antinuclear demonstrations like I mentioned earlier, so I asked him why he no longer considers it a threat. He believes that it is no safer, but he believes climate offers a bigger threat, and the world may need need nuclear power.

And yes, we always seem to have a boogieman. DDT, for example.



@chaski Said

If you are referring t the "achievements" of the Cold War, weren't by accident, but also not related to the Vietnam War.

There were a number of "achievements" based primarily on socio-economic factors, most of which boil down to the fact that Communism is not actually a viable form of political ideology when applied to large countries. To way over simplify it: The fall of the Soviet Union was essentially due to the nuclear arms race that was economically unsustainable on the part of the Soviet Union. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI0 (sometime called Star Wars ) was final blow.

As to the Vietnam War, the only real achievements obtained by the USA were:
1. Field or remote medical triage & response
2. "Lessons learned" that resulted in better military (individual soldier) body armor
3. And fighter air craft advancements.

Almost every other aspect of the war was a failure and complete waste of time.

...oh and the war was "good" for the music industry of the 60-70's.


This.
Ghyda On February 11, 2020




Anaheim, California
#53New Post! Jun 09, 2017 @ 02:15:43
@chaski Said

If you are referring t the "achievements" of the Cold War, weren't by accident, but also not related to the Vietnam War.

There were a number of "achievements" based primarily on socio-economic factors, most of which boil down to the fact that Communism is not actually a viable form of political ideology when applied to large countries. To way over simplify it: The fall of the Soviet Union was essentially due to the nuclear arms race that was economically unsustainable on the part of the Soviet Union. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI0 (sometime called Star Wars ) was final blow.

As to the Vietnam War, the only real achievements obtained by the USA were:
1. Field or remote medical triage & response
2. "Lessons learned" that resulted in better military (individual soldier) body armor
3. And fighter air craft advancements.

Almost every other aspect of the war was a failure and complete waste of time.

...oh and the war was "good" for the music industry of the 60-70's.


Yes, the achievement of freedom of the seas, free trade, self determination, containment, etc must relate to the cold war rather than being in spite of the Vietnam War.

The year, 1968, offers another example of hysteria.

Riots and political demonstrations filled the streets of the United States, France, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, etc. Russian tanks put down Czech protesters. In Mexico, federal troops killed students. In Vietnam, American soldiers murdered a village full of Vietnamese people. Walter Cronkite declared the war as lost. A Vietnamese general assassinated a Viet Cong soldier on the cover of Life Magazine. Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated.

My older relatives say that their Communist friends thought that the Proletarian Revolution had begun. Their Christian friends thought the second coming of Jesus had begun.

Many of my Christian friends thought it signaled the second coming of Jesus.
chaski On about 18 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#54New Post! Jun 09, 2017 @ 04:17:35
@Ghyda Said

The year, 1968....

I was young but remember it well.


@Ghyda Said

My older relatives say that their Communist friends thought that the Proletarian Revolution had begun. Their Christian friends thought the second coming of Jesus had begun.


And they were both wrong.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#55New Post! Jun 09, 2017 @ 12:11:09
So we're really really skewed from the topic...

I know I played my part in that, but still.
mrmhead On March 27, 2024




NE, Ohio
#56New Post! Jun 09, 2017 @ 13:27:12
@Eaglebauer Said

So we're really really skewed from the topic...

I know I played my part in that, but still.


I think it's criminal to steer conversations away from environmental protections and regulations!

(Better? )
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#57New Post! Jun 09, 2017 @ 13:33:33
@mrmhead Said

I think it's criminal to steer conversations away from environmental protections and regulations!

(Better? )



Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#58New Post! Jun 09, 2017 @ 14:51:32
I'll steer it back on topic with a basic primer:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases are gases that, when present in the atmosphere, warm our planet. When you add more greenhouse gases than what the Earth is capable of absorbing, then this will increase the amount of greenhouse gases present in our atmosphere, which, in turn increases the planet's temperatures.

Currently, the Earth and life on it naturally emits 770 gigatons of CO2 every year and absorbs 790 gigatons of CO2. If you do the math, this should result in a net DECREASE of CO2 of 20 gigatons every year, and, therefore, set the Earth on a cooling trend. More on this later.

However, human fossil burning and land use artificially pumps an additional 30 gigatons of CO2 every year. So now, again, doing the math, this results in a SURPLUS of 10 gigatons of CO2 every year, instead of decrease that was supposed to be happening naturally. Therefore we are artificially warming the planet.

Here is a chart that shows how CO2 correlates with global temperatures.



So, now that's been established, how much are we warming the planet?



Today the average global tempurature anomaly has reached close to 1.5 degrees Celsius, so you can see the alarming rate in which man-made CO2 emissions have warmed the planet. The real danger is once this hits 2.0 C, when scientists warn of catastrophic dangers worldwide that would result. We are not far behind.

Is this all part of the Earth's natural cycle? Let's take a look:



As you can see, we were quite due a cooling trend. And, indeed, from this closer look below of the last two thousand years, we see it taking place.



However, this natural cooling trend was abnormally and sharply interrupted starting at around the mid-1800's.

Guess when the Industrial Age began.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#59New Post! Jun 09, 2017 @ 14:52:49
I might post more later on the predicted effects of global warming and on the opposing scientific views.
chaski On about 18 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#60New Post! Jun 09, 2017 @ 16:11:07
Additionally, "we" have know, at least since the time of Alexander von Humboldt in the 1800s, that humans can and do impact our environment.

Admittedly, in the time of Humboldt there was somewhat of a disagreement on whether or not this was a good thing. Some thought it was bad for a variety of reasons ranging from the need to conserve resources to a desire to protect the beauty of earth since god gave it to us as its stewards. Some thought it was good because nature was chaos (bad) and we humans were directed by god to put it in order (good).

Now, some 180 (+/-) years after Humboldt, we know the negative impacts of our actions (pollution of water, air, land), and yet we deny the we have any impact.

We have seen the short term impacts of natural events on the environment, the Krakatoa eruption being a prime example...it cooled the world (for very different reasons than the heating of the world by CO2 emissions).

We watch, observe and record our daily polluting of planet earth, and yet somehow we deny that "we" humans have any impact.

Actually no one is really running around hysterically...but maybe they should be.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Poetry
Sun Sep 16, 2012 @ 15:40
16 6689
New posts   Entertainment
Thu May 24, 2012 @ 06:12
3 533
New posts   Politics
Thu Mar 25, 2010 @ 23:47
1 493
New posts   News & Current Events
Mon Jun 04, 2012 @ 09:33
8 1674
New posts   Politics
Wed Oct 21, 2009 @ 15:46
29 6662