Climate Change

[joeblast]

George Soros wasnt saying Conservatives will be completely silenced by 2020 for nothin

That aint gonna happen now of course

 

1 hour ago, ralis said:

The Tao is about the inter connectivity of all life and whatever humans do will have far ranging effects. That is a very simplistic explanation. 

well, shit on all that striving we do to get every last bit of gain - why, every last little thing we do has far ranging effects!  *chuckles*

 

no ralis, that's not how it works, not at all.  some things do truly mean jack shit.

[voidisyinyang]

4 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Nuclear energy.

my dad was a lawyer for the nuclear power utility that won a precedent lawsuit when Minnesota wanted to regulate the routine radiation emissions at a stricter than federal standard. That's why I flew to Puerto Rico when I was 2 1/2 months old. I didn't discover this till 2000 when I googled my dad's name. I had gotten arrested at the same nuclear power utility in 1994 for storing its nuclear waste on the native indigenous reservation on the Mississippi river.

 

In 1996 then while working for Greenpeace the native indigenous activist Inila Wakan showed me a creek at Pine Ridge Reservation - polluted from uranium mining.

 

There are lots of unseen "costs" to nuclear power but since the taxpayer covers the insurance costs, in reality nuclear power is part of the US military (as the recent Iran conflict exposes). A recent comment on the abrupt global warming youtube channel:

 

Quote

Nuclear plant designers prob never factored in warmer cooling water, so the heat exchange circuit was made to suit the temperatures at the time,to alter the size of the heat exchangers would be very expensive as is a major part of the plant.

so now we have this:

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-07-01/nuclear-power-once-seen-as-impervious-to-climate-change-threatened-by-heat-waves

Nuclear Power, Once Seen as Impervious to Climate Change, Threatened by Heat Waves

and this comment:

Quote

Allow me finish that article for you; "...as global temperatures continue to rise in 2019 and 2020 and beyond (though "beyond" won't matter much), and nuclear plants worldwide increase the frequency of reducing output due to coolant, habitat and plant temperature concerns, material scientists anticipate an exponential increase in system component failure due to material embrittlement from heat, then premature failure from shock loads the plants and components were never designed to handle, producing an overall decrease in margins of safety until catastrophic failures, called "Critical Events", happen at multiiple facilities, followed by emergency evacuations, loss of entire cities and downstream or downwind communities, at which point regulator actions and mandates will bankrupt operators and utilities. Thereafter, the frequency of complete catastrophic failures will also rise at exponential rates and shortly thereafter, sterilize the entire planet with wide spread deadly radioactive ionizing gas, molten puddles such as those found at Chernobyl and Fukushima, and waterborne contaminants destroying huge rivers, aquifers, farmland and urban centers for tens of thousands of years. It should be noted the silver lining is few if any humans will be around to notice the worst of it or suffer long, save those few population centers which aren't killed quickly." - A Nuclear Engineer who designed systems for SoCal Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) and who designed plant operations, audits, R&R and safety systems which the NRC said "...were the most advanced in the industry to meet and exceed 10CFR Compliance Mandates"

and there is a good documentary on this:

 

So certainly people will promote nuclear power as long as the real costs are "externalized."

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

4 hours ago, joeblast said:

Even Lawrence Krauss showed up in Epstein's book

 

It'll be interesting to see where the world goes once the deep state perversion is ripped out

 

and hopefully we no longer have banksters pouring money into the co2 hoax - cuz face it all those long term predictions from the co2 hoax are garbage, one thousand times moreso since we dont have a good solar model that can predict the solar cycles properly.

 

hell we still arent predicting el ninos and la ninas yet

 

but those models can tell us the world's gonna end in 12 or 50 or 150 years?  *chuckles* 

 

no, that's just hol-ey models having their assumptions go parabolic.    they dont properly recreate what they are attempting to model - instead of an incredibly stable system dominated by negative feedback mechanisms, we have a frankenstein facsimile that is not stable and tips on its side a million times more easily than nature actually does.

 

this is what you're warning us of

 

yes in the long term - over tens of millions of years - I'm sure Earth will restore ecology as it has in the past through previous mass extinction crises. We are in the 6th one that is the fastest one in Earth's history. So in the near term extinction rate - the positive feedbacks of Mother Nature are now overwhelming:

http://macskamoksha.com/2019/06/climate-change-always-sooner-than-predicted

Quote

 

A June 15th headline elicited feelings in me of both shock and déjà vu: “Climate change: Arctic permafrost now melting at levels not expected until 2090” [Independent, June 15, 2019].

• As the Climate Council has reported, hot days have doubled in Australia over the past half-century. During the decade from 2000 to 2009, heatwaves reached levels not expected until the 2030s. The anticipated impacts from climate change are arriving more than two decades ahead of schedule.” [“‘It’s been hot before’: faulty logic skews the climate debate,” The Conversation, February 20, 2014]
• “Climate change will reduce crop yields sooner than thought” (University of Leeds study) [Science Daily, March 16, 2014]
• “New research shows climate change will reduce crop yields sooner than expected” (different study) [Arizona State University, March 25, 2014]
• “Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study: Australian researchers say a global tracker monitoring energy use per person points to 2C warming by 2030″ [The Guardian, 9 March 2016]
• “Scientists Warn Drastic Climate Impacts Coming Much Sooner Than Expected: Former NASA scientist James Hansen argues the new study requires much faster action reducing greenhouse gases.” [Inside Climate News, Mar 22, 2016]
• “Florida Reefs Are Dissolving Much Sooner Than Expected” [ClimateCentral, May 3, 2016]
• “Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change:” “We predicted moderate warmth for 2016, but nothing like the temperature rises we’ve seen” [Thomson Reuters Foundation, July 26, 2016]
• “Ice-free Arctic may happen much sooner than predicted so far: study” [DownToEarth, 16 August 2018]
• “Ground that is not freezing in the Arctic winter could be a sign the region is warming faster than believed” [“Scientists surprised to find some Arctic soil may not be freezing at all even in winter,” CNBC, Aug 22 2018]
• “Paris global warming targets could be exceeded sooner than expected because of melting permafrost, study finds” [Independent, 17 September 2018]
• “Climate change impacts worse than expected, global report warns” [National Geographic, October 7, 2018]
• “Ocean Warming is Accelerating Faster Than Thought, New Research Finds” [NY Times, Jan 10th, 2019]
• “Scientists warn climate change could reach a ‘tipping point’ sooner than predicted as global emissions outpace Earth’s ability to soak up carbon” [Daily Mail, 23 January 2019]
• “Scientists who study the northern Bering Sea say they’re seeing changed ocean conditions that were projected by climate models – but not until 2050.” [“Bering Sea changes startle scientists, worry residents,” AP, Apr 13, 2019]
• “New Climate Report Suggests NYC Could Be Under Water Sooner Than Predicted” [Gothamist, May 21, 2019]
• “Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Way Faster Than Expected, Scientists Warn” [Huffington Post, 06/14/2018]
• “Arctic Permafrost Melting 70 Years Sooner Than Expected, Study Finds” (The original source for the Independent article) [Weather.com, June 14th, 2019]

 

• And we can add to this list - the East Siberian Arctic Sea methane bomb - that's the world's largest ocean shelf with stored up, under pressure methane from 3 million years ago - and the top science journals like Nature have published this science. When the arctic goes ice free - that methane will explode out, doubling the global warming.
•  

[voidisyinyang]

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

Not good enough buddy,  you're not there yet  , its a decent start though , IMO, 

As for my life , I don't do any of that , nor do I claim to , nor do I tell anybody else to. 

But I didn't opine that you wasted your life. I just said that if you want to live green, go do it ! Two thumbs up. 

Tell me I have to do that crap , two thumbs down.

How about your life?

Is this "telling you" to do something? Sorry if you read that question as "telling you to do something."

I did "recommend" you read two books though. I don't think "recommending" is an imperative statement though.

 

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

Nor are you picking on the most destructive countries, you are still dodging that. 

 

Did I "tell you" to do that?

Please show me where I "told you" to do anything?

I'm simply reporting the evidence. Our current situation is way "too little too late" and I don't expect anything to change.

Certainly I did protest a lot and I got arrested nine times as civil disobedience. So I was a bit of a "wrench in the machine."

But I didn't directly tell anyone to do anything. I certainly encouraged people but the truth is not a popularity contest.

I'm perfectly aware of reverse psychology - political views are hard-wired. As I have pointed out we are all brainwashed by WEstern civilization at a young age - it is hard-wired in all of us.

So I don't expect to change anyone by posting words online. haha. I've been posting online on forums since 2001 and for me it's only been a self-learning process just for fun - just as conceptual analysis.

Quote

Nor are you picking on the most destructive countries, you are still dodging that. 

Actually my B.A. degree was in International Relations. So for destructive countries - I don't think it is easy to find any current countries that are not destructive.

Looming 'Climate Apartheid' Could Split the World into the Rich and the Dead, UN Warns

Quote

Developing countries will bear an estimated 75% of the costs of climate change, the report noted, despite the poorest half of the global population contributing just 10% of global carbon emissions.

https://www.livescience.com/65797-climate-apartheid-un-report.html

But I don't think we can separate out "countries" for analysis.

For example Costa Rica where I studied conservation biology and sustainable development for a semester - in 1992 - Costa Rica is held up as a very Green country but it is dependent on international EcoTourism air flights.

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[ralis]

1 hour ago, voidisyinyang said:

my dad was a lawyer for the nuclear power utility that won a precedent lawsuit when Minnesota wanted to regulate the routine radiation emissions at a stricter than federal standard. That's why I flew to Puerto Rico when I was 2 1/2 months old. I didn't discover this till 2000 when I googled my dad's name. I had gotten arrested at the same nuclear power utility in 1994 for storing its nuclear waste on the native indigenous reservation on the Mississippi river.

 

In 1996 then while working for Greenpeace the native indigenous activist Inila Wakan showed me a creek at Pine Ridge Reservation - polluted from uranium mining.

 

There are lots of unseen "costs" to nuclear power but since the taxpayer covers the insurance costs, in reality nuclear power is part of the US military (as the recent Iran conflict exposes). A recent comment on the abrupt global warming youtube channel:

 

so now we have this:

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-07-01/nuclear-power-once-seen-as-impervious-to-climate-change-threatened-by-heat-waves

Nuclear Power, Once Seen as Impervious to Climate Change, Threatened by Heat Waves

and this comment:

and there is a good documentary on this:

 

So certainly people will promote nuclear power as long as the real costs are "externalized."

 

 

 

I wrote a paper on nuclear power during my freshman year at Ohio State and Amory Lovins book was one of my references. Nothing has changed to make nuclear power the viable source that pipe dreamers so desperately want. Fukushima and Chernobyl are pertinent examples. Engineers erect additional storage tanks which are eventually filled to capacity with no room for additional tanks and radioactive waste water ends up in the Pacific Ocean. The same corporation that built Fukushima wants to construct more here in the U.S. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Non-Nuclear-Futures-Ethical-Energy-Strategy/dp/0060907770

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by ralis

[Lost in Translation]

9 minutes ago, ralis said:

I wrote a paper on nuclear power during my freshman year at Ohio State and Amory Lovins book was one of my references. Nothing has changed to make nuclear power the viable source that pipe dreamers so desperately want. Fukushima and Chernobyl are pertinent examples. Engineers erect additional storage tanks which are eventually filled to capacity with no room for additional tanks and radioactive waste water ends up in the Pacific Ocean.

 

Now we are finally having a good conversation.

 

It is a fact that civilization needs power. Every form of power has both benefits and costs. Some power is clean, but unreliable - for example, wind and solar. Other power is reliable, but dirty - e.g. coal and nuclear. So we come back to my original question: what do we do? We can't have unreliable power. That's unacceptable. I hope we can agree on that. So how do we make clean power more reliable? How much will that process cost? And how can we make dirty power less dirty? How much will that cost?

 

This is the correct conversation.

[ralis]

28 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Now we are finally having a good conversation.

 

It is a fact that civilization needs power. Every form of power has both benefits and costs. Some power is clean, but unreliable - for example, wind and solar. Other power is reliable, but dirty - e.g. coal and nuclear. So we come back to my original question: what do we do? We can't have unreliable power. That's unacceptable. I hope we can agree on that. So how do we make clean power more reliable? How much will that process cost? And how can we make dirty power less dirty? How much will that cost?

 

This is the correct conversation.

 

Old Student stated the problem regarding reversal of AGW very well!

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

8 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Old Student stated the problem regarding reversal of AGW very well!

 

 

 

I understand that your hypothesis (as expressed by the link given) is that anthropocentric global warming is causing imminent and irreversible harm to the climate that will lead inexorably to either man's extinction or at least to a massive human die-off. This position correlates to what politicians like AOC have stated and is by and large accepted by much of the mainstream left.

 

Do I correctly understand you?

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Lost in Translation

[joeblast]

2 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

yes in the long term - over tens of millions of years - I'm sure Earth will restore ecology as it has in the past through previous mass extinction crises. We are in the 6th one that is the fastest one in Earth's history. So in the near term extinction rate - the positive feedbacks of Mother Nature are now overwhelming:

http://macskamoksha.com/2019/06/climate-change-always-sooner-than-predicted

• And we can add to this list - the East Siberian Arctic Sea methane bomb - that's the world's largest ocean shelf with stored up, under pressure methane from 3 million years ago - and the top science journals like Nature have published this science. When the arctic goes ice free - that methane will explode out, doubling the global warming.
•  

expected expectations ass-u-me understanding of the processes enough so that outliers can be predicted.  biiiig problem with the gcms and a lot of other liner type thinking is the lack of ability to predict outlier events.  if you cant do that to any appreciable extent then you have no real predictive power what-so-ever

 

1 hour ago, ralis said:

 

I wrote a paper on nuclear power during my freshman year at Ohio State and Amory Lovins book was one of my references. Nothing has changed to make nuclear power the viable source that pipe dreamers so desperately want. Fukushima and Chernobyl are pertinent examples. Engineers erect additional storage tanks which are eventually filled to capacity with no room for additional tanks and radioactive waste water ends up in the Pacific Ocean. The same corporation that built Fukushima wants to construct more here in the U.S. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Non-Nuclear-Futures-Ethical-Energy-Strategy/dp/0060907770

 

you could have referenced the one that was an actual accident, 3 mile island, lol....but oh yes, that's right, in the MSM world nobody would ever try to make things happen that they were 99% sure werent going to work on purpose, or purposefully sabotage anything.  you'll call him crazy but jim stone has the qualifications and he had a pretty good writeup on fukishima and how there was no way that one went down like they said it did.  but the news already gave you your story that cant be altered, so where does that leave us....well, that leaves you unable to come to correct conclusions because you're lacking fundamental aspects of your analysis....lol that fits right in with the climatey co2-isms of the thread, really...

[ralis]

51 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I understand that your hypothesis (as expressed by the link given) is that anthropocentric global warming is causing imminent and irreversible harm to the climate that will lead inexorably to either man's extinction or at least to a massive human die-off. This position correlates to what politicians like AOC have stated and is by and large accepted by much of the mainstream left.

 

Do I correctly understand you?

 

 

The link regarding the Halocene extinction can be confirmed over many sites. This is not political but factual. 

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, ralis said:

 

The link regarding the Halocene extinction can be confirmed over many sites. This is not political but factual. 

 

Thank you for clarifying your position. Given this information it seems appropriate to take absolutely any action to prevent such an apocalypse, including forced confiscation of wealth and, if necessary, slave labor.

 

Can you see how dangerous this position might be, especially if you are wrong? Can you see how politicians might abuse the data to use climate change to coerce their agenda?

 

[Stosh]

3 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

How about your life?

Is this "telling you" to do something? Sorry if you read that question as "telling you to do something."

I did "recommend" you read two books though. I don't think "recommending" is an imperative statement though.

 

Did I "tell you" to do that?

Please show me where I "told you" to do anything?

I'm simply reporting the evidence. Our current situation is way "too little too late" and I don't expect anything to change.

Certainly I did protest a lot and I got arrested nine times as civil disobedience. So I was a bit of a "wrench in the machine."

But I didn't directly tell anyone to do anything. I certainly encouraged people but the truth is not a popularity contest.

I'm perfectly aware of reverse psychology - political views are hard-wired. As I have pointed out we are all brainwashed by WEstern civilization at a young age - it is hard-wired in all of us.

So I don't expect to change anyone by posting words online. haha. I've been posting online on forums since 2001 and for me it's only been a self-learning process just for fun - just as conceptual analysis.

Actually my B.A. degree was in International Relations. So for destructive countries - I don't think it is easy to find any current countries that are not destructive.

Looming 'Climate Apartheid' Could Split the World into the Rich and the Dead, UN Warns

https://www.livescience.com/65797-climate-apartheid-un-report.html

But I don't think we can separate out "countries" for analysis.

For example Costa Rica where I studied conservation biology and sustainable development for a semester - in 1992 - Costa Rica is held up as a very Green country but it is dependent on international EcoTourism air flights.

 

I think we indeed need to consider the countries affected by promoting the narrative that the west needs to fix global climate change by committing economic suicide. 

 

You say brainwashed by Western Civilization, you post that it's apartheid, rich vs dead. So I believe you are choosing an anti-western , anti-white, anti-wealth argument.

I will not be believing any denial of this until you quit with these arguments. 

 

When I was overseas I saw people who had stripped the ocean empty, fogged the air, eaten the wildlife and destroyed the ecosystems. 

We have been rather effective in correcting this stuff,though there is more to do, if Costa Rica has as well, that's great. 

However I am not seeing a fair assessment of effect, nor is the weakness of the arguments used for making certain claims admitted. 

A third of the earth is being burnt and desertified , that's being done overseas by mostly poor brown people. Not only that, but we have our own poor people , and brown people, but we in fact have more forest now than a hundred years ago! 

 

[ralis]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

I think we indeed need to consider the countries affected by promoting the narrative that the west needs to fix global climate change by committing economic suicide. 

 

You say brainwashed by Western Civilization, you post that it's apartheid, rich vs dead. So I believe you are choosing an anti-western , anti-white, anti-wealth argument.

I will not be believing any denial of this until you quit with these arguments. 

 

When I was overseas I saw people who had stripped the ocean empty, fogged the air, eaten the wildlife and destroyed the ecosystems. 

We have been rather effective in correcting this stuff,though there is more to do, if Costa Rica has as well, that's great. 

However I am not seeing a fair assessment of effect, nor is the weakness of the arguments used for making certain claims admitted. 

A third of the earth is being burnt and desertified , that's being done overseas by mostly poor brown people. Not only that, but we have our own poor people , and brown people, but we in fact have more forest now than a hundred years ago! 

 

 

Do you stop and read what you have written? Dividing up cultures by the amount of melanin in their skin which by the way is an evolutionary adaptation is naive and not supported by science. There is only one species of humans, Homo sapiens. 

[Stosh]

6 hours ago, ralis said:

 

Do you stop and read what you have written? Dividing up cultures by the amount of melanin in their skin which by the way is an evolutionary adaptation is naive and not supported by science. There is only one species of humans, Homo sapiens. 

Tell that to the United Nations and the person who quoted them, to inflame race conflict based on the production of co2 .

 

I would school you in the falsity of grouping things ,as well , but figure you won't be swayed. 

[voidisyinyang]

11 hours ago, joeblast said:

 

you could have referenced the one that was an actual accident, 3 mile island, lol....but oh yes, that's right, in the MSM world nobody would ever try to make things happen that they were 99% sure werent going to work on purpose, or purposefully sabotage anything.

yes relying on the corporate-state media to find out about nuclear "accidents" is kind of silly isn't it? I would recommend considering citizen watch groups that monitor the nuclear accidents. I was part of one such group when I climbed the fence of the Navy's "Project ELF" site - as John LaFarge, cofounder of Nukewatch, held the ladder. I sang a bad rendition of John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance" just to seal the occasion into tacky eco-activist history. Project ELF was a "first strike" nuclear weapons communication system sending ELF waves to deep ocean nuclear submarines. So they can not send any signal back - they simply get the signal and rise up to start nuclear war. Of course if there had already been a first strike then such a system would have been destroyed.

 

http://nukewatchinfo.org/

 

Project ELF did just shut down but the US military recently admitted to "losing" $20 trillion over the past ten years - out of other government programs. In other words we have a vast secret "defense" system that relies on some 800 plus military "garrisons" in OTHER countries - and "special forces" in close to 200 countries (now as we speak doing secret "missions" like assassinations).

 

Reliable "predictive power" is kind of a joke right like "military intelligence."?

 

Marx called it rather "primitive accumulation" - like a gang of male chimpanzees - you go out on "border patrol" to raid enemy territory and then you rape and pillage. So that's about the extent of the predictive power. The original human culture was NOT like this but psycho-physiologically more like the Bonobos (our other closest primate cousins).

 

So another good example is Alliant Techsystems - they were headquartered in Minneapolis. I got arrested there twice - Alliant Techsystems was the main producer of "depleted uranium" weapons in the world - right in the heart of Libtard Snowflake land of the Twin Cities Minnesota!! I guess the Libtard Snowflakes just don't notice little things like two-headed depleted uranium babies! I would post images but I got censored here before for posting such images - the truth is not a popularity contest apparently. haha.

 

The point being - not that Alliant Tech moved their headquarters OUT of the Twin Cities after we kept protesting - but rather that Depleted Uranium weapons do not follow the laws of national borders.

 

http://nukewatchinfo.org/fukushima-disaster-response-and-recovery-a-vexing-radiation-colossus/

 

Quote

“This event is unprecedented in its total release of radioactive contamination into the ocean”

wrote Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for PBS News Hour in March 2016.

Quote

Buesseler said, “More than 80% of the radioactivity from the damaged reactors ended up in the Pacific—far more than reached the ocean from Chernobyl.” Buesseler reported that this radiation gusher continues. “It is incorrect to say that Fukushima is under control when levels of radioactivity in the ocean indicate ongoing leaks, caused by groundwater flowing through the site and enhanced after storms,” he wrote.

and...

 

Quote

Fukushima is the world’s worst reactor disaster by volume of fuel melted and waste in cooling pools. Major reactor meltdowns at Santa Susanna in California (1959), Windscale in England (1957), Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania (1979), and Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986), involved a single reactor fuel inventory. Fukushima’s meltdowns involve three reactors full of melted and mangled fuel rods, and an additional 1,573 waste fuel rods in damaged condition in damaged pools of cooling water. The three masses of melted reactor fuel may never be recovered or containerized.

so this is not counting the "routine" radiation emissions creating cancer "alleys" nearby nuclear power plants. Nor the uranium miners having cancer epidemics.

And then there's abrupt global warming.

with an exponential increase in warming - the prospect of civilization collapse with 400 plus nuclear power plants melting down - this is not some fairy tale.

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

10 hours ago, Stosh said:

I think we indeed need to consider the countries affected by promoting the narrative that the west needs to fix global climate change by committing economic suicide. 

 

You say brainwashed by Western Civilization, you post that it's apartheid, rich vs dead. So I believe you are choosing an anti-western , anti-white, anti-wealth argument.

I will not be believing any denial of this until you quit with these arguments. 

 

When I was overseas I saw people who had stripped the ocean empty, fogged the air, eaten the wildlife and destroyed the ecosystems. 

We have been rather effective in correcting this stuff,though there is more to do, if Costa Rica has as well, that's great. 

However I am not seeing a fair assessment of effect, nor is the weakness of the arguments used for making certain claims admitted. 

A third of the earth is being burnt and desertified , that's being done overseas by mostly poor brown people. Not only that, but we have our own poor people , and brown people, but we in fact have more forest now than a hundred years ago! 

 

 

Yes when you say poor brown people are burning and causing desertification of life - this is a naive view that lacks a true understanding of Western colonialism. For example desertification in the Sahel is so that France can get their peanuts imported. 70% of the chocolate in the US is from literal child slavery so that Cargill, the world's largest private corporation, can make billions in revenue every year. The Amazon is being turned into soybean plantations because Cargill illegally installed soybean elevators right in the Amazon rainforest - this was PROMOTED by the "snowflake libtards" in their corporate-state newspapers. Cargill receives hundreds of millions in corporate welfare to "store" the US imperialism food that is then "dumped" onto the planet. This is why the poor brown people in Mexico had their local corn prices decimated and Somalia farmers that controlled Mogadishu got their markets "dumped" by Cargill at 1/6th the local price.

 

That is how Western imperialism works - it's kind of tricky - so you might not notice it just looking at poor brown people. For example when the Spanish colonized Latin America - the first thing they did was kick off the poor brown people off their land. Because there is no greater threat to WEstern colonialism than having poor brown people NOT needing "jobs"!! People living self-reliance on their land - relying on humanure composting to grow food for example - these people are the greatest threat because they refuse to be forced into slave-wage jobs. haha.

 

I have recommended a couple books about this already. There are more of course.

 

Victims of Progress - John H. Bodley - Google Books

 

https://books.google.com › Social Science › Anthropology › Cultural

This compelling account of the effect of technology and development on indigenous peoples throughout the world examines major issues of intervention: social ...

 

John H. Bodley, a professor - his book got reissued.

 

 

Victims of Progress

 

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1442226943

 

John H. Bodley - 2014 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions

This compelling account of how technology and development affect indigenous peoples throughout the world provides a provocative context in which students can think about civilization and its costs.

 

Technology and Politics in the Ecology of the Sahel - Jstor

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4235454

by EL Schusky - ‎1986 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles

perspective of what occurred to the Sahel ecology in the 1960s is ..... folklore of drought for Niger prior to colonization, a famine in 1913, and ..... already in peanuts and cotton and concentrate instead on ...... Progress and Problems." Report to ...

African Economic Development and Colonial Legacies

 

https://journals.openedition.org/poldev/78

by G Austin - ‎2010 - ‎Cited by 91 - ‎Related articles

This article reviews how colonial rule and African actions during the colonial ... From Senegal to Cameroon thousands of tonnes of groundnuts and palm oil, .... Tanganyika (mainland Tanzania) or those in the West African Sahel, it would .... depended very much on the progress of African cash crop agriculture (Austin 2009).

Colonization and Senegal | Global Citizen Year

 

https://www.globalcitizenyear.org/updates/colonization-and-senegal/

by E Anderson-Senegal - ‎Related articles

Jul 10, 2013 - Before Europeans colonized this area of West Africa, the ethnic groups were ... economic policies to resort to the monoculture of peanuts and rice. ... was the desertification of the delicate Sahel soil and a devastating famine in the late ... She observes that, “the very progress of the colonizers is based on the ...

 

 

How Africa Underdeveloped Africa?

How Europe Underdeveloped Africa is a 1972 book written by Walter Rodney that takes the view that Africa was deliberately exploited and underdeveloped by European colonial regimes. ... [He believes that] every African has a responsibility to understand the [capitalist] system and work for its overthrow."

How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Walter Rodney 1973

 

http://abahlali.org/files/3295358-walter-rodney.pdf

How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Walter Rodney 1973. 5.2 The Strengthening of Technological and Military Aspects of Capitalism. Chapter Six. Colonialism ...

 

So for example the traditional crop of Bangladesh was JUTE but the British imposing Western colonialism insisted that Bangladesh instead grow rice - this has profound ecological consequences. Similarly the Chinese imposing their Marxist Western colonialism on Tibet insisted Tibet grow wheat instead of barley.

 

British colonialism installed "canals" for water in India - thereby spreading malaria as an epidemic and then insisted that India's crops be exported as the "free market" - while Britain then squashed India's textile industry along with Egypt's textile industry - all in the name of the "free market."

 

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Stosh]

Actually I agree, both  white , and non white play a role in the destruction of things.

However one should note that the US is not all white people , that's a false stereotype. 

And I see you are still not Condemning Brazil or China , you still are focused on Western countries exclusively. 

That's why I cant take the argument as sincere.

The principle , that people are being environmentally destructive , is true wherever it occurs, and by whomever does it. 

Your argument appears to be anti-west , and you give everybody else a 'pass'. 

So you spin the argument to be about the civilized , or the non-brown or whatever, its still the same.

You make your argument in a free speech west , but you do not concede credit to the west.

Its a double standard which disproves the sincerity of the argument you compose.  

 

[joeblast]

51 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

And then there's abrupt global warming.

with an exponential increase in warming - the prospect of civilization collapse with 400 plus nuclear power plants melting down - this is not some fairy tale.

 

hehe...well, its a good thing the exponential increase is only the models breaking and not something that's actually going to happen   the models have zero ability to predict outliers, which is where all of the significant changes in sea level comes from - other than that we just have this minute general creep that can largely be ignored. the only way we're truly going to have exponential warming is when the sun decides it is going to be so, and we can really only point to somewhere 2 billion in the future when the sun changes its fuelcyclegears as a certainty.  (the other certainty?  space is fkn COLD!!! )

Edited July 10, 2019 by joeblast

[Lost in Translation]

Hi

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Lost in Translation

[Stosh]

29 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 Hi 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Stosh

[ralis]

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

Tell that to the United Nations and the person who quoted them, to inflame race conflict based on the production of co2 .

 

I would school you in the falsity of grouping things ,as well , but figure you won't be swayed. 

 

Just for the record, I happen to have more melanin that the average person here in the U.S. and less than the majority of the population here in Santa Fe. When you denigrate "brown people" (those are your words and not mine, thus the quotes) as being inferior, then you are speaking directly to me on this forum as well as anyone who has more melanin and a darker complexion. 

[Stosh]

27 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Just for the record, I happen to have more melanin that the average person here in the U.S. and less than the majority of the population here in Santa Fe. When you denigrate "brown people" (those are your words and not mine, thus the quotes) as being inferior, then you are speaking directly to me on this forum as well as anyone who has more melanin and a darker complexion. 

I didn't denigrate anyone, and I really do not give a hoot what color your skin is , its your side that makes ado about that, and proof is YOU JUST Mentioned it !

I never asked !

And I am not surprised if the average skin tone was dark in Santa Fe considering all the number of illegals that are down there. 

[ralis]

8 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I didn't denigrate anyone, and I really do not give a hoot what color your skin is , its your side that makes ado about that, and proof is YOU JUST Mentioned it !

I never asked !

And I am not surprised if the average skin tone was dark in Santa Fe considering all the number of illegals that are down there. 

 

Not illegals but the indigenous population (Pueblo) that have been here for up to 1000 years as well as the Spanish Conquistadors and Mexicans ( settled in what is presently the U.S.) at least a century before Jamestown) in which their descendants are the majority of the population. 

 

When you stated those "brown people." 

Edited July 10, 2019 by ralis

[Lost in Translation]

Here's a proof to determine whether a person really believes that climate change is the #1 issue facing the world today.

 

Given: Man-made Climate Change poses an existential threat to life on Earth as we know it.

 

1) Are you willing to declare martial law, suspend civil liberties, confiscate wealth and force citizens to go without the conveniences of modern civilization (cars,airplanes,household climate control,access to electricity) to combat this crisis? (Yes/No)

 

2) Are you willing to invest in nuclear energy, despite the known long term issue with radioactive waste containment, in order to halt the immediate threat posed by CO2? [This is analogous to a person who is starving and you offer him food, but the food may give him diabetes in 10 years. Without the food he will be dead in a week, so it's pointless to refuse]. (Yes/No)

 

If you answer No to either of the questions above then I must conclude that you really don't believe that man made climate change is an existential threat, and thus you are using the specter of climate change as a boogeyman to push your progressive agenda.

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Lost in Translation
grammar and spelling

[ralis]

6 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

Here's a proof to determine whether a person really believes that climate change is the #1 issue facing the world today.

 

Given: Man-made Climate Change poses an existential threat to life on Earth as we know it.

 

1) Are you willing to declare martial law, suspend civil liberties, confiscate wealth and force citizens to go without the conveniences of modern civilization (cars,airplanes,household climate control,access to electricity) to combat this crisis? (Yes/No)

 

2) Are you willing to invest in nuclear energy, despite the known long term issue with radioactive waste containment, in order to halt the immediate threat posed by CO2? [This is analogous to a person who is starving and you offer him food, but the food may give him diabetes in 10 years. Without the food he will be dead in a week, so it's pointless to refuse]. (Yes/No)

 

If you answer No to either of the questions above then I must conclude that you really don't believe that man made climate change is an existential threat, and thus you are using the specter of climate change as a boogeyman to push your progressive agenda.

 

 

I am with Void on this in that he as well as I have been presenting evidence. I could care less about your slanted two question test!