Is this *finally* the moment we wake up to the climate crisis?

Kangaroo Feathers said:

I'm not sure where we'd disagree. I fully acknowledge that going into Afghanistan without a meaningful strategy for getting out of Afghanistan was a mistake.

Full disclosure, I initially fully supported the Afghanistan intervention. I even volunteered to go, although Iraq ended up being my quagmire. I know admit this was a mistaken stance on my part.

Click to expand...

I didn't support going into Afghanistan, although I understood the reasons why they did it (trying to get Bin Laden). Once that objective was completed (even though he was ultimately found in Pakistan), then there was absolutely no reason to remain in Afghanistan any further.

Staying in Afghanistan after Bin Laden's death was probably the biggest mistake our government made in that regard. At that point, it was no longer about Bin Laden but about nation building.

Stevicus said:

I didn't support going into Afghanistan, although I understood the reasons why they did it (trying to get Bin Laden). Once that objective was completed (even though he was ultimately found in Pakistan), then there was absolutely no reason to remain in Afghanistan any further.

Staying in Afghanistan after Bin Laden's death was probably the biggest mistake our government made in that regard. At that point, it was no longer about Bin Laden but about nation building.

Click to expand...

With the benefit of hindsight, 9/11 should have been treated as a criminal matter, not a military one. But like I say, I was right there demanding action in the early days, so I hesitate to be overly critical of initial mistakes.

But THAT said, once it became clear that there was no viable strategy for "winning" in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should have extricated ourselves a lot sooner. Nothing excuses the Coalition atrocities that occurred, either.

Kangaroo Feathers said:

With the benefit of hindsight, 9/11 should have been treated as a criminal matter, not a military one. But like I say, I was right there demanding action in the early days, so I hesitate to be overly critical of initial mistakes.

But THAT said, once it became clear that there was no viable strategy for "winning" in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should have extricated ourselves a lot sooner. Nothing excuses the Coalition atrocities that occurred, either.

Click to expand...

Well, it was treated as both a criminal matter and a military one, but it's also how we ended up in a legal gray area with the prisoners at Gitmo. I recall rather vividly how raw the mood of the country was. Lots of people were flying flags from their vehicles and heavily gripped by war fever. There was also backlash against Muslims, as well as the murder of a Sikh individual who was wearing a turban. Some ignorant maniac thought he was a Muslim and murdered him.

The war did seem to serve as a distraction for the public. The government can keep people under better control during times of war, although the Patriot Act also helped.

Here's an excerpt from 1984 which seems relevant to the situation we've seen regarding continuous warfare:


The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This — although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense — is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.

Stevicus said:

Well, it was treated as both a criminal matter and a military one, but it's also how we ended up in a legal gray area with the prisoners at Gitmo. I recall rather vividly how raw the mood of the country was. Lots of people were flying flags from their vehicles and heavily gripped by war fever. There was also backlash against Muslims, as well as the murder of a Sikh individual who was wearing a turban. Some ignorant maniac thought he was a Muslim and murdered him.

The war did seem to serve as a distraction for the public. The government can keep people under better control during times of war, although the Patriot Act also helped.

Here's an excerpt from 1984 which seems relevant to the situation we've seen regarding continuous warfare:


The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three super-states, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed for ever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This — although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense — is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.

Click to expand...

I don't dispute the effect of wars on the public but in 1984 it was a dictatorship which needs more control than a democracy/republic (even if that is as dysfunctional as the US).
I suspect the main reason for the perpetual wars of the US is money. Ever since WWII (and exactly as Eisenhower warned) the military-industrial complex has congress on their payroll. War is profit for those who sell war machines. And what a profit is that! The US has the biggest military budget on the planet, about as large as the next ten countries combined. And though it is not biggest in percentage, it is way higher than most other western democracies.

Heyo said:

I don't dispute the effect of wars on the public but in 1984 it was a dictatorship which needs more control than a democracy/republic (even if that is as dysfunctional as the US).
I suspect the main reason for the perpetual wars of the US is money. Ever since WWII (and exactly as Eisenhower warned) the military-industrial complex has congress on their payroll. War is profit for those who sell war machines. And what a profit is that! The US has the biggest military budget on the planet, about as large as the next ten countries combined. And though it is not biggest in percentage, it is way higher than most other western democracies.

Click to expand...

True, although I've observed that a lot of it depends on the widespread support of the public. However, unlike Oceania, they've found greater success by using honey instead of vinegar. But the trouble with that is the supply of honey is not limitless.

The irony is (and I agree that money is the motive behind a lot of these wars), the common American doesn't really benefit from this. Nor does the government for that matter. The government is drowning in debt, so they're not getting extra money either or benefiting from the spoils of war. Someone is benefiting, but it's not our government and not the majority of the American people.

Stevicus said:

True, although I've observed that a lot of it depends on the widespread support of the public. However, unlike Oceania, they've found greater success by using honey instead of vinegar. But the trouble with that is the supply of honey is not limitless.

The irony is (and I agree that money is the motive behind a lot of these wars), the common American doesn't really benefit from this. Nor does the government for that matter. The government is drowning in debt, so they're not getting extra money either or benefiting from the spoils of war. Someone is benefiting, but it's not our government and not the majority of the American people.

Click to expand...

*looks meaningfully at the armaments companies* and while the government doesn't benefit, as such, the politicians who make up the government certainly do; 1. kickbacks and "support" from arms manufacturers and 2. porkbarreling, you're a lot more likely to get re-elected when a brand new weapons factory is established in your electorate.

Kangaroo Feathers said:

I'm not sure where we'd disagree. I fully acknowledge that going into Afghanistan without a meaningful strategy for getting out of Afghanistan was a mistake.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I do believe the best time to have gotten out is right after we got bin Laden.

Truthseeker9 said:

Is this *finally* the moment we wake up to the climate crisis? - CNNPolitics

(CNN)Record flooding in Philadelphia and New York City. Tornadoes in New Jersey. Fires burning through California and Nevada.

Everywhere you look, extreme weather. Weather the likes of which even meteorologists and other experts say they have never seen before.
What's perhaps more remarkable is that we know why all of this is happening: Our changing climate. As the Earth warms, more extreme weather becomes more of the rule rather than its exception.
In April, the World Meteorological Organization released a report detailing a five-fold increase in the number of extreme weather events over the past five decades. The WMO, which is part of the United Nations, estimated that those extreme weather events have left more than 2 million people around the globe dead and cost $3.64 trillion in total losses.

Click to expand...

If you look at the geological data, the earth has undergone climate change for the past billion years of data collection. The earth has been both hotter and colder and has had more and less CO2 and greenhouse gases than today and many occasions in the past. Climate change is not new.

The weather records only date back to about 1880. Anything that happened in 1860 is not part of the record. When they say the hottest on record they are not talking a billion years of records but about 130 years. This can be misleading to the unprepared, since may assume on record means for all time.

Don't get me wrong, even natural climate change can do damage and cause harm. However, I cannot depend on the media or politicians for sound conclusions, since they tend to lie and hype in a self serving or political fashion.

What I would like to see is the world leaders, who want to change things based on the assumption of manmade climate change, put something up on the chopping block. Now they have a win-win situation. Like the weather man, even if they were to screw up, there is nothing that will come back to them to get even.

Now, there is no accountability. All you need to do is pretend to care, and if it does not pan out or your screw up, there are enough emotional people who are happy you tried and cared so much. This is a perfect set up for ripping off the nations. If these pinheads are so sure, have them put something of value on the chopping block if wrong; all their assets. If they refuse, I would not follow their advice, since they expect to clean up, simply because they care so much.

I have yet to see science create a clear demarkation between the manmade assumptions of 130 years, and the natural climate change data of a billion years of geological evidence. These two forces are allowed to merge, so manmade gets all the credit for natural. Why is this?

Wouldn't everyone else be happier, if we could see the climate change tally, from both sides, so we can prepare, properly if this is a long term trend? For example, we are still heating up from the last ice age. This started way before 1880.

Truthseeker9 said:

Is this *finally* the moment we wake up to the climate crisis? - CNNPolitics

(CNN)Record flooding in Philadelphia and New York City. Tornadoes in New Jersey. Fires burning through California and Nevada.

Everywhere you look, extreme weather. Weather the likes of which even meteorologists and other experts say they have never seen before.
What's perhaps more remarkable is that we know why all of this is happening: Our changing climate. As the Earth warms, more extreme weather becomes more of the rule rather than its exception.
In April, the World Meteorological Organization released a report detailing a five-fold increase in the number of extreme weather events over the past five decades. The WMO, which is part of the United Nations, estimated that those extreme weather events have left more than 2 million people around the globe dead and cost $3.64 trillion in total losses.

Click to expand...

Re your thread title: I doubt it while we are in the midst of a global pandemic. It is hard for people to focus on one major problem at a time.

wellwisher said:

I have yet to see science create a clear demarkation between the manmade assumptions of 130 years, and the natural climate change data of a billion years of geological evidence. These two forces are allowed to merge, so manmade gets all the credit for natural. Why is this?

Click to expand...

1. Because the geologic data shows warming and cooling on geologic time scales. Tens and hundreds of thousand years, not decades and centuries.
2. Because we know how much CO2 is produced by humans and how much that afflicts the climate.

wellwisher said:

Don't get me wrong, even natural climate change can do damage and cause harm. However, I cannot depend on the media or politicians for sound conclusions, since they tend to lie and hype in a self serving or political fashion.

Click to expand...

What about scientists?

Truthseeker9 said:

What about scientists?

View attachment 55031

Click to expand...

We need less complaining and more action from everyone, incuding myself.
Its becomming like the activist that will print 2 million copies on paper made from trees about how to save trees. Its kind of redundant.

We Never Know said:

We need less complaining and more action from everyone, incuding myself.
Its becomming like the activist that will print 2 million copies on paper made from trees about how to save trees. Its kind of redundant.

Click to expand...

How do you think we could get people off their butts to help?

Truthseeker9 said:

What about scientists?

View attachment 55031

Click to expand...

Aha! But it has been cooling since 2016. Crisis over


EDIT: The graph in your post is even older than I thought. It was made before the results of 2019 came in. 2019 was at first the second warmest year in the last 10,000 plus years. Now it has dropped to third and next year it will likely be fourth:

Kooky said:

How do you think we could get people off their butts to help?

Click to expand...

Setting on a computer burning up electricity is a sure way to do it lol.

We Never Know said:

Setting on a computer burning up electricity is a sure way to do it lol.

Click to expand...

No ideas at all?