Gravage: I understand your point. Stay cool, there is not an Ice Age coming the next month or the next year. Nobody knows for sure when it will come, because what we know about climatology is simply a scratch in its surface. Compared with all we ignore about it, we can safely say we know nothing. What we know for sure is that climatic changes do not happen suddenly, as purported by the movie “The Day After Tomorrow", or the stupid “Pentagon Report” early this January.
It takes thousands of years to radically change the global climate. Some small changes have occurred in 30-50 years, but those changes have been caused by the decrease in the Sun’s activity, as during the Little Ice Age of the 1450 on to the late 1600s, provoked by the total absence of sunspots for almost a century during the Maunder, Spoerer and Dalton Minima.
What does not make too much sense is: “When everything goes to hell”. What do you mean by that? Looking back in history there is no evidence that we have ever gone to hell, or “everything” has gone to hell. Perhaps some portions of the globe “went to hell” for a brief period of time, or at least many people in those regions felt as if they were in hell (nazi Germany, communist Russia, Cambodia Pol Pot, Castro’s Cuba’s, most of colonial Africa, etc).
But all those journeys to hell are more related to politics than to climatic events. If you are referring to climatic “catastrophes” as warming, ozone holes, acid rains, or other nonsense, then we have a long discussion on front of us. You seem to be inclined to think we are going to hell, and I have the opposite vision: we are heading to heaven.
As for your statement: ”These information you got are here, because government doesn't want to disturb people - reason is national security.” I don’t think national security has anything to do here. “National Security”, as understood by US governments since the 19th Century, is “securing” natural resources belonging to poor nations for use by the US industry. If you study the famous Monroe doctrine of the 19th century (America for the Americans), and understood by Latin American peoples as a principle of self determination, you will see it actually was the basis for the emerging American colonial policies of keeping French and British out of the American continent (North and South) in order for the US to make “good business” with countries in its own “backyard”. The continental US is the living room, the rest of American continent is its backyard.
That was the main reason for the war against Spain, early in the 20th century, with the excuse of liberating Cuba from its immoral foreign debt imposed by Spain on its Cuban colony. Cuba got its “independence” thanks to the USA, but soon became part of the US type of colony: invaded not by troops but by businessmen, banks, and gambling rackets. Pretty soon, Cuba had developed a new foreign debt as immoral as the Spanish one. Then was freed by Castro from the US foreign debt and developed a new one, this time with the Soviet empire. The Soviets were bankrupt and Cuba was free again from debt. Now Cuba is developing a new one with the Spanish tourism industry. The circle is about to finally close – will it start again someday?
USA has invoked the “national security” argument fro invading tiny countries that were in the least a menace to no one but their own people. That way, the marines had a long history of invading countries as Haiti, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Nicaragua, Mexico, Philippines, China (the boxer war), North Africa, Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, etc. Presently, US National Security is tied to money, not to human rights or presumed dangers from hostile powers – that could not, in any way, present a real danger to the US people. No way. It is like if the Kremlin invaded Luxembourg invoking “National Security”. Who would believe it? Of course, nobody ever believed the US invaded Iraq because Saddam was a menace to the most powerful country on Earth.
For solving crimes, the French police used to say, “Cherchez la femme”. In today’s politics, when it comes to invasions we should say “Cherchez the oil and other resources”.
I tend to agree with you, however, when you say, ”I doubt it everything you written is correct, I truly doubt, since I don't trust to anybody, but I feel it on my skin and health.” Even I have doubts about everything I say is correct. If I were 100% sure I was correct I would be God, the owner of the truth. What I do believe, instead, is that the information I present here has enough value to qualify as truthful, or at least, to contend against other information that says otherwise. I don’t trust anyone, for that matter. And I go to big extents in order to make sure the information I get is sound, and it is not plain misinformation. It is not easy.
I hope this reply will not be considered off topic. If we stick strictly to a given topic, then the discussion would be terrible boring. Digressions are helpful, and sometimes add positively to the topic.
It takes thousands of years to radically change the global climate. Some small changes have occurred in 30-50 years, but those changes have been caused by the decrease in the Sun’s activity, as during the Little Ice Age of the 1450 on to the late 1600s, provoked by the total absence of sunspots for almost a century during the Maunder, Spoerer and Dalton Minima.
What does not make too much sense is: “When everything goes to hell”. What do you mean by that? Looking back in history there is no evidence that we have ever gone to hell, or “everything” has gone to hell. Perhaps some portions of the globe “went to hell” for a brief period of time, or at least many people in those regions felt as if they were in hell (nazi Germany, communist Russia, Cambodia Pol Pot, Castro’s Cuba’s, most of colonial Africa, etc).
But all those journeys to hell are more related to politics than to climatic events. If you are referring to climatic “catastrophes” as warming, ozone holes, acid rains, or other nonsense, then we have a long discussion on front of us. You seem to be inclined to think we are going to hell, and I have the opposite vision: we are heading to heaven.
As for your statement: ”These information you got are here, because government doesn't want to disturb people - reason is national security.” I don’t think national security has anything to do here. “National Security”, as understood by US governments since the 19th Century, is “securing” natural resources belonging to poor nations for use by the US industry. If you study the famous Monroe doctrine of the 19th century (America for the Americans), and understood by Latin American peoples as a principle of self determination, you will see it actually was the basis for the emerging American colonial policies of keeping French and British out of the American continent (North and South) in order for the US to make “good business” with countries in its own “backyard”. The continental US is the living room, the rest of American continent is its backyard.
That was the main reason for the war against Spain, early in the 20th century, with the excuse of liberating Cuba from its immoral foreign debt imposed by Spain on its Cuban colony. Cuba got its “independence” thanks to the USA, but soon became part of the US type of colony: invaded not by troops but by businessmen, banks, and gambling rackets. Pretty soon, Cuba had developed a new foreign debt as immoral as the Spanish one. Then was freed by Castro from the US foreign debt and developed a new one, this time with the Soviet empire. The Soviets were bankrupt and Cuba was free again from debt. Now Cuba is developing a new one with the Spanish tourism industry. The circle is about to finally close – will it start again someday?
USA has invoked the “national security” argument fro invading tiny countries that were in the least a menace to no one but their own people. That way, the marines had a long history of invading countries as Haiti, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Nicaragua, Mexico, Philippines, China (the boxer war), North Africa, Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, etc. Presently, US National Security is tied to money, not to human rights or presumed dangers from hostile powers – that could not, in any way, present a real danger to the US people. No way. It is like if the Kremlin invaded Luxembourg invoking “National Security”. Who would believe it? Of course, nobody ever believed the US invaded Iraq because Saddam was a menace to the most powerful country on Earth.
For solving crimes, the French police used to say, “Cherchez la femme”. In today’s politics, when it comes to invasions we should say “Cherchez the oil and other resources”.
I tend to agree with you, however, when you say, ”I doubt it everything you written is correct, I truly doubt, since I don't trust to anybody, but I feel it on my skin and health.” Even I have doubts about everything I say is correct. If I were 100% sure I was correct I would be God, the owner of the truth. What I do believe, instead, is that the information I present here has enough value to qualify as truthful, or at least, to contend against other information that says otherwise. I don’t trust anyone, for that matter. And I go to big extents in order to make sure the information I get is sound, and it is not plain misinformation. It is not easy.
I hope this reply will not be considered off topic. If we stick strictly to a given topic, then the discussion would be terrible boring. Digressions are helpful, and sometimes add positively to the topic.
