human actions, global climate change, global human solutions

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 25 of 111

PREV PAGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NEXT PAGE

SECOND

Wednesday, August 31, 2022 10:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Jeezus, you're stupid.

If the USA elite were REALLY worried about enemy - or even frenemy- nuclear warheads, we would be hemorrhaging money into Russia, China, N Korea, India and maybe even Iran (we;re already hemorrhaging money into Israel), and signing (and abiding with) every nuclear control treaty we could manage to wrangle out of every one of them.

For one example, your notion of "hemorrhaging money into . . . N Korea" is false. The GOP refused to buy fuel oil for North Korea, so North Korea refused to shut down the reactors that make both electricity and plutonium for bombs:

Bill Clinton Once Struck a Nuclear Deal With North Korea
It was forged against all odds—but couldn’t survive the heat of Republican disapproval.

Bill Clinton’s agreement said that North Korea would shut down its main nuclear reactor in Yongbyon, abandon two others, and seal fuel that could potentially be used to create a nuclear weapon. In exchange, the U.S. would provide oil to make up for the fuel lost from the dismantled plants and would build two new “light fuel” plants from which it would be harder to extract nuclear materials. If North Korea did try to get fuel out of the new plants, it would be easy for nuclear watchdogs to identify—and hard to hide. In addition, the agreement promised that the U.S. would lift economic sanctions and its diplomatic freeze on North Korea and agree that it would not use nuclear weapons of its own on North Korea.

Then Republicans got control of Congress and made it clear that they would not agree to actually fund the implementation of the project or sanction formal peace agreements between the two countries.

https://www.history.com/news/north-korea-nuclear-deal-bill-clinton-agr
eed-framework

What happening since then in North Korea? It built A-bombs, H-bombs, ICBMs and, next:

May 13, 2022 - North Korea appears to have resumed construction at a long-dormant nuclear reactor in recent weeks that, if completed, would dramatically increase its capacity to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/politics/north-korea-restarts-construct
ion-nuclear-reactor-satellite-images/index.html

To tie this all to Climate Change: In 1994 the GOP would not pay for fuel oil and the result was North Korea built H-bombs and ICBMs. In 2022 the GOP could have voted for paying to stop climate change, but did not. The results from climate change might be far worse than H-bombs on ICBMs launched from N Korea and landing on Guam, a U.S. island territory in Micronesia, in the Western Pacific. . . .

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 31, 2022 11:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Jeezus, you're stupid.

If the USA elite were REALLY worried about enemy - or even frenemy- nuclear warheads, we would be hemorrhaging money into Russia, China, N Korea, India and maybe even Iran (we;re already hemorrhaging money into Israel), and signing (and abiding with) every nuclear control treaty we could manage to wrangle out of every one of them.
For one example, your notion of "hemorrhaging money into . . . N Korea" is false. The GOP refused to buy fuel oil for North Korea, so North Korea refused to shut down the reactors that make both electricity and plutonium for bombs:

Bill Clinton Once Struck a Nuclear Deal With North Korea
It was forged against all odds—but couldn’t survive the heat of Republican disapproval.

Bill Clinton’s agreement said that North Korea would shut down its main nuclear reactor in Yongbyon, abandon two others, and seal fuel that could potentially be used to create a nuclear weapon. In exchange, the U.S. would provide oil to make up for the fuel lost from the dismantled plants and would build two new “light fuel” plants from which it would be harder to extract nuclear materials. If North Korea did try to get fuel out of the new plants, it would be easy for nuclear watchdogs to identify—and hard to hide. In addition, the agreement promised that the U.S. would lift economic sanctions and its diplomatic freeze on North Korea and agree that it would not use nuclear weapons of its own on North Korea.

Then Republicans got control of Congress and made it clear that they would not agree to actually fund the implementation of the project or sanction formal peace agreements between the two countries.

https://www.history.com/news/north-korea-nuclear-deal-bill-clinton-agr
eed-framework

What happening since then in North Korea? It built A-bombs, H-bombs, ICBMs and, next:

May 13, 2022 - North Korea appears to have resumed construction at a long-dormant nuclear reactor in recent weeks that, if completed, would dramatically increase its capacity to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/politics/north-korea-restarts-construct
ion-nuclear-reactor-satellite-images/index.html

To tie this all to Climate Change: In 1994 the GOP would not pay for fuel oil and the result was North Korea built H-bombs and ICBMs. In 2022 the GOP could have voted for paying to stop climate change, but did not. The results from climate change might be far worse than H-bombs on ICBMs launched from N Korea and landing on Guam, a U.S. island territory in Micronesia, in the Western Pacific. . . .

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Yep!

By claiming that we're REALLY paying Pakistan bc of nuclear weapons you torpedoed your own argument that we're paying Pakistan bc we're concerned about climate change. .

So to distract from your own stupid logical error you're dragging a smelly dead red herring of N Korea across the thread?

Heh heh

Anyone with two neurons to rub together will realize that you obliterate your own cause (whatever that is) with self-contradictory posts.

What IS your cause, anyway?

Aside from despising anyone who isn't as perfect as you claim?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

SECOND

Thursday, September 1, 2022 1:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yep!

By claiming that we're REALLY paying Pakistan bc of nuclear weapons you torpedoed your own argument that we're paying Pakistan bc we're concerned about climate change. .

So to distract from your own stupid logical error you're dragging a smelly dead red herring of N Korea across the thread?

Heh heh

Anyone with two neurons to rub together will realize that you obliterate your own cause (whatever that is) with self-contradictory posts.

What IS your cause, anyway?

Aside from despising anyone who isn't as perfect as you claim?

I did NOT claim the USA is paying Pakistan because of nuclear weapons or climate change.

"Over the past decade, the United States, through USAID, has given Pakistan nearly $7.7 billion of funding." - https://www.usaid.gov/pakistan/history

USAID does not explain why Congress allocated money to Pakistan, probably because USAID doesn't know. Neither do I. What Congress's goals over the last 10 years are, I don't know, but it could NOT be to stop Pakistan from building the Bomb because Pakistan began development of nuclear weapons in January 1972 under Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Congress's goal could NOT be about Climate Change because all the Republican Senators believe Climate Change is a Hoax.

Marvin Kalb, senior fellow with the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, thinks the "$7.7 billion of funding" over the last 10 years is to keep Pakistan from selling/loaning/giving/losing Pakistan's nukes to terrorists. See "The agonizing problem of Pakistan’s nukes"
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/09/28/the-agonizi
ng-problem-of-pakistans-nukes/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 1, 2022 1:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yep!

By claiming that we're REALLY paying Pakistan bc of nuclear weapons you torpedoed your own argument that we're paying Pakistan bc we're concerned about climate change. .

So to distract from your own stupid logical error you're dragging a smelly dead red herring of N Korea across the thread?

Heh heh

Anyone with two neurons to rub together will realize that you obliterate your own cause (whatever that is) with self-contradictory posts.

What IS your cause, anyway?

Aside from despising anyone who isn't as perfect as you claim?
I did NOT claim the USA is paying Pakistan because of nuclear weapons or climate change.

Well bless my soul! You DIDN'T say that the USA was giving money to Pakistan for climate change. That's what I get for not reading your posts!

Quote:
"Over the past decade, the United States, through USAID, has given Pakistan nearly $7.7 billion of funding." - https://www.usaid.gov/pakistan/history

USAID does not explain why Congress allocated money to Pakistan, probably because USAID doesn't know. Neither do I. What Congress's goals over the last 10 years are, I don't know, but
You DID say if we were concerned about anything, it would be Pakistan's 165 nuclear warheads.
Quote:
it could NOT be to stop Pakistan from building the Bomb because Pakistan began development of nuclear weapons in January 1972 under Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Make up your mind, willya?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

SECOND

Thursday, September 1, 2022 1:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Make up your mind, willya?

Do I have to have an opinion? No. But Marvin Kalb gets paid to have sophisticated opinions. Here is my simplified version of his complex ideas: Kalb, senior fellow with the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, thinks the "$7.7 billion of funding" from USAID over the last 10 years is to keep Pakistan from selling/loaning/giving/losing Pakistan's nukes to terrorists.

See "The agonizing problem of Pakistan’s nukes" by Marvin Kalb
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/09/28/the-agonizi
ng-problem-of-pakistans-nukes/

There is an unwritten "understanding" that if terrorists get a nuke from Pakistan, Pakistan stops receiving money from USAID.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 1, 2022 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Make up your mind, willya?
Do I have to have an opinion? No. But...

Can you possibly not have so many CONTRADICTORY opinions?

Or are you just trolling?

The problem with trolling, SECOND, is that you discredit ANY idea that you post. Even ones you genuinely believe.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake

SECOND

Thursday, September 1, 2022 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Make up your mind, willya?
Do I have to have an opinion? No. But...

Can you possibly not have so many CONTRADICTORY opinions?

Or are you just trolling?

The problem with trolling, SECOND, is that you discredit ANY idea that you post. Even ones you genuinely believe.

I will tell you a story about what appears to be my "CONTRADICTORY opinions".

Decades ago I wondered what was wrong with the US Army. Couldn't the generals and the Presidents see that killing South Vietnamese civilians would not win a war with North Vietnam? To avoid that understanding, the US Army big brains declared the harmless South Vietnamese civilians to be Viet Cong and kept right on killing them, using the stupidest and most violent tactics on civilians, guaranteeing the US will lose.

I also wondered what was wrong with the anti-war side. Protestors declared that war was immoral. (Some protestors were more subtle and correctly pointed out that it was JFK, LBJ and Nixon who were grotesquely immoral in their "secret" lives -- read any biography on those three or listen to the Watergate Tapes of goofy drunk Nixon -- and that the Vietnam War was a fiasco because of those Presidents' obvious in retrospect mental defects.) War is moral but only if executed with finesse and knowledge of who you are killing and precisely why. War as an engineering project is moral. JFK, LBJ and Nixon were definitely NOT engineers but just pure political beasts driven by crude instincts and fear. Absolutely unsurprising those Presidents screwed up.

Does this seem like CONTRADICTORY opinions when I am both anti-war (opposed to the US Army tactics) and anti-anti-war (opposed to protestors of the Vietnam War)? Think a little harder, Signym.

I was definitely of the opinion that the people who knew what they were doing were NOT Americans. Both sides in America looked like idiots who couldn't understand Vietnam or Communism or even how to fight a war without being an immoral monster. If both kinds of Americans are idiots, the best move for America was to withdraw from Vietnam. An even better move, impossible because most Americans are lazy, idiotic and cowardly, would have America invading North Vietnam, rather than bombing South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, killing millions of civilians.

Unfortunately, the best moves are not possible when mediocre Americans (who psychologically can't be realistic/aware/cognizant about their own mediocrity) are making the decisions and executing the plan.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, September 1, 2022 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Fuck Pakistan.
The USA dumped every year about 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since you were born, 6ix. It is the USA that is fucking Pakistan by dumping its waste into Pakistan's air. But the Republicans in Congress want to continue the free dumping of CO2 forever and never pay for removal from the atmosphere. The total CO2, measured in hundreds of billions of metric tonnes, is flooding Pakistan.

China's closer. So is India.

China and India make our CO2 emissions look like a single cow fart by comparison.

Your understanding of how all the shit you buy that you don't need and the impact it has on the environment is as simple minded and incorrect as your understanding about how bad your coal burning cars are for the environment. That's because you're not sitting in a constant cloud of smog where things are actually made and you believe that electricity is magic.

Get fucked worm.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

SECOND

Friday, September 2, 2022 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Fuck Pakistan.
The USA dumped every year about 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since you were born, 6ix. It is the USA that is fucking Pakistan by dumping its waste into Pakistan's air. But the Republicans in Congress want to continue the free dumping of CO2 forever and never pay for removal from the atmosphere. The total CO2, measured in hundreds of billions of metric tonnes, is flooding Pakistan.

China's closer. So is India.

China and India make our CO2 emissions look like a single cow fart by comparison.

Your understanding of how all the shit you buy that you don't need and the impact it has on the environment is as simple minded and incorrect as your understanding about how bad your coal burning cars are for the environment. That's because you're not sitting in a constant cloud of smog where things are actually made and you believe that electricity is magic.

Get fucked worm.

Shifting blame does not make sense, 6ix. The research by Rhodium Group says China emitted 27% of the world's greenhouse gases in 2019. The US was the second-largest emitter at 11% while India was third with 6.6% of emissions, the think tank said.

I told my Vietnam War story because it is connected to Global Warming. The connection runs through the addled brains of the Presidents of the United States and through the ferociously foolish brains of the PM of India and President of China.

In the Vietnam War, President Kennedy was asked if he approved "replacing" President Diem of Vietnam. Kennedy said okidoki, not absorbing the idea that he had approved an assassination. Kennedy should have pulled the troops out of Vietnam the next day because Kennedy was too stupid to be in that war. That could be stupidest thing a US President ever did as far as Vietnam, guaranteeing the USA would lose.

Another stupid thing a President has done was saying, "Global Warming is a Chinese Hoax." Whoever said that was too stupid to be in charge. In India and China the leaders have said similar stupid things to justify not handling global climate change. Their stupidity is guaranteeing the world will burn.

Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_assassination_of_Ngo_Dinh_Die
m#US_reaction

Every Insane Thing Donald Trump Has Said About Global Warming
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/12/trump-climate-timeline/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, September 2, 2022 3:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Fuck Pakistan.
The USA dumped every year about 5 billion metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere since you were born, 6ix. It is the USA that is fucking Pakistan by dumping its waste into Pakistan's air. But the Republicans in Congress want to continue the free dumping of CO2 forever and never pay for removal from the atmosphere. The total CO2, measured in hundreds of billions of metric tonnes, is flooding Pakistan.

China's closer. So is India.

China and India make our CO2 emissions look like a single cow fart by comparison.

Your understanding of how all the shit you buy that you don't need and the impact it has on the environment is as simple minded and incorrect as your understanding about how bad your coal burning cars are for the environment. That's because you're not sitting in a constant cloud of smog where things are actually made and you believe that electricity is magic.

Get fucked worm.
Shifting blame does not make sense, 6ix.

It's not shifting the blame. It's stating a fact. I'm not blaming China OR India. [SEE BELOW]

Quote:
The research by Rhodium Group says China emitted 27% of the world's greenhouse gases in 2019. The US was the second-largest emitter at 11% while India was third with 6.6% of emissions, the think tank said.

Big fucking deal. What REALLY matters here is how much of the combined world pollution is put into products and services that the destination country uses.

America tops that fucking list any way you fudge the numbers.

All of you cunts virtue tweeting about the environment from that shiny new "smart" phone you buy every year or two can go right on and get fucked. YOU are the problem.

But you don't even recognize that you are the problem because the air you breathe isn't so thick with pollution you can cut through it with a knife. You reap the benefits of all the overpriced disposable shit made on the cheap half a world away that you buy every day and don't need, and all you see is the shiny clean box it comes in without putting any thought into how much damage was done to the environment to make that and bring it to you. Nor do you give any fucking thought to how that magic electricity comes cleanly out of your wall outlets.

The same can be said about the coal burning cars that California is demonstrating for the world right now how they will NEVER work out unless massive infrastructure improvements including hundreds or maybe even thousands of nuclear plants will have to be constructed before they ever actually become adopted en masse.

--------------------------------------------------

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

PREV PAGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NEXT PAGE