Natural disasters happen every year. I’m pretty sure you can look throughout history and every year there were mudslides and severe flooding in different parts of the world every year. Now, these things are terrible but has anyone ever taken this into account that maybe we are a "News Overload" society. I mean earthquakes happen every day in bowels of the earth right? 15 years ago this was not news worthy story but now....it's on Yahoo's home page story #3. Earthquake detected miles below the earths crust. This has been going on for millions of years but no one has ever said anything. There have been mudslides for generations it's just was not as news assessable as it is now.
this is a very good point, about media.
public concern about drugs was minimal, under reagan in the 80's. during Bush senior drugs became a top concern for the public, this as use and deaths were going down. reality never changed, only our perception, directly attributable to media overload.
just 1 example of media shaping public opinion. proof that media can shape public opinion.
so media overload is possibly the reason.
this can be figured out tho. they keep records of worldwide disasters. someone could compare disasters for the last 5 decades or so and come to some sort of conclusion.
this link didn't work but i went back to your original ... i'm not sure what you want comment on as you sent me to an article that pretty much says the ice thaw is caused by global warming ...
are you suggesting - the evidence of artifacts somehow debunks global warming!? ... if so, can you please clarify?
Ok, what the article says is that they are finding loads and loads of ancient artifacts from Vikings in these once snow packed regions. So, since they are finding these artifacts in places that couldn't be excavated because there was to much snow mean that once there was not that much snow and that people actually lived there before the ice formed? That the earth is on it's own cycle and we have very little affect on it?
Ok, what the article says is that they are finding loads and loads of ancient artifacts from Vikings in these once snow packed regions. So, since they are finding these artifacts in places that couldn't be excavated because there was to much snow mean that once there was not that much snow and that people actually lived there before the ice formed? That the earth is on it's own cycle and we have very little affect on it?
your point has been addressed by the IPCC ...
yes, there have been drastic shifts in climate in the past - and in most of those instances, it can be explained through some major catostrophic event ... large meteor, volcanic eruptions, etc ...
what you need to understand is that the change in climate we are experiencing now is happening at a rate so rapid that it removes the theory that this is some natural cyclical event ... the earth has a fever ... and consider what your body does when it has a fever ... we've had this fever for some time now ...
Natural disasters happen every year. I’m pretty sure you can look throughout history and every year there were mudslides and severe flooding in different parts of the world every year. Now, these things are terrible but has anyone ever taken this into account that maybe we are a "News Overload" society. I mean earthquakes happen every day in bowels of the earth right? 15 years ago this was not news worthy story but now....it's on Yahoo's home page story #3. Earthquake detected miles below the earths crust. This has been going on for millions of years but no one has ever said anything. There have been mudslides for generations it's just was not as news assessable as it is now.
this is a very good point, about media.
public concern about drugs was minimal, under reagan in the 80's. during Bush senior drugs became a top concern for the public, this as use and deaths were going down. reality never changed, only our perception, directly attributable to media overload.
just 1 example of media shaping public opinion. proof that media can shape public opinion.
so media overload is possibly the reason.
this can be figured out tho. they keep records of worldwide disasters. someone could compare disasters for the last 5 decades or so and come to some sort of conclusion.
this can be figured out tho. they keep records of worldwide disasters. someone could compare disasters for the last 5 decades or so and come to some sort of conclusion.
this is a tough one but here is a report released by oxfam ...
Well global warming is most definitely not here in the UK (I think). A shitty and cold summer, following an snowy and cold winter. That's 2 snowy winters on the trot. There are so called qualified experts that believe in GW and others that think it's bull.
I have an open mind.
No way. Our summers are a lot wetter then they used to be 10 years ago and our winters are dryer and warmer on average. 'Climate change' is the key phrase not 'global warming'. The snowy winters as you put it *could* be a result of this climate change. More eratic and extreme weather conditions on both end of the scale.
The changes will happen slowly, you won't find that you wake up one year and its 40c all year it will take time but it's a case of us getting to a point where we can stop or slow down this process before it's too late.
Natural disasters happen every year. I’m pretty sure you can look throughout history and every year there were mudslides and severe flooding in different parts of the world every year. Now, these things are terrible but has anyone ever taken this into account that maybe we are a "News Overload" society. I mean earthquakes happen every day in bowels of the earth right? 15 years ago this was not news worthy story but now....it's on Yahoo's home page story #3. Earthquake detected miles below the earths crust. This has been going on for millions of years but no one has ever said anything. There have been mudslides for generations it's just was not as news assessable as it is now.
But will one of the Pro Climate Change believers comment on the fact that these Vikings were in an area that was not snow covered then it became snow covered and now it's not snow covered anymore. I sense a trend.
sooo ... the fact that there was a natural disaster in 1864 means that humans can't have an influence in creating additional ones in the future!??
seriously ... read up on the science of global warming ...
we've had more deaths this weekend in mexico ... and even more displacement of people ... it's only the beginning ...
are you speaking of what happened in oaxaca? and a landslide in a mountainous region is anomalous?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The Tuesday landslide in Mexico's state of Oaxaca that mobilized the nation's military and federal government for potentially hundreds of fatalities turns out to be much less devastating than initially thought.
In fact, as of Wednesday, there are no confirmed deaths. Eleven people are listed as missing so far. Ken Ellingwood, reporting from Oaxaca City, and Tracy Wilkinson note that only a few homes were said to have been destroyed or damaged.
Those figures contrast significantly from Gov. Ulises Ruiz's original estimate that hundreds of homes were buried in the landslide in the village of Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec and, as his government said at one point, up to 1,000 could be missing or dead (link in Spanish).
The radically altered damage and death figures in this case illustrate the always-dicey nature of gathering information on a breaking news event in a remote area, both for officials and the reporters who relay their statements to the public.
In the initial hours since word of the landslide reached beyond the village, access to Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec was severely hampered by damaged roads, yet officials appear to have spread the highest estimate possible of damage. In the minute-by-minute news world, this generated an atmosphere where media organizations, including The Times, scrambled to send reporters to the area.
The Mexico City daily El Universal, in Spanish, narrates how the incident played out, calling Tuesday a day of "national confusion."
Now the head of Oaxaca's state firefighters is threatening to sue the communal authorities in Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec who first alerted the state civil protection agency about the landslide (link in Spanish). Manuel Maza Sanchez, the state's fire agency director, says the landslide false alarm "distracted" firefighters from other areas also in need of attention as Oaxaca and the entire southern Mexico and Central American region continue to recover from persistent rain and major storms.
-- Daniel Hernandez in Mexico City
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Global Warming has got to be one of the dumbest monikers that mankind has ever come up with. Now anytime somebody suggests that our actions have any environmental impact someone else points out that we've had a cold summer/winter which apparently negates the damage which was done. In the end, all the scientific community has done is given most lay people another reason to ignore them completely.
Global Warming is just bad marketing.
It's just a matter of education vs. ignorance. My 14 year old niece asked me today if I "believe in global warming". huhwhahuh??? I cannot believe this is even being debated. Science is science. Numbers are numbers. And both science and numbers have proven that our oceans and atmosphere are both getting warmer exponentially.
But she gets stuck in the car with her uber right wing dad listening to glen fucking beck all day long. Which leads me to believe that people who cannot grasp that we are damaging the planet should not be allowed to drive. Or listen to neo-con radio.
The Tuesday landslide in Mexico's state of Oaxaca that mobilized the nation's military and federal government for potentially hundreds of fatalities turns out to be much less devastating than initially thought.
In fact, as of Wednesday, there are no confirmed deaths. Eleven people are listed as missing so far. Ken Ellingwood, reporting from Oaxaca City, and Tracy Wilkinson note that only a few homes were said to have been destroyed or damaged.
Those figures contrast significantly from Gov. Ulises Ruiz's original estimate that hundreds of homes were buried in the landslide in the village of Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec and, as his government said at one point, up to 1,000 could be missing or dead (link in Spanish).
The radically altered damage and death figures in this case illustrate the always-dicey nature of gathering information on a breaking news event in a remote area, both for officials and the reporters who relay their statements to the public.
In the initial hours since word of the landslide reached beyond the village, access to Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec was severely hampered by damaged roads, yet officials appear to have spread the highest estimate possible of damage. In the minute-by-minute news world, this generated an atmosphere where media organizations, including The Times, scrambled to send reporters to the area.
The Mexico City daily El Universal, in Spanish, narrates how the incident played out, calling Tuesday a day of "national confusion."
Now the head of Oaxaca's state firefighters is threatening to sue the communal authorities in Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec who first alerted the state civil protection agency about the landslide (link in Spanish). Manuel Maza Sanchez, the state's fire agency director, says the landslide false alarm "distracted" firefighters from other areas also in need of attention as Oaxaca and the entire southern Mexico and Central American region continue to recover from persistent rain and major storms.
-- Daniel Hernandez in Mexico City
either way ... it's just another example of extreme weather ... i see there is flooding in jamaica as well ...
The Tuesday landslide in Mexico's state of Oaxaca that mobilized the nation's military and federal government for potentially hundreds of fatalities turns out to be much less devastating than initially thought.
In fact, as of Wednesday, there are no confirmed deaths. Eleven people are listed as missing so far. Ken Ellingwood, reporting from Oaxaca City, and Tracy Wilkinson note that only a few homes were said to have been destroyed or damaged.
Those figures contrast significantly from Gov. Ulises Ruiz's original estimate that hundreds of homes were buried in the landslide in the village of Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec and, as his government said at one point, up to 1,000 could be missing or dead (link in Spanish).
The radically altered damage and death figures in this case illustrate the always-dicey nature of gathering information on a breaking news event in a remote area, both for officials and the reporters who relay their statements to the public.
In the initial hours since word of the landslide reached beyond the village, access to Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec was severely hampered by damaged roads, yet officials appear to have spread the highest estimate possible of damage. In the minute-by-minute news world, this generated an atmosphere where media organizations, including The Times, scrambled to send reporters to the area.
The Mexico City daily El Universal, in Spanish, narrates how the incident played out, calling Tuesday a day of "national confusion."
Now the head of Oaxaca's state firefighters is threatening to sue the communal authorities in Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec who first alerted the state civil protection agency about the landslide (link in Spanish). Manuel Maza Sanchez, the state's fire agency director, says the landslide false alarm "distracted" firefighters from other areas also in need of attention as Oaxaca and the entire southern Mexico and Central American region continue to recover from persistent rain and major storms.
-- Daniel Hernandez in Mexico City
either way ... it's just another example of extreme weather ... i see there is flooding in jamaica as well ...
how is a landslide in a mountainous region, not unfamiliar with landslides, an example of extreme weather? or more to the point, a landslide isnt even an example of extreme weather. its a geological thing.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Global Warming has got to be one of the dumbest monikers that mankind has ever come up with. Now anytime somebody suggests that our actions have any environmental impact someone else points out that we've had a cold summer/winter which apparently negates the damage which was done. In the end, all the scientific community has done is given most lay people another reason to ignore them completely.
Global Warming is just bad marketing.
It's just a matter of education vs. ignorance. My 14 year old niece asked me today if I "believe in global warming". huhwhahuh??? I cannot believe this is even being debated. Science is science. Numbers are numbers. And both science and numbers have proven that our oceans and atmosphere are both getting warmer exponentially.
But she gets stuck in the car with her uber right wing dad listening to glen fucking beck all day long. Which leads me to believe that people who cannot grasp that we are damaging the planet should not be allowed to drive. Or listen to neo-con radio.
i think people should stop mentioning global warming and just go with the harmful effects from pollution, you can have arguments all day long if the planet is cooling or warming or going through its natural cycles but you can not argue the effects of pollution. i think 'global warming' is just a way to distract people and keep them arguing while really doing nothing (i don't mean they aren't doing anything, i mean overall nothing much changes)
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
how is a landslide in a mountainous region, not unfamiliar with landslides, an example of extreme weather? or more to the point, a landslide isnt even an example of extreme weather. its a geological thing.
landslide was caused by heavy rain ... abnormal amounts of rain ...
i think people should stop mentioning global warming and just go with the harmful effects from pollution, you can have arguments all day long if the planet is cooling or warming or going through its natural cycles but you can not argue the effects of pollution. i think 'global warming' is just a way to distract people and keep them arguing while really doing nothing (i don't mean they aren't doing anything, i mean overall nothing much changes)
people will always find a way of distracting from the main issue ... the fact is that global warming IS the cause of our problems ... if people can't understand that - it's unfortunate ...
i think people should stop mentioning global warming and just go with the harmful effects from pollution, you can have arguments all day long if the planet is cooling or warming or going through its natural cycles but you can not argue the effects of pollution. i think 'global warming' is just a way to distract people and keep them arguing while really doing nothing (i don't mean they aren't doing anything, i mean overall nothing much changes)
people will always find a way of distracting from the main issue ... the fact is that global warming IS the cause of our problems ... if people can't understand that - it's unfortunate ...
but is not global warming caused by mankind polluting the earth? it would seem to me that if one were to even begin to tackle global warming, one would go for the root cause, yes?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
but is not global warming caused by mankind polluting the earth? it would seem to me that if one were to even begin to tackle global warming, one would go for the root cause, yes?
the cause of global warming are the increases in greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, in the atmosphere ... it's debatable, on a semantics level, on whether CO2 is a pollutant as we naturally produce it ... so, the causes of global warming are primarily the excessive burning of fossil fuels which are carbon sinks and deforestation ... so, in essence it isn't really the root cause ...
having said that - pollution is a problem that has more immediate consequences such as air quality, toxins in the water, impacts to life, etc ...
but is not global warming caused by mankind polluting the earth? it would seem to me that if one were to even begin to tackle global warming, one would go for the root cause, yes?
the cause of global warming are the increases in greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, in the atmosphere ... it's debatable, on a semantics level, on whether CO2 is a pollutant as we naturally produce it ... so, the causes of global warming are primarily the excessive burning of fossil fuels which are carbon sinks and deforestation ... so, in essence it isn't really the root cause ...
having said that - pollution is a problem that has more immediate consequences such as air quality, toxins in the water, impacts to life, etc ...
i would say CO2 is a pollutant cause we dont naturally produce it in the levels its being released upon the earth. we alter the chemistry of the earth. is that Natural... or is mankind moving beyond Nature in his actions, doing this? not beyond his nature, which it cant be, but beyond Nature.
when it comes to fossil fuels, which the earth has very successfully dealt with, at least i think in the case of coal. coal is coal for a reason. then along comes man and fucks it up by discovering it has a use for him. it doesnt benefit the earth but it surely benefits him. i see this as pollution. petroleum? basically the same deal.
the industrialised world with its reliance on fossil fuels coupled with the agricultural and pastoral society weve developed over the years, which involves the razing of so many hectares of forest and natural growth, has resulted in the world as we have it now. we understand the flow on effects of this behaviour yet were slow to act, if we act at all.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i would say CO2 is a pollutant cause we dont naturally produce it in the levels its being released upon the earth. we alter the chemistry of the earth. is that Natural... or is mankind moving beyond Nature in his actions, doing this? not beyond his nature, which it cant be, but beyond Nature.
when it comes to fossil fuels, which the earth has very successfully dealt with, at least i think in the case of coal. coal is coal for a reason. then along comes man and fucks it up by discovering it has a use for him. it doesnt benefit the earth but it surely benefits him. i see this as pollution. petroleum? basically the same deal.
the industrialised world with its reliance on fossil fuels coupled with the agricultural and pastoral society weve developed over the years, which involves the razing of so many hectares of forest and natural growth, has resulted in the world as we have it now. we understand the flow on effects of this behaviour yet were slow to act, if we act at all.
i would not disagree that CO2 is a pollutant nor would I disagree with it not being a called a pollutant ... in the context of our discussion ... depending on how someone wants to classify pollutants would then not necessarily address the change required to tackle climate change and that pollution in it of itself is a major enviornmental issue that has a huge subset of consequences not necessarily related to global warming ...
i would say CO2 is a pollutant cause we dont naturally produce it in the levels its being released upon the earth. we alter the chemistry of the earth. is that Natural... or is mankind moving beyond Nature in his actions, doing this? not beyond his nature, which it cant be, but beyond Nature.
when it comes to fossil fuels, which the earth has very successfully dealt with, at least i think in the case of coal. coal is coal for a reason. then along comes man and fucks it up by discovering it has a use for him. it doesnt benefit the earth but it surely benefits him. i see this as pollution. petroleum? basically the same deal.
the industrialised world with its reliance on fossil fuels coupled with the agricultural and pastoral society weve developed over the years, which involves the razing of so many hectares of forest and natural growth, has resulted in the world as we have it now. we understand the flow on effects of this behaviour yet were slow to act, if we act at all.
i would not disagree that CO2 is a pollutant nor would I disagree with it not being a called a pollutant ... in the context of our discussion ... depending on how someone wants to classify pollutants would then not necessarily address the change required to tackle climate change and that pollution in it of itself is a major enviornmental issue that has a huge subset of consequences not necessarily related to global warming ...
perhaps if mankind decided to tackle pollution as the major problem hed have a head start on what is degrading the planet. is coal burning and the use of petroleum lowering the clean level of the air? if the answer is yes, then lets find an alternative. is the razing of hectares of forests contributing to the rising level of pollutants in the air? if the answer is yes, the lets do something about lowering the amount of trees felled.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
perhaps if mankind decided to tackle pollution as the major problem hed have a head start on what is degrading the planet. is coal burning and the use of petroleum lowering the clean level of the air? if the answer is yes, then lets find an alternative. is the razing of hectares of forests contributing to the rising level of pollutants in the air? if the answer is yes, the lets do something about lowering the amount of trees felled.
uhhh ... if you think this would be more effective then by all means ... i'm just pointing out the differences ...
perhaps if mankind decided to tackle pollution as the major problem hed have a head start on what is degrading the planet. is coal burning and the use of petroleum lowering the clean level of the air? if the answer is yes, then lets find an alternative. is the razing of hectares of forests contributing to the rising level of pollutants in the air? if the answer is yes, the lets do something about lowering the amount of trees felled.
uhhh ... if you think this would be more effective then by all means ... i'm just pointing out the differences ...
more effective than what?
maybe its the headache i currently have, but im not quite grasping what you think the major contributor to global warming is. or even if you think there is one?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i think people should stop mentioning global warming and just go with the harmful effects from pollution, you can have arguments all day long if the planet is cooling or warming or going through its natural cycles but you can not argue the effects of pollution. i think 'global warming' is just a way to distract people and keep them arguing while really doing nothing (i don't mean they aren't doing anything, i mean overall nothing much changes)
maybe its the headache i currently have, but im not quite grasping what you think the major contributor to global warming is. or even if you think there is one?
a more effective way of combating climate change ...
my point is that when you talk about "pollution" - you are not simply referring to just CO2 which many will argue that it isn't a pollutant ... pollution includes - toxic waste, garbage, grey water, pesticides, pcbs, etc ... not all those things contribute to global warming ...
global warming is primarily caused by the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere ... saying - let's just address pollution is not the answer simply because - you can remove all the above items and still not tackle global warming ... again - whether CO2 is a pollutant is significantly more debatable than whether global warming is man made ... and in an age, where the skeptics need only a single hair to detract - i don't see how this would be good ...
yes ... sorting out pollution is a good thing but it won't necessarily tackle global warming ...
maybe its the headache i currently have, but im not quite grasping what you think the major contributor to global warming is. or even if you think there is one?
a more effective way of combating climate change ...
my point is that when you talk about "pollution" - you are not simply referring to just CO2 which many will argue that it isn't a pollutant ... pollution includes - toxic waste, garbage, grey water, pesticides, pcbs, etc ... not all those things contribute to global warming ...
global warming is primarily caused by the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere ... saying - let's just address pollution is not the answer simply because - you can remove all the above items and still not tackle global warming ... again - whether CO2 is a pollutant is significantly more debatable than whether global warming is man made ... and in an age, where the skeptics need only a single hair to detract - i don't see how this would be good ...
yes ... sorting out pollution is a good thing but it won't necessarily tackle global warming ...
im wondering if it is possible to combat climate control. it would seem to me that the contributing factors to climate change are more great and out of mankinds hands than hes willing to admit.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
im wondering if it is possible to combat climate control. it would seem to me that the contributing factors to climate change are more great and out of mankinds hands than hes willing to admit.
check out 350.org ...
it is more than plausible ... but like any other problem - we have to first admit that there is a problem ... the technology already exists - it's not like there needs to be some mass change ... how is it that germans can contribute half the emissions of americans/canadians and have the same (if not higher) quality of life?
im wondering if it is possible to combat climate control. it would seem to me that the contributing factors to climate change are more great and out of mankinds hands than hes willing to admit.
check out 350.org ...
it is more than plausible ... but like any other problem - we have to first admit that there is a problem ... the technology already exists - it's not like there needs to be some mass change ... how is it that germans can contribute half the emissions of americans/canadians and have the same (if not higher) quality of life?
what kinds of emissions are we talking of here?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
this is a very good point, about media.
public concern about drugs was minimal, under reagan in the 80's. during Bush senior drugs became a top concern for the public, this as use and deaths were going down. reality never changed, only our perception, directly attributable to media overload.
just 1 example of media shaping public opinion. proof that media can shape public opinion.
so media overload is possibly the reason.
this can be figured out tho. they keep records of worldwide disasters. someone could compare disasters for the last 5 decades or so and come to some sort of conclusion.
your point has been addressed by the IPCC ...
yes, there have been drastic shifts in climate in the past - and in most of those instances, it can be explained through some major catostrophic event ... large meteor, volcanic eruptions, etc ...
what you need to understand is that the change in climate we are experiencing now is happening at a rate so rapid that it removes the theory that this is some natural cyclical event ... the earth has a fever ... and consider what your body does when it has a fever ... we've had this fever for some time now ...
this is a tough one but here is a report released by oxfam ...
http://www.naturalnews.com/023362.html
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/polic ... alert.html
No way. Our summers are a lot wetter then they used to be 10 years ago and our winters are dryer and warmer on average. 'Climate change' is the key phrase not 'global warming'. The snowy winters as you put it *could* be a result of this climate change. More eratic and extreme weather conditions on both end of the scale.
The changes will happen slowly, you won't find that you wake up one year and its 40c all year it will take time but it's a case of us getting to a point where we can stop or slow down this process before it's too late.
are you speaking of what happened in oaxaca? and a landslide in a mountainous region is anomalous?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
these mudslides were caused by heavy rain ... unusual heavy rain ... so much rain that people did not expect to be swept away by the mud ...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza ... exico.html
The Tuesday landslide in Mexico's state of Oaxaca that mobilized the nation's military and federal government for potentially hundreds of fatalities turns out to be much less devastating than initially thought.
In fact, as of Wednesday, there are no confirmed deaths. Eleven people are listed as missing so far. Ken Ellingwood, reporting from Oaxaca City, and Tracy Wilkinson note that only a few homes were said to have been destroyed or damaged.
Those figures contrast significantly from Gov. Ulises Ruiz's original estimate that hundreds of homes were buried in the landslide in the village of Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec and, as his government said at one point, up to 1,000 could be missing or dead (link in Spanish).
The radically altered damage and death figures in this case illustrate the always-dicey nature of gathering information on a breaking news event in a remote area, both for officials and the reporters who relay their statements to the public.
In the initial hours since word of the landslide reached beyond the village, access to Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec was severely hampered by damaged roads, yet officials appear to have spread the highest estimate possible of damage. In the minute-by-minute news world, this generated an atmosphere where media organizations, including The Times, scrambled to send reporters to the area.
The Mexico City daily El Universal, in Spanish, narrates how the incident played out, calling Tuesday a day of "national confusion."
Now the head of Oaxaca's state firefighters is threatening to sue the communal authorities in Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec who first alerted the state civil protection agency about the landslide (link in Spanish). Manuel Maza Sanchez, the state's fire agency director, says the landslide false alarm "distracted" firefighters from other areas also in need of attention as Oaxaca and the entire southern Mexico and Central American region continue to recover from persistent rain and major storms.
-- Daniel Hernandez in Mexico City
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
But she gets stuck in the car with her uber right wing dad listening to glen fucking beck all day long. Which leads me to believe that people who cannot grasp that we are damaging the planet should not be allowed to drive. Or listen to neo-con radio.
either way ... it's just another example of extreme weather ... i see there is flooding in jamaica as well ...
how is a landslide in a mountainous region, not unfamiliar with landslides, an example of extreme weather? or more to the point, a landslide isnt even an example of extreme weather. its a geological thing.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i think people should stop mentioning global warming and just go with the harmful effects from pollution, you can have arguments all day long if the planet is cooling or warming or going through its natural cycles but you can not argue the effects of pollution. i think 'global warming' is just a way to distract people and keep them arguing while really doing nothing (i don't mean they aren't doing anything, i mean overall nothing much changes)
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
landslide was caused by heavy rain ... abnormal amounts of rain ...
people will always find a way of distracting from the main issue ... the fact is that global warming IS the cause of our problems ... if people can't understand that - it's unfortunate ...
but is not global warming caused by mankind polluting the earth? it would seem to me that if one were to even begin to tackle global warming, one would go for the root cause, yes?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
the cause of global warming are the increases in greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, in the atmosphere ... it's debatable, on a semantics level, on whether CO2 is a pollutant as we naturally produce it ... so, the causes of global warming are primarily the excessive burning of fossil fuels which are carbon sinks and deforestation ... so, in essence it isn't really the root cause ...
having said that - pollution is a problem that has more immediate consequences such as air quality, toxins in the water, impacts to life, etc ...
i would say CO2 is a pollutant cause we dont naturally produce it in the levels its being released upon the earth. we alter the chemistry of the earth. is that Natural... or is mankind moving beyond Nature in his actions, doing this? not beyond his nature, which it cant be, but beyond Nature.
when it comes to fossil fuels, which the earth has very successfully dealt with, at least i think in the case of coal. coal is coal for a reason. then along comes man and fucks it up by discovering it has a use for him. it doesnt benefit the earth but it surely benefits him. i see this as pollution. petroleum? basically the same deal.
the industrialised world with its reliance on fossil fuels coupled with the agricultural and pastoral society weve developed over the years, which involves the razing of so many hectares of forest and natural growth, has resulted in the world as we have it now. we understand the flow on effects of this behaviour yet were slow to act, if we act at all.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i would not disagree that CO2 is a pollutant nor would I disagree with it not being a called a pollutant ... in the context of our discussion ... depending on how someone wants to classify pollutants would then not necessarily address the change required to tackle climate change and that pollution in it of itself is a major enviornmental issue that has a huge subset of consequences not necessarily related to global warming ...
perhaps if mankind decided to tackle pollution as the major problem hed have a head start on what is degrading the planet. is coal burning and the use of petroleum lowering the clean level of the air? if the answer is yes, then lets find an alternative. is the razing of hectares of forests contributing to the rising level of pollutants in the air? if the answer is yes, the lets do something about lowering the amount of trees felled.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
uhhh ... if you think this would be more effective then by all means ... i'm just pointing out the differences ...
more effective than what?
maybe its the headache i currently have, but im not quite grasping what you think the major contributor to global warming is. or even if you think there is one?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
THANK YOU.
I've said that once or twice around here!
a more effective way of combating climate change ...
my point is that when you talk about "pollution" - you are not simply referring to just CO2 which many will argue that it isn't a pollutant ... pollution includes - toxic waste, garbage, grey water, pesticides, pcbs, etc ... not all those things contribute to global warming ...
global warming is primarily caused by the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere ... saying - let's just address pollution is not the answer simply because - you can remove all the above items and still not tackle global warming ... again - whether CO2 is a pollutant is significantly more debatable than whether global warming is man made ... and in an age, where the skeptics need only a single hair to detract - i don't see how this would be good ...
yes ... sorting out pollution is a good thing but it won't necessarily tackle global warming ...
im wondering if it is possible to combat climate control. it would seem to me that the contributing factors to climate change are more great and out of mankinds hands than hes willing to admit.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
check out 350.org ...
it is more than plausible ... but like any other problem - we have to first admit that there is a problem ... the technology already exists - it's not like there needs to be some mass change ... how is it that germans can contribute half the emissions of americans/canadians and have the same (if not higher) quality of life?
what kinds of emissions are we talking of here?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita
both canada and the US are in excess of 9 million square kilometres in area. germany is just under 349 000sq kms. , so this doesnt surprise me.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The chart is measuring each person, not each country though. Size doesn't matter - for once.
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/