I was checking the recent activity and saw that you and others had edited the section "Retarded Conservatives". For some reason, the phrase "Retarded Conservatives" made me wonder, "isn't that redundant?" After all, don't both terms mean; slow to progress, slow to change, slow to learn, etc.
So, is a retarded conservative a super slow conservative, or a person who is slow to adopt slowing of learning or what?
Also, if we're being PC, as conservatives are always accusing Liberals of being, should we stop calling Conservatives Conservative, and instead call them developmentally disabled, or rationally challenged?
It's just too confusing . I'm going to have another cup of coffee and try to wrap my mind around all this.
As I've watched you edit entries about trees and fossil fuels over the last week or so, I've noticed a bit of a trend. When thinking about global warming it's very easy to get confused.
You see, some years back, petroleum companies started funding environmental concerns. It may seem strange that this would be the case, but it should be remembered that many of the materials we use can be produced either from naturally growing plants, or from fossil fuels. Much effort has been devoted to quantifying the "global warming" effects of deforestation.
While it's true that both biological and geological carbon compounds can add atmospheric carbon, a couple facts should be remembered. Living things grow and die. In the case of a tree, it grows by biological processes of taking elements from the soil and air, and with the use of energy combining them into semi-stable organic compounds. The tree keeps adding these compounds to it's body throughout it's life. Throughout it's lifetime it is subject to attack by animals, fungi, and natural disasters like fire. Like all living things, the tree eventually loses it's battle and dies. Ultimately, the tree decomposes. During it's decomposition, or it's natural destruction by fire, all the atmospheric carbon it had sequestered is reemitted.
Over millions of years, a tiny part of the carbon based compounds of plants and animals can become trapped within the earth and form stable geologic organic compounds. That's where coal, petroleum, and natural gasses come from.
The point of this rant is to bring up the point that all the research on the "pollution" of logging or cow farts is just another distraction, one of many that have appeared as geo-carbon interests have realized their responsibility, and have tried to shift the blame. Yes, it may be true that animal husbandry is an inefficient way to produce food, but the only carbon added to the biosphere in farming is the carbon from the use of fossil fuel. Carbon in the life cycle of an organism is a zero sum equation. Organisms neither create nor destroy carbon in the biosphere, they just change it's state. All the new carbon in the system has been released by man's use of geologically stable sequestered carbon, or has come from some other geologic source.
On reflection I agree that fossil fuel burning matters more than deforestation but deforestation has some bad effects. Trees that would have lived for centuries get burnt down now. New trees don't grow up to replace them. If the forests are allowed to stay sizable amounts of carbon are locked up there. As trees die and decay others grow to replace them.
I'm not sure what the truth is or how the article should be amended. Let's both think this over.
Surely. Deforestation, and land use are very serious topics. They are both going to be increasingly important as accumulated environmental damage and increasing population have their cumulative effects.
I'm just trying to point out another one of the areas where our thinking has been manipulated. There are very good reasons to maintain natural forests. There are also very good reasons to believe our thinking has been manipulated. Remember Frank Herbert's premise that the way to manipulate thinking is to manipulate information? Media manipulation is serious and ongoing. So is scientific manipulation. Grants can direct study, and study can generate publication. Just follow the money. Who's giving the grants? What do they want to know, or want us to know? For that matter, the harder question is what do they not want us to know?
It's just that the attack on silvaculture has been extreme, and has reduced forest production, and forest health tremendously. It's become an emotionally charged political movement. It's also become an important deflection. Forest products are being replaced by petroleum products, and silvaculture's potential contribution to sustainability is ignored. We feel as if we've done our part, by forcing someone else to change their practices, yet we ignore our own part in the overall problem.
Thanks, I guess. To tell you the truth, I'd actually feel better if I were wrong about some of these things. This whole situation of constantly having to "peek behind the curtain" to see who's pulling the strings isn't making me feel better about things.
So, if I'm wrong, please tell me so. I'm as capable of being wrong as anyone.
You understand the United States better than I do. I'm sure publications like Scientific American are very protective of their reuptation for following the scientific method. Still if the fossil fuel industry pays for the research scientists will research what the fossil fuel industry wants them to research and will be more likely to publish results that please the fossil fuel industry.
We've just added ~50 names to the big list who "liked" FB posts others wrote and I want visitors to see the message from the reference that the names all share in-place whenever the number next to the 👍 is hovered on, without needing to click/scroll down to the reference at the bottom, and instead of me pasting the same message into the wiki 50 times.
It's now the only wiki with the list on it, so everyone is pointing to it.
looks like we were both working on it at the same time, and now it's messed up. Sorry about that. I hope you an fix it. If you have to just undo it, and put it back to what it was before my ates, do what you have to.
I undid your Strom link. I meant Strom Thurmond. He may have been before your time, but carried the flag for old time southern conservatism for more years than you'd believe. Here's a link to his daughter's obituary. Read this, and you'll know what I meant about Strom. http://www.wltx.com/story/news/2014/02/09/1659216/
clap clap* Love how warped this whole thing is. Your a "liberal" who lives in Europe. Wait what? Yeah thats not possible. Do us Americans over here a favor chick, stay outta our politics you communist trashbag. Your views on everything are only your own, and you cant stand anything else.
The reason I added the countries of the UK to the Former Countries category is because they were once sovereign states (independent countries), but no longer are. Doesn't mean they're not countries in the cultural scene of the term, or can't be in the Countries category. My impression is that the Countries category includes both sovereign states and "cultural countries" (not sure what the proper term for that is).
On a related note, is there a reason England isn't in the Countries category, yet the other UK Countries are?
A referendum will soon be held about Scottish independence, after that getting Scotland out of the former countries category will be difficult the way Wikia does things. Wales may decide on independence too. Also should all the countries of the European Union be called former countries because the EU is becoming a sovereign state?
Why would it be difficult, wouldn't it be just a matter of removing the [[Catagory:Former Countries]] from the page code? As for the European Union, that's something of a special case. It's member states are generally considered to be sovereign states, and the overwhelming majority of world maps show them as sovereign states and not as mere sub-national entities of the EU. Basically, most sources treat it as an international organization (like the UN) rather then as a state. For the sake of the argument tough, let's say the EU is a sovereign state like any other and it's member-states (politically speaking, not culturally) aren't countries anymore then the provinces of Canada are. I'd say the Former Countries category would be appropriate, along with the Countries category for those that would still be Nations in the cultural sense of the term (e.g. France).
The edit button, but it might be different for you then for me. I seem to recall that wikia had some fancy page editor instead of the regular media-wiki editor, or something like that, which I disabled on my account.