Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact that you read it elsewhere does not make it true. It just means you read the same lie proffered by another somewhere else.
That's false. Large areas did revert to wilderness.
What's more, you're oblivious to the Asiatic Plague that swept through the Roman Empire.
At least 25% of the population died. 100s of villages were left depopulated with no survivors. Those accounts were recorded by the governors from different regions.
If you want to know how massive the depopulation was, there are written accounts of legion units being attacked by packs of bears. In one account, a century -- they weren't standardized but typically 90-120 men -- had only 16 survivors.
Well, technically, there were more survivors, but there's no way the 16 survivors -- some of whom may have been injured but ambulatory -- could carry 40-60 badly mauled comrades 10-20 miles to what? An aid station? They left them there to die.
There are 2 written accounts of legion units being attacked by huge packs of wolves. They fared better.
That is nothing short of silly.
In the first place, the reason the 1st Roanoke, Virginia colony failed is because the Little Ice Age already was.
In the second place, the reason the 2nd Roanoke Colony failed was the same reason the 1st Roanoke Colony failed and that is they couldn't grow anything because of the Little Ice Age.
Finally, the reason the 3rd Roanoke Colony failed and disappeared was it suffered the same fate as the first 2 colonies.
The Little Ice Age was already in play circa 1550. It peaked about 1680. The 100+ New England colonies, and yes, there were more than 100 colonies in New England enjoying near-famine conditions and they merged into a single colony called the Dominion around 1685 due to that and events taking place in England.
The Dominion was short-lived and more or less broke up almost into the "original" colonies of the "original 13 colonies" (snicker). There were actually more than 200 colonies and Carolina was a single colony before it had a civil war and broke into North and South Carolina and then merged back into a single colony before splitting into 2 colonies again.
That's right, you're supposed to believe we were all one big happy family even that couldn't be farther from the truth.
The point being no one had penetrated into North America so there was no massive die-off in North America.
The actual first permanent colony was in Jamestown, Virginia. Plymouth gets all the love because Plymouth is in the north and the North won the civil war so Jamestown being the South is down-played or out-right ignored.
The first official act of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower was not the Mayflower Compact. It was a mutual defense treaty between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Tribe.
If the Narragansett attacked the Wampanoag, the Pilgrims would come to the aid of the Wampanoag and if the Narragansett attacked the Pilgrims, the Wampanoag would come to their aid.
What happened to the Narragansett and Wampanoag? Nothing. They weren't decimated by smallpox and neither was any tribe in the whole of the New England area.
The tribes in the New England and Atlantic Coast areas were largely settled, meaning they were not nomadic or semi-nomadic like the other 450+ tribal groups. The settled tribes had little contact with each other except of raids for food.
None of the tribes in New England or the Atlantic Coast had any idea were Kentucky was or that it even existed.
No, wrong. If you bothered to read what the Spanish actually wrote you'd know they were totally blown away by what they saw in Mexico.
There were more than 1 Million people in that city. The Spanish had never seen a city that large because there was nothing even remotely close to that in Europe.
At the time of the Great Fire, which was in the 1660s, there were only 350,000 people in London.
At the time of the Black Death, there wasn't even 50,000 people in London. The largest cities were all in Spain, Italy and France, and none of them had populations greater than 150,000. The largest city at the time was actually Cairo, but if you wanna go global then China had more than a dozen with populations double and triple that.
I don't consider saplings to be reforestation, so while I don't see reforestation in Europe, it was also non-existent in Central and South America. Overgrowth, yes, reforestation, no.
I know where those lies come from. They come from National Geographic.
There's a Useless Tube video from Nat Geo about what would happen if people abandoned cities and Nat Geo is just plain wrong.
We know that because we can look at the Pennsylvania town that was abandoned. A coal seam runs under the town and the seam caught fire in 1952, or at least the fire was detected in 1952, and the town was abandoned 10 years later.
60 years -- 6 decades later --- and it proves Nat Geo's reforestation model is wrong. We can also look at a half-dozen Chinese towns that were abandoned, one of them for almost 2 centuries, and those were towns were abandoned because of earthquakes or floods. There's little to no reforestation.
You can look at Arkwright (in Britain) or Gilman, Colorado. Those have only been abandoned for a few decades but they don't look anything like Nat Geo says they should look like.
This idea that people die and the whole area is reforested in 10 years is nonsense.
There's no evidence of that.
The population models are all wrong. If we were to believe the population models then Tasmania should have had 4 Million Tasmanians living on it instead of 4,000.
There were 250,000 to 300,000 Aborigines at first contact. If we were to believe the population models, there should have been 25 Million at least.
For North America, there are 567 Amerindian tribal groups. That's about a dozen more than when colonists arrived. That's due to the fact that after the Dawes Rolls in 1905 or so some bands split off from the main tribe and "bands" is what they call themselves.
Of the ~550 tribal groups, 46 were settled, meaning they lived in houses with wells, roads (well-defined trails or paths), border/boundary markers, market places, and storage/processing structures for storing and drying grains and other food and non-food crops.
We can use archaeology to examine the expansion and model the population.
This is the same technique used to debunk the Hebrew Exodus that never happened. If that many people poured into the area, there'd be evidence of expansion and none exists except in 2 places. In the mountains attributed to the tribe of Reuben there's evidence of expansion that would accommodate about 20,000 people and then south of Jerusalem there's evidence of new building that would house about 14,000. Jerusalem shows no evidence of expansion until centuries later when the northern kingdom is over-run and some refugees flee south to Jerusalem causing the population to swell to 20,000 people.
The population model used for settled tribes is not the same model one would use for nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples. About 150 tribes were semi-nomadic and the rest were nomadic.
We can get accurate population models. There are still dozens of fully nomadic tribes in Siberia. They were not decimated by disease or at war with Russia. After 100 years the population of one tribe went from about 10,000 to about 12,000 and that's what you'd expect. Nomadic life-style is harsh and the birth-rate is -2.0 to 2.0 not 8.0.
When they found those 3 tribes in the Amazon jungles in Brasil back in the 1950s, how come there weren't 100,000 of them?
Those population models are intentionally skewed to over-exaggerate the population of Amerindians in order to make claims that evil White people engaged in biological warfare.
Diphtheria? Please, it's only fatal 5% to 10%.
Smallpox is certainly more fatal but at most the death rate would be 3 in 10 not 9 in 10. Your own CDC says so.
So, claims that smallpox decimated tribal populations are over-exaggerated.
There's no evidence of dense population with the exception of Central Mexico.
There were no "urban heat islands" in that era.
Urban heat islands are a totally modern phenomenon of the last 50-70 years due to the building and construction materials used.
Global warming nutters disingenuously use temperature data from urban areas to skew the average temperature readings in order to claim that temperatures are increasing when they are not.
A lot of mis- info here too.
Do you have a rference for the bears vs legionaires episode? Having extensively read the Roman histories, I never heard that one before, and it doesn't make any sense from the natural history of bears either. A Search found nothing on the subject.
Plague & the ancients-- maybe a 15% death rate during the Antonine Plague ~200AD. Notice how many statements in this Wikipedia article lack references for verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseas...ntonine_Plague
The natural history/evolution of infectious diseases is for the bug to evolve to a more communicable but less fatal form. (We saw this in action with CoV.) Difficult to assess infectious diseases from historical records.
You're right about population models-- really bad estimates. According to the only attempt at a contemporary estimate of Amerindian populations was made by Pere Nicolet who lived for 30 yrs among the people of WI in the 17th century. He said there were no more than 20,000 Indians in the WI area. Extrapolating that, we can't find more than 2M in all of (today's) US area, not the 20-50M most "experts" claim.
Reforestation- it depends on where-- Angkor Wat was probably engulfed in vegetation within a few yrs of abandonment. The cliff dwelling in Az still aren't 1000 yrs later. The great mounds & city of Kahokia were reforested within a few decades. Periodic flooding of the Miss. R. may have been a major factor in its demise. Pollen & charcoal records show the area went from forest to cropland to flooded marsh to grassland, then forest again over just a few decades.
As far as Chna/India and fossil fuel-- Keep in mind that HALF of all fossil fuel EVER burned has been burned in the past TWO DECADES- most of it by China & Inida....BUT-- couple that info with the fact that the warming effect of co2 exhibits a logarithmic function-- [co2] over 450 ppm shows almost NO further warming .
No, I was referring to the Japanese and their invasion of China during WWII, along with the British before them. That's only 80 years ago for a country to be so damaged.
maybe japan should pay china reparations for the next 100 yrs ?
Either hold every country to the same standards today, or don't bother at all. It does not matter what happened 100 years ago, we are dealing with the alleged problem today. So every country has the same emission standards or don't bother. The 3rd world countries will trash the planet otherwise. Well, they will anyway....
Either hold every country to the same standards today, or don't bother at all. It does not matter what happened 100 years ago, we are dealing with the alleged problem today. So every country has the same emission standards or don't bother. The 3rd world countries will trash the planet otherwise. Well, they will anyway....
I agree, but I think we have to limit that to meet your countries. If Monaco violates standards, so be it. If India or China does so, it makes every effort to reign in pollution futile.
Let's have environmentally friendly war, and everything that goes into it.
Ever since the price of steel went up, and anything that wasn't bolted down, got sent to these warmonger countries, I've known that there was something bad being planned, but our governments wholeheartedly aided this, and pretended all was good.
Either hold every country to the same standards today, or don't bother at all.
Thanks for admitting you're not competent on the subject matter.
The function of the IPCC once it was created is to punish the developed countries at the expense of the undeveloped countries.
I do not disagree with that philosophy, only the methods and the means.
The developed countries developed at the expense of other counties by looting and plundering them, and even that wouldn't be so bad except the undeveloped countries were oppressed to keep them from progressing.
Britain's destruction of India was so thorough it will be well into next century before India recovers.
The US, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and also Japan owe China for all the money they stole.
You can start with Cuba. Just add up all the profits from 1898 to 1958, take 8% per treaty and then add interest, and then add up the taxes US companies owed but never paid (because the US would overthrow any government that attempted to tax US companies) and add interest, late fees, and penalties.
Then you can go to Mexico and add up the profits from oil and natural gas sales from 1916 to 1939, add 8% per treaty, plus interest, and taxes plus interest, late fees, and penalties.
Thanks for admitting you're not competent on the subject matter.
Why the attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The function of the IPCC once it was created is to punish the developed countries at the expense of the undeveloped countries.
I do not disagree with that philosophy, only the methods and the means.
Why should I as a U.S. taxpayer fund this kind of an organization? We both agree that its function is to punish developed countries. The developed countries are providing the means for this attack. Why not at least ask some of the very wealthy leaders of Third World countries to contribute a share of their wealth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The developed countries developed at the expense of other counties by looting and plundering them, and even that wouldn't be so bad except the undeveloped countries were oppressed to keep them from progressing.
Now we are beginning our descent into illogic. Mostly certain trading companies "plundered" unused or underutilized resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Britain's destruction of India was so thorough it will be well into next century before India recovers.
Maybe India needs help recovering from Jawaharal's (sp) Nehru's, Shastri's (sp and I don't know first name) and Indira Ghandi's mismanagement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The US, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and also Japan owe China for all the money they stole.
Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You can start with Cuba. Just add up all the profits from 1898 to 1958, take 8% per treaty and then add interest, and then add up the taxes US companies owed but never paid (because the US would overthrow any government that attempted to tax US companies) and add interest, late fees, and penalties.
Again not sure I follow.. Mostly U.S. countries took resources they weren't using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Then you can go to Mexico and add up the profits from oil and natural gas sales from 1916 to 1939, add 8% per treaty, plus interest, and taxes plus interest, late fees, and penalties.
Would they have been able to develop the oil without our help? They were caught using Western countries to run the wells after, namely Sedco. They don't have the expertise, integrity or competence to do so.
Why should I as a U.S. taxpayer fund this kind of an organization?
That's the point. It should be funded privately, even more so since its mission is to prove global warming is caused by humans to the exclusion of all other possible causes.
That is tantamount to a cancer research facility attempting to prove cancers are caused by smoking to the exclusion of all other possible causes, even though other causes exist, including the fact that some, like lung cancer is genetic and prevalent in 10% of the population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Why not at least ask some of the very wealthy leaders of Third World countries to contribute a share of their wealth?
Why would they? The US, Britain, France and others put them in power. They justify their wealth because in their minds they deserve it for saving their people from total annihilation by the US, Britain, France and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Now we are beginning our descent into illogic. Mostly certain trading companies "plundered" unused or underutilized resources.
No, we're descending into facts. It wasn't limited to "trading companies." All US, French, Belgian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and German companies did it.
In the case of Britain, it was the British government since the British government owned all companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Maybe India needs help recovering from Jawaharal's (sp) Nehru's, Shastri's (sp and I don't know first name) and Indira Ghandi's mismanagement.
So you say, completely ignorant of reality.
You expect Nehru to undo 3 centuries of damage in a few years? That is totally unrealistic.
No doubt, you haven't read the declassified documents concerning the US assassination attempts on Nehru for the heinous crime of Declaring Neutrality While Non-White/Non-Christian.
Only White Christian Nations like Yugoslavia, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, et al are allowed to declare neutrality. Even White Christian Spain was allowed to declare neutrality and it did for decades before joining NATO.
If you weren't White & Christian, the US would attempt to murder you, like it did Nasser of Egypt and Shishkali of Syria and murder you like it did Daud of Afghanistan.
The US and Britain levied severe economic sanctions on India after it gained independence from Britain.
The US sent Task Force 74 to threaten and intimidate India during the 1971 Pakistani-Indian War.
Contrary to false claims, there was zero risk of nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy caused, and the only risk of a conventional war was if the US initiated it.
During the 1971 Pakistani-India War, you were 37 minutes away from WW III and a possible nuclear war.
That's how long it would take the F-4 Phantom IIs on the deck of the USS Enterprise to launch, form up, and drop their napalm and cluster bombs on Brigadier Golwalla's 52nd Infantry Brigade and Brigadier Khan's 106 Infantry Brigade (11th Infantry Division in LTG Sher's IV Corps) who were ready to roll Pakistani units at Naya Chor and drive into the Indus River Valley and on to Hyderabad.
Since India had a mutual non-aggression pact and defense treaty with the Soviets, the two Soviet surface groups INDRON 10 and INDRON 12 that sandwiched Task Force 74 would unleash their Shaddocks.
With the bulk of the Task Force at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, the burning hulk that was the Enterprise would have been mercifully put out of its misery by one of the Victor- or November-class subs accompanying the Soviet surface groups.
Naturally, the US is going to respond to that. I should probably mention the US pressured Pakistan to initiate the conflict with India.
After the war, the US and Britain stepped up economic sanctions, and when India began developing both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, the US and Britain levied more sanctions.
One of the only few good things about the Clinton Administration is they ended the sanctions.
Why don't we put the same sanctions on the US for a few decades and see how you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Again not sure I follow.. Mostly U.S. countries took resources they weren't using.
That is an obtusely circular argument.
I come into your country and take all your resources. When you resist, I threaten to torch your country. I sell all your resources and keep 100% of the profits. When you complain your people have nothing to eat, I blame you for not being able to stop me from selling all of your resources and keeping the profits, but I offer to let you borrow money from me to buy food except I put lots of strings on the loan and you can only buy outdated obsolete military hardware. Later, I do loan you money to buy food but that's only because I'm too busy to come back and quell a revolt. Now you're taxing the snot out of your people to pay back the loans and have no money to develop your country economically to a point where it could actually use those resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
Would they have been able to develop the oil without our help?
In many cases, those countries needed only financial assistance to get started.
In other cases, they needed technical assistance. Why? The US and Euro-powers did nothing. Never lifted a finger and mostly due to racism. Those people aren't White and even that wouldn't be so bad except they're heathens, too. Like the British in Nigeria. If you were a member of a certain tribe and you were a good convert, the Brits would take you back to Britain and teach you how to be a clerk and perform clerical duties, so Brits wouldn't have to go there and do it.
Seriously, the Brits were in some of those countries for 80 years and there's still no running water. It isn't because those people don't want running water, it's because the Brits stole everything.
Africa was a net-exporter of food, right up until the US and Britain started overthrowing governments and bringing in the corporations.
They plowed under the food crops and started growing non-food crops like sugar cane, coffee, and chocolate. The African States get ZERO profits from it because all the profits go to the US and Britain.
That's why the US fears China. China is doing exactly what the US, Britain and all the others refused to do. If China wants to thumb their nose at the global warming nutters, I'm perfectly okay with that and when it ultimately causes a collapse in the Standard of Living for Americans and Western Europeans, I'm perfectly okay with that, too.
Contrary to false claims, there was zero risk of nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy caused, and the only risk of a conventional war was if the US initiated it.
Are you aware that we learned around 1972 that the Russians had 4 subs with nuclear torpedos and orders to use them without having to contact Moscow?
Are you aware that we learned around 1972 that the Russians had 4 subs with nuclear torpedos and orders to use them without having to contact Moscow?
No, I wasn't, but then I was never a sailor.
INDRON 10 and INDRON 12 were NATO designations for the Soviet surface groups based in Vladivostok that operated in the Indian Ocean. I don't know what the Soviets actually called them. Those groups operated with 1-2 November-class missile boats (anti-ship platforms) and 1 or more Victor-class attack subs. Task Force 74 had attack subs with it but I never knew how many or which ones until 1998 (USS Bluefish and Gurnard).
All subs carried warheads for torpedoes. I've never seen one and know nothing about them. I'm inclined to believe those 4 Soviet subs operated in the Atlantic/Pacific and not the Indian Ocean. I wouldn't be surprised if US attack subs had the same authority and for both countries that was limited to firing on missile subs if an SLBM launch was detected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
