What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

true but that does not mean there were not additional outbreaks or that the pilgrims did not deliberately cause some of then just as had other whites before them

the pilgrim woman were seriously offended by the native woman who were a little less prudent when the mood was on them if you know what I mean

basically in that time an Indian woman would simply expose herself to whatever man she wanted to

the pilgrim woman were well acquainted with small pox and new they were supposed to burn everything
instead they sold the tainted bedding to the natives

its pretty well established in many places although its not exactly what is taught in public schools

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Boston

true but that does not mean there were not additional outbreaks or that the pilgrims did not deliberately cause some of then just as had other whites before them

the pilgrim woman were seriously offended by the native woman who were a little less prudent when the mood was on them if you know what I mean

basically in that time an Indian woman would simply expose herself to whatever man she wanted to

the pilgrim woman were well acquainted with small pox and new they were supposed to burn everything
instead they sold the tainted bedding to the natives

its pretty well established in many places although its not exactly what is taught in public schools

OK, you need to get some basic terminology straight, before you start lecturing me on history. A Pilgrim is one of the 104 people who were landed by the Mayflower on or near Plymouth Rock in 1620. As I said, only 47 of them survived the first winter. I seriously doubt any of those were involved in handing out smallpox-infected blankets, since they colonized the former territory of the Patuxets - who were wiped out by disease before the Pilgrims ever showed up. Pilgrim interactions with Indians were few, and mostly friendly.

The Pilgrims were simply the first of a flood of settlers. If I remember right, the next bunch landed at Cape Ann only two or three years later. Those newcomers - including the Puritans who landed mostly between 1630 and 1640, and whose descendants dominated the new England political and religious scene for the next two hundred years, are not included under the term Pilgrims.

I don't mind you sticking up for Indians in history, Dan. I have enough ancestors and relatives on both sides to make me pretty much neutral, and I think a little balance is a good thing.

But you need to keep your facts straight while you do it, so people can trust you. And you should really avoid a narrative that paints the Indians as innocent, clueless little flower children romping through the woods with their animal friends, until they were betrayed by the evil whites who destroy everything they touch.

That sort of viewpoint might produce a great Disney movie or comic book, but it sucks as an honest analysis of history. The truth is that the whites weren't all evil monsters, and the Indians weren't all virtuous saints and martyrs.

[Boston]

ok am heading out and will try and respond soonest

the original pilgrims or at least those who remained after that first winter were, from what I have learned guilty of selling tainted blankets from sick "pilgrims" to the natives

will dig up references soonest

cheers
B

and yes I'd say we are experiencing a distinct increase in the quality of conversation with at notably more civil tone

makes for a far more fruitful discourse covering a wider range of subject mater
although I do think we should at least somewhat stick to climate change lest we loose what benefits might be had by keeping the important things in the forefront

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Do you have some kind of a point to make directly related to the oil spill, or are you just ranting against the rich and powerful in general?

If you think Tony Hayward should personally pay for the cleanup, I assure you that he may be rich by our standards, but he doesn't have that kind of money. Nor can he be held personally responsible anyway, unless the spill can be traced to reckless, negligent or criminal behavior on his part.

The money for the cleanup will come from the assets and profits of BP, as it should. I see no reason to sidetrack money raised by the government, from the sale of leases to companies completely unconnected to the oil spill.

Well what do you know, Troy, congratulations. At least in this post you show not to have caught yet the virus of rich is bad and poor is oh so virtuous.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by wardd

my rant is not against the rich per se, hell I'd like to be rich but against the system that allow the few to get that way at the expense of the rest and have no accountability

and I marvel at those that will never get to play at those stratospheric heights that are hell bent on keeping them there

This post on the other hand shows a mind poisoned by the said virus, that will probably never recover not even in intensive care.

Mate, as much as you would "like to be rich" I can tell you here and now, that you will never be...ever. In fact I can tell you that if you buy a winning lottery ticket you will either lose it, put it in the wash, or never check it.

I can also tell you why but at this point you are so outraged at my predictions that you wouldn't listen anyway.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by Boston

there is a difference between claiming that the sky is falling and presenting multiple corroborating studies all showing the same thing, that we have a problem and it demands attention before it gets away from us. Which by many standards it has already.

I thought that you or rather the post you copy and past pretend to know that the sky is falling any moment now...but let that one be for now. After all this thread is not about literature.
Your second assertion is your problem. You assume that A) "we have a problem" and B) that it "demands attention"
Your assumption above is based on yet more assumptions that the correlation between CO2 and temperature prooves that CO2 is the cause. This is of course garbage since it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 is the consequence and not the cause of temperature variations. And if you consider that andropogenic CO2 is but a fraction of the total, the whole Global Warming hypotesis should have been binned 20 years ago.


The rest of your wild assumptions are just repeat gobbledygook and I am just tired of reading it.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Oh please. Socialism in itself 'causes' none of that crap. What do you think was going on in Russia before the Revolution? Why do you think the people revolted? Do you think they fought and bled and died and killed, and turned their country and society upside down, simply because they were bored?

The problem with Russia isn't socialism, communism, imperialism, fascism, capitalism or any other 'ism.' It's a problem of having no democratic traditions, but a long tradition of authoritarian rule, abuse of power and official corruption.

When the people on bottom wound up on top after the Russian Revolution, they handled power exactly the way they'd been taught to handle it by their predecessors in power, going back a thousand years.

There is a simpler explanation:
"Nations have the government they deserve"
As simple as that.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by troy2000

How does that work, Dan? Your own post clearly says, [t]he first major outbreak of an infectious disease recorded on the northeastern Atlantic coast was 1616-19. The Massachusetts and other Algonquin tribes in the area were reduced from an estimated thirty thousand to three hundred (Bray). When the Pilgrims landed a year later in 1620, there were few Indians left to greet them. Many observers believe this infectious disease was smallpox.

Explain to me how your mythical pissed-off Pilgrim wives managed to kill off 30,000 Algonquins between 1616 and 1619, when they didn't even land until December of 1620. Are you telling me they handed out infectious blankets in 1621, and those blankets traveled back in time four years and started killing Indians?

Obviously, the epidemic was a tragedy of epic proportions; it essentially wiped out an entire people. But regardless of later episodes, there's absolutely no evidence that anyone deliberately infected and eradicated the Patuxets (not the Algonquins).

The fact of the matter is that Indians from that coastal area were already well-acquainted with whites; some of them had even shipped on fishing and whaling vessels. The first words ever spoken to the Pilgrims by an Indian were uttered by Samoset, an Algonquin chief, and they were in flawless English: "have you got any beer?"

The second Indian they met was one of the few surviving Patuxets. His name was Squanto, and he had returned from living nine years in England to find his entire tribe gone. So he pretty much adopted the Pilgrims instead, and took them under his wing.

http://www.theparacast.com/forum/thr...u-Got-Any-Beer

That may be so Troy, but Boston's story is much better.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

not so sure about that Troy



it is the contention among the native americans that it was the "pilgrims" who first introduced small pox to the native tribes in aprox 1620



and this

And I could counter with these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Florida_massacre_1836.jpeg
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9505E3D81F3DEE34BC4952DFB266838C649FDE
http://www.pipestoneminnesota.com/museum/inky.htm
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/68304.html
From http://members.shaw.ca/canada_legal_history/sk_notes.htm
Apischiskoos
Last Words: I wish to say goodbye to you all, officers as well as men.You have been good to me; better than I deserved. What I have done, that was bad. My punishment is no worse than I could expect. But let me tell you that I never thought to lift my hand against a white man. Years ago, when we lived on the plains and hunted the buffalo, I was a head warrior of the Crees in battle with the Blackfoot Indians. I liked to fight. I took many scalps. But after you, the redcoats, came and the Treaty was made with the white man,war was no more. I had never fought a white man. But lately, we received bad advice of what good is it to speak of that now? I am sorry when it is too late. In only want to thank you, redcoats, and the sheriff for your kindness. I am not afraid to die. I may not be able in the morning, so now I say again to you all - good-bye! How! Aquisanee!

Jenny Wiley history

and the list goes on of misdeeds by both sides

The Greenlanders were massacred by the skraelings because of milk intolerance, and on and on.............

The Scots were massacred by the Redcoats as well, who were also fond of the tomahawk on the Scottish neck. We are two defeated tribes. Get over it.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Well what do you know, Troy, congratulations. At least in this post you show not to have caught yet the virus of rich is bad and poor is oh so virtuous.

it's not that rich is bad but that some of the rich are bad

[wardd]

Originally Posted by Marco1

There is a simpler explanation:
"Nations have the government they deserve"
As simple as that.

was that our problem during the bush years?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

I thought that you or rather the post you copy and past pretend to know that the sky is falling any moment now...but let that one be for now. After all this thread is not about literature.
Your second assertion is your problem. You assume that A) "we have a problem" and B) that it "demands attention"
Your assumption above is based on yet more assumptions that the correlation between CO2 and temperature prooves that CO2 is the cause. This is of course garbage since it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 is the consequence and not the cause of temperature variations. And if you consider that andropogenic CO2 is but a fraction of the total, the whole Global Warming hypotesis should have been binned 20 years ago.


The rest of your wild assumptions are just repeat gobbledygook and I am just tired of reading it.

There you go again - making wild-arsed claims as though they're established fact. It has most certainly not been proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' that CO2 is the consequence, not the cause, of temperature variations. In fact, the vast majority of scientists would call that a blatantly false statement. And when Boston posts excerpts from articles and peer-reviewed papers by those same mainstream scientists, it's hardly wild assumptions and gobbledygook.

How does saying that anthropogenic CO2 is but a fraction of the total prove that it has no effect on climate? That's like saying alcohol is but a fraction of a Foster's, so it can't have any effect on your sobriety....

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Stop rewriting history. They sure as Hell weren't starving because they were set up as a 'little socialist state.' They died of starvation, scurvy, cold and disease - because they didn't get there until November, and had to survive an entire New England winter before they could even plant a crop.

Where do you get this nonsense?

And don't forget the help that Squanto gave the them. They would likely have died without his help, even aside from the hard first weather.

[wardd]

in those days nutritional decencies and disease were a part of life for even the well to do

life in those days for the most was hard, brutal and unforgiving

when you were born you had maybe both natural parents later on one may die and be replaced by someone else, then later the remaining birth parent might die and be replaced by yet another so you could wind up in a family with neither birth parents, thats assuming you lived that long

then for most 45 was old

in the summer you were hot, in the winter cold

you went to bed when it got dark as lighting was dear then got up at sunrise to till to raise enough to eat and some to sell


but, co2 was not a problem

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

There you go again - making wild-arsed claims as though they're established fact. It has most certainly not been proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' that CO2 is the consequence, not the cause, of temperature variations. In fact, the vast majority of scientists would call that a blatantly false statement. And when Boston posts excerpts from articles and peer-reviewed papers by those same mainstream scientists, it's hardly wild assumptions and gobbledygook.

How does saying that anthropogenic CO2 is but a fraction of the total prove that it has no effect on climate? That's like saying alcohol is but a fraction of a Foster's, so it can't have any effect on your sobriety....

Mmmmm! Bananas Foster!

http://www.brennansneworleans.com/r_bananasfoster.html