Comments by "Zizi Mugen" (@zizimugen4470) on "VICE"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So even though I'm stating the facts that it's a natural cycle, and that humans are accelerating the rate at which this cycle is happening on this round, please do NOT think that I'm supportive of oil industries, fracking, forestry, etc. That stuff has gotten way out of hand, it's old, and we're doing something wrong. If our modern structures are falling after a few hundred years, and ancient structures are standing after earthquakes and thousands of years, then we're obviously doing something wrong, and we need to go back and learn from antiquity.
I am a geology student. I am a crystal-waving festival-going hippie weirdo. I am a US citizen who despises the current business model of screw or be screwed. I think money is the most useless thing ever invented. I'm in geology simply to destroy modern science by finding how we see things today, and using that to understand how what we see today can be seen in another perspective in order to help humanity to advance in peace with one another, and in harmony with the cycles and systems of this planet.
I am not your enemy. I am one of your other perspectives on life that you may not have seen yet.
1
-
Oh. Well in that case, I deeply apologize. Too often have I gotten self-righteous know-it-alls to respond on youtube, so I hope you can forgive me for not making the distinction between their comments and yours. So! On with the conversation.
Starting it early, not necessarily. For instance, by normal means, you can't rev a car's engine unless it's already turned on and running. Once it's running in its normal idle process, it's already on its life cycle. And the life cycle for the closed system of a car will eventually reach a point of balance, which is the death of the car (but Earth is both a closed and an open system; so on its own, Earth would eventually, naturally, lead to being uninhabitable. But because we're open in that we receive events from the solar system and galaxy around us, our eventual-deadening process is constantly offset, and variations of the same normally closed cycles occur.). When we rev the engine out of idle, we do effectively shorten its lifespan.
Hopefully that imagery is clear enough for you (as I gave a small "wtf did I just write" at the end before double-checking). We've been coming out of an ice age for a few hundred years (some mini-freezes happening within that time), so coming out of an ice age must mean its reciprocal: we're becoming warmer. Otherwise, we'd still be in that same ice age's main kick. The industrial revolution was the start of the acceleration, but we were coming out of the most recent ice age even before that. So the engine was already running, and the planet was getting warmer. But the industrial revolution started up as the planet was already warming, and things began to "snowball" (or reverse-snowball, rather) from there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So you have seen everything that's done? You've seen every bit of research to determine that it's 99% who are telling the truth, university professors, the USGS, and other national geologic organizations are, with foundations of chemistry, meteorology, oceanography, and various studies within geology such as vulcanology, seismology, etc. are lying about the information that we gather from observations of climate effects from ancient strata of both rock and ice, chemical release of volcanoes and atmospheric fission, and composition of types of rock relative to the chemical properties of atmospheric composition?
Do your homework. Al Gore didn't study half the content I've studied, and I'm hardly an intermediate geology student right now.
Tell me your sources so that I can see what they say besides, "We're polluting and causing climate change." They probably don't look at chemical composition in layers of strata, markers of sea level change throughout history, or the smallest fraction of what I just shared with you.
1
-
Because Vice has a team of researchers on staff.
Look, to what I recall, none of the scientists Vice has interviewed have said that we are the cause; they say that things are happening, and humans are accelerating the rate at which it happens.
But that often gets misinterpreted into the thought that we are the cause. Maybe I misheard though. There are many people from many scientific divisions that say that we cause it, but the general consensus is that we are not the cause, but a contributor. You'd actually have to pay people to word things differently, since environmental hysteria is actually a lucrative business. If you tell people that it's a natural cycle, people won't worry and be fearful. And if people aren't frightened, they can't be controlled as easily. But by saying that we cause it, one can cause hysteria, and then get people to drop money onto carbon emission offset companies like Gore's, which is really just going toward his light bill, since it's his own company. Paying his own emission offset is his way of sending money from one pocket to the other while taking other people's money. He uses the profits to travel the country and scare all the little kiddies into thinking that humans are destroying the planet; but really, no matter what we do, even nuclear war, the planet will still carry out cycles. The inconvenience is that we may not be able to adapt with the changes that happen.
It's the definition of a hazard. It's only a hazard if it affects humans; otherwise, it's a natural process.
Do your homework though. Look up the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode on global warming. It's more effective than the fear propaganda and intentional misinformations you seem to love.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1