Posts by Rivergang

it only takes a couple of degree's to change the earth from being cold, to becoming an iceball. Or, going the other direction in temperature , a tolerance of a couple of degree's that drives extinction events.

Joey, you have nailed it there!

This marked retreat of the Tasman and other of New Zealand's glaciers has occurred in less than 20 years, during which the country's average temperature has increased by 0.3 degrees Celsius (when compared with the thirty year average temperatures 1961-1990).

i.e. A temperature increase of not even one third of a degree Celsius has been enough to remove long lengths from what once were large glaciers, and leave in each place a terminal lake.

(New Zealand's thirty year average temperature 1961 to 1990 was 12.47 deg.C. The country's average over the seventeen years 2000 to 2016 - while this rapid glacial retreat has taken place - is 12.77 deg.C)

For anybody that is interested, this data can be found via the following link

Temperature | Stats NZ

42

More lies from fake news.

by mickbobcat in

news is broadcasting that death valley is getting close to breaking a record.

the highest air temp recorded is 134 but that was in 1913 way before the huge spike in co2.

now its 130 and its the end of the world.

Rivergang

Climate change is not all just a construct of the MSM, Fake News or similar.

The above photograph is of Lake Tasman, in New Zealand's Mt Cook National Park. As little as just 20 years ago, this was a glacier. Since then, the Tasman Glacier has greatly retreated to the point that it now has a sizeable terminal lake. Prior to that, the Tasman Glacier did advance and retreat over the decades, but never to the point that a terminal lake formed (not even close, in fact!).

A similar situation has also developed on the opposite flank of Aoraki / Mt Cook, where the Hooker Glacier has likewise retreated so far that a large terminal lake has now formed where there was none before.

18

Catholicism and Orthodoxy- 2000 yrs of experience

by Powermetal4ever in

alright this has been in my brain lately: both catholic church and the orthodox church has been around for about 2000 years, shouldn't they know how to practice christendom correctly by now?

jw hasn't even been around for 200 years and yet they say they do it right.

so silly of them.

Rivergang

In the late 15th Century, when Catholic missionaries from Portugal arrived in India to convert the "heathen", they found a well-established Christian community already there. Local tradition had it that this had been founded by St Thomas the Apostle, possibly as early as 52 AD.

Also, that term "Orthodox" is a rather general term which covers quite a spectrum of different churches, including the likes of the Egyptian Coptic Church and the Ethiopian Coptic Church. Established in Alexandria - and claiming the year in 33 AD as its founding date - the Egyptian Coptic Church is certainly one of the oldest Christian churches in the world. With such a diverse mix of churches under the general classification of "Orthodox", it almost goes without saying that they don't always agree with one another! Which shades further doubt on the idea that there ever was such a thing as a "Pure Church".

31

Since You Have Left The Religion Are You Happier?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i realize that some activist exjws really don’t seem to be happy in life.

they finally got away from the organization and yet seem still negatively connected to it.

some exjws are always upset because of what the “truth “ did to their lives, which is understandable.

Rivergang

Don’t mean to come over as a smart-@$$, but I would put that question in the category of a “No-Brainer”!

34

20 Years Occupying Afghanistan, Nothing Achieved

by Simon in

so the occupation of afghanistan is coming to an end and, as predicted, they achieved absolutely nothing in that 20 years apart from:.

the death of 2,300+ service personnel and tens of thousands more seriously maimed or injured.. handing $billions or even $trillions of taxpayer dollars to defence contractors (so the military industrial complex wins, even if the military doesn't have a clear victory).. has this lengthy but short-term military occupation really changed anything in the country?

it doesn't appear so.. i said at the time that the us wouldn't have the staying power to enact real change.

Rivergang

Afghanistan is impossible to rule but easy to overthrow the government.

That sums the whole situation up perfectly!

34

20 Years Occupying Afghanistan, Nothing Achieved

by Simon in

so the occupation of afghanistan is coming to an end and, as predicted, they achieved absolutely nothing in that 20 years apart from:.

the death of 2,300+ service personnel and tens of thousands more seriously maimed or injured.. handing $billions or even $trillions of taxpayer dollars to defence contractors (so the military industrial complex wins, even if the military doesn't have a clear victory).. has this lengthy but short-term military occupation really changed anything in the country?

it doesn't appear so.. i said at the time that the us wouldn't have the staying power to enact real change.

Rivergang

Further to the post by Anony Mous, you have to wonder about the effectiveness of aerial bombardment. It would seem that it has seldom lived up to the expectations of the air commanders.

Between the two world wars, there were those who thought that aerial bombardment was going to win wars all on its own, thus making all the world's navies and ground forces obsolete (e.g. Giulio Douhet's 1921 work The Command of the Air). In reality, though, carpet bombing of population centres (such as London in 1940) failed to collapse civilian morale - possibly even causing it to stiffen. Also, despite an intensive bombing campaign by the air forces of Britain and the USA, German production of armaments actually kept on increasing during the years 1942-1944.

That aerial bombardment during the Vietnam War was largely ineffective was certainly not due to lack of quantity!

Between 1964 and 1975, US and Allied air forces expended 7.5 million tons of high explosive ordinance on Indochina. This was more than twice the total amount (3.5 million tons) of bombs that the Allies dropped on the Axis countries (both in Europe and in Asia) in all of WWII. In Laos, this effort failed to cut the infamous "Ho Chi Minh Trail", and in Cambodia, it made what was already a difficult situation much worse. (In Vietnam, it would seem to have been very much a blunt instrument - most notable for inflicting horrendous casualties on civilians)

Altogether, yet another case of unrealistic expectations being made of aerial bombardment.

34

20 Years Occupying Afghanistan, Nothing Achieved

by Simon in

so the occupation of afghanistan is coming to an end and, as predicted, they achieved absolutely nothing in that 20 years apart from:.

the death of 2,300+ service personnel and tens of thousands more seriously maimed or injured.. handing $billions or even $trillions of taxpayer dollars to defence contractors (so the military industrial complex wins, even if the military doesn't have a clear victory).. has this lengthy but short-term military occupation really changed anything in the country?

it doesn't appear so.. i said at the time that the us wouldn't have the staying power to enact real change.

Rivergang

While guerrilla warfare certainly played a role in Vietnam, the Viet Minh / Viet Cong / NVA had more at their disposal that just small arms. Where it counted, Communist forces had firepower aplenty, with which in the year 1954 they blasted the French army into surrender at a place called Dien Bien Phu.

Dien Bien Phu French Defeat in Vietnam. - YouTube

Some 15 years later, American forces met a similar situation at an outpost called Khe Sanh.

Battlefield Vietnam - Siege At Khe Sanh - YouTube

During that best-forgotten war in South East Asia, the United States and its allies were not defeated by just the AK-47 alone. (In fact, amongst the Australian forces deployed there, most of the casualties were inflicted by landmines and booby traps).

34

20 Years Occupying Afghanistan, Nothing Achieved

by Simon in

so the occupation of afghanistan is coming to an end and, as predicted, they achieved absolutely nothing in that 20 years apart from:.

the death of 2,300+ service personnel and tens of thousands more seriously maimed or injured.. handing $billions or even $trillions of taxpayer dollars to defence contractors (so the military industrial complex wins, even if the military doesn't have a clear victory).. has this lengthy but short-term military occupation really changed anything in the country?

it doesn't appear so.. i said at the time that the us wouldn't have the staying power to enact real change.

Rivergang

Just in monetary terms alone, the position of the United States and its allies always was untenable. The war cost some two trillion dollars, and Taliban lost between 51,000 and 84,000 fighters.

i.e. it cost between $24 million and $39 million just to kill one Taliban fighter - each and every one of whom could quickly be replaced.

As Kipling so aptly noted even back in his time "The odds are on the cheaper man".

42

More lies from fake news.

by mickbobcat in

news is broadcasting that death valley is getting close to breaking a record.

the highest air temp recorded is 134 but that was in 1913 way before the huge spike in co2.

now its 130 and its the end of the world.

Rivergang

New Zealand sits astride the junction of two of the earth’s major continental plates, and is geologically young. The effect of this, though, is the opposite of what has been suggested.

Rather than slowly sinking into the South Pacific Ocean, the South Island at least is still being pushed upwards by the interaction of those two continental plates, along what is known as “The Alpine Fault” (which slices the island in half on an oblique line running north east-south west). Not exactly rocket science, I recall this from Grade 10 Geography.

The Buller River is not the only issue, either. Similar problems are being experienced all along that section of coastline, well out of the way of the Buller or any other river.

What may or may not be happening in Africa has little bearing on this one.