There are two basic opinion about climate change. The first opinion is that climate change has appeared as a result of the expansion of human activities after the Industrial Revolution. In fact, human beings have warmed the earth excessive with greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists have confirmed the warming of the Earth with GCMs (Global Climate Model). The researchers' findings resulted in a chart called the Hockey Stick Graph. It showed that in the past 1000 years the Earth has never been so warm.
But there are still some who believe that these changes are not related to human activities. This is the second opinion. They believe that climate change is a natural process on Earth. After the US presidential election and the election of Donald Trump, these statements have intensified. Trump exited out of the Paris climate agreement, saying the agreement would not be beneficial for the United States! If the first opinion is correct, he has sacrificed the Earth for his own fleeting benefits. The concentration of carbon dioxide is rising dramatically and the Arctic glaciers are retreating every day. The sea level is raised annually. Many plant and animal species are at risk of extinction. Earth's condition seems to be not at all desirable.
It should be noted that the owners of many of the factories and companies that are polluting the air will be in advocate of the second opinion. Otherwise they are likely to be subject to restrictions and their products may be reduced and their interests are at the danger. So they will do their most effort to promote the second opinion.
What is your opinion on this topic?
Climate Change is all politics, Amin Sadeqi.
Even though the DoD is the largest institutional user of petroleum products and energy, the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements. We are being made to hide our heads in the sand (like an ostrich supposedly) by not including the military in all decision making situations on climate change. According to the report A Climate of War – the War in Iraq and Global Warming: "After the United States demanded and won exemptions and concessions on the effects of the military on climate change, George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol as one of the first acts of his presidency, alleging it would straitjacket the US economy with too costly greenhouse gas emissions controls". Is it not politics: requiring the world to be straight jacketed and allowing the Superpowers to go Scott free???
If that is not politics the following definitely is:
President Obama had justified war by stating, “When the only tool you have is a hammer, the solution to every problem looks like a nail.” This is exactly the aim of US approach; they offer a military solution for every problem.
War is an entropy driven proposition, i.e. it is at the cost of enthalpy, implying the resources. Cost of War in Iraq exceeded $4 trillion and lives of hundreds of thousands of people, both Americans and Iraqis, the outcome is a complete destabilization of Iraq and the whole middle east. During the first Gulf War, the US bombed Iraq with 340 tonnes of missiles containing depleted uranium. Since the war Falluja has seen an increase of disabled children that some have suggested is linked to US bombs containing depleted uranium.
“The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health has just published an epidemiological study, “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009,” which has found, among much else, that Fallujah is experiencing higher rates of cancer, leukemia and infant mortality than Hiroshima and Nagasaki did in 1945.”
Is it not politics that the Super Powers use a hammer to kill the flies while Countries around the world call for the ban of depleted uranium. When asked in 2003 about Iraq’s complaints about depleted uranium shells, Colonel James Naughton of U.S. Army Material Command stated in a Pentagon briefing that “They want it to go away because we kicked the crap out of the them.”
The obvious agenda of politicizing the issue of Climate change is to create opportunities for defense contractors who expect rising demand for their military products and services in the ongoing wars and to respond to the security concerns that may arise as results of droughts, floods, and storm events.
Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
Dear Amin,
Please have a look at these useful PDF attachments.
Good luck!
Yes..business policies and politics at international level affect science of climate change..
Amin, what you say is not accurate - it is important to accurately define what is being debated. You state that there are two opinions, the first that climate change has appeared as a result of the expansion of human activities after the Industrial Revolution, and the second that these changes are not related to human activities. This is rather inaccurate and it is important to appreciate exactly what the argument is about.
(1) The debate involves CLIMATE CHANGE, not local WEATHER, and it is about GLOBAL climate change - so many factors go into determining local weather patterns that arguing from local data using a limited number of variables is of little value (e.g. the temperature of Persian Gulf water). It is the mean temperature of the entire Earth that is being discussed.
(2) Few informed people dispute that climate change is occurring at all, and the evidence against that idea is overwhelming.
(3) Most would accept that climate change has always occurred throughout Earth history - we know gross patterns of change over long periods (e.g. the glacial and interglacial periods well illustrated by the ice cores as well as shorter and more local warmings and coolings).
(4) The debate is about whether there has been an INCREASED RATE of change above what would have been expected, and whether it is constantly in one direction (WARMING) since the industrial revolution, and whether it has been caused by human activities since then (i.e. that it is ANTHROPOGENIC). So the question is whether there is GLOBAL ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE primarily involving accelerated warming above the expected "natural" rate of warming, caused by human activities. There are secondary arguments in this, like what can we expect in the future (models vary greatly from business almost as usual to "save us the sky is falling and humans will be extinct later this century")? Is it enough to matter and affect life and civilisation (one degree is a lot in a hundred years if it were to continue at that rate)? Can it be stopped, how long would that take, at what rate should we take counter-measures if we consider it matters, would low-lying areas still have become inundated otherwise but over a much longer period of time, would we go into a natural phase of cooling anyway because we are near the peak of an interglacial period? Interglacial periods are always better for life than glacial periods but conversely humans only evolved with temperatures not more than a couple of degrees hotter, and temperatures have never been more than about six degrees higher since the Mesozoic.
(5) It is naturally highly political because it is a debate about animal (including human) and plant life and survival, civilizations and economies (rapid economic change can affect standards of living and human health etc., including their improvement in the Third World). Even though I consider there is good evidence for global anthropogenic climate change, and even though businesses would like it to go away, I think it is also simplistic to say it is simply a case of ignoring science for business profit. But I also think it requires far more serious debate than simply saying that nothing has changed in my own backyard, or it is only one degree....understand what the argument is about.
Climate Change is all politics, Amin Sadeqi.
Even though the DoD is the largest institutional user of petroleum products and energy, the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements. We are being made to hide our heads in the sand (like an ostrich supposedly) by not including the military in all decision making situations on climate change. According to the report A Climate of War – the War in Iraq and Global Warming: "After the United States demanded and won exemptions and concessions on the effects of the military on climate change, George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol as one of the first acts of his presidency, alleging it would straitjacket the US economy with too costly greenhouse gas emissions controls". Is it not politics: requiring the world to be straight jacketed and allowing the Superpowers to go Scott free???
If that is not politics the following definitely is:
President Obama had justified war by stating, “When the only tool you have is a hammer, the solution to every problem looks like a nail.” This is exactly the aim of US approach; they offer a military solution for every problem.
War is an entropy driven proposition, i.e. it is at the cost of enthalpy, implying the resources. Cost of War in Iraq exceeded $4 trillion and lives of hundreds of thousands of people, both Americans and Iraqis, the outcome is a complete destabilization of Iraq and the whole middle east. During the first Gulf War, the US bombed Iraq with 340 tonnes of missiles containing depleted uranium. Since the war Falluja has seen an increase of disabled children that some have suggested is linked to US bombs containing depleted uranium.
“The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health has just published an epidemiological study, “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009,” which has found, among much else, that Fallujah is experiencing higher rates of cancer, leukemia and infant mortality than Hiroshima and Nagasaki did in 1945.”
Is it not politics that the Super Powers use a hammer to kill the flies while Countries around the world call for the ban of depleted uranium. When asked in 2003 about Iraq’s complaints about depleted uranium shells, Colonel James Naughton of U.S. Army Material Command stated in a Pentagon briefing that “They want it to go away because we kicked the crap out of the them.”
The obvious agenda of politicizing the issue of Climate change is to create opportunities for defense contractors who expect rising demand for their military products and services in the ongoing wars and to respond to the security concerns that may arise as results of droughts, floods, and storm events.
Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
I agree with Beg views, For sake of superiority , big powers can do anything
for informative and interesting discussion, I also believe that most developed countries add maximum carbon foot prints
China has by far the largest total annual CO2 emissions, but the USA or Brunei and perhaps Jordan and Saudi Arabia have the largest per capita annual emissions, with Kazakhstan close behind (Iran is 60% higher than France). However one should really look at which countries have the largest per capita carbon footprint by production versus consumption (i.e. are they simply using it but not producing as a result). Qatar, Kuwait and the UAR head the list. The Western powers, except just recently USA, have instituted plans to limit their emissions (actually ultimately wind them back) while not putting the same constraints on developing countries (so as to let them catch up industrially). So it is not so simple.....
Certainly yes. (My opinion).
There is politics. Only that I will keep my view point to myself but climatologists are under the burden of politics and I'm sure it's not easy for them to come out with accurate science from there without looking back at the funders and the hosts.
Unfortunately even statistics are political, and I don't have time to check raw data, simply to note that this is part of the political argument. http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/population-growth-vs-emissions-growth/ shows two conflicting graphs. "Emissions grew much more sharply than population from 1950 onwards, with the only exceptions being during the economic recessions of the early 1980’s, early 1990’s, and around 2000. Since 2000, emissions have been growing at something close to double the population growth rate". And of course in the developing world there has been huge population growth but little per capita emissions growth, while in the developed world it has been exactly the opposite, the two compensating to some degree. Again, it is very political and not at all simple (eg one argument would be that there is a broad correlation, the other that if the last 20 years is part of a future long-term trend, then emissions will accelerate dramatically).
Wish life is so simple, Amin, simple as the landscape of Tabriz.
No, science has always been political, for the last 10000 years. That makes it more interesting. This is the real 'political science'. I would call it the commercialization of science, that is being applied in par with current neocolonization efforts, and is laced with militarization as well (as we saw above the skies of Syria last week).
After a couple of years of hitting my head on the walls, I am still trying to get a grip on the question of climate. Will connect you to that discussion first, because the same arguments were posted then.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_air_CO2_concentration_the_main_culprit_driving_the_recent_continuous_warming_of_some_regions_of_the_planet
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_way_global_warming_cooling_is_estimated_could_mislead_us_if_there_occurs_an_offset_in_daily_temp_pattern_with_the_calendar_isnt_that_so
It is not really science itself that is political in its philosophy, it is corruption of the philosophy of science that is political, such as pressures placed on scientists by non-scientists to be corrupt or simply silent. And also the representation of science by scientists and non-scientists who do not work in that field of science but who either are trying to understand it (like me), or those who wish to represent it. One could say the same about any philosophy.... Amin's subject title might better be "Is the representation of the science of climate change affected by politics"? The science itself is not affected.
The science itself is not political - the pressure groups and the scientists who fold under that pressure are. One persons conspiracy "consensus" is another's current scientific dogma derived by peer revue, and I meet few if any scientists who do not really believe what they are doing although obviously there would be some (but some others certainly kid themselves, and many simply plod along without much original input). I agree that it can be difficult (but not impossible) to get a contrary idea published, even if it is good work, but the problem there is that the philosophy of science is not being followed. However anyone who can convincingly dismantle an important part of any current dogma would get published somewhere and their career would be made - there would be more kudos in that that simply adding incrementally to more of the same, and no shortage of research grants. That is a general statement relating to the practice of science, not specifically climate science.
In the area of climate science I see few contrary views that I would consider solid science among those papers that do get published, but few areas of endeavour have attracted such systematic attempts to denigrate the scientists involved, predominantly by those who know little about what climate scientists are actually saying (obviously there are exceptions) - many of whom have a vested interest in discrediting the science. I accept human failings but I am not into massive conspiracy theories. Being a new science it certainly got off to false starts as it moved from an area dominated by geologists and geochemists (palaeoclimatology) to one dominated by physicists and meteorologists, and many of the former pointed out shortcomings in the new science in the early days. The biggest area of weakness that I see remaining is modelling and forward projection. I will bow out now.
This article in Smithsonian explains you a partial history of 'political science'
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-bears-fingerprints-colonialism-180968709/?utm_source=smithsonianhistandarch&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=201804-hist&spMailingID=33897179&spUserID=NzA2NDQxNjg3NjY0S0&spJobID=1261891415&spReportId=MTI2MTg5MTQxNQS2
I have entered into this debate earlier and suggested that 2 billion carbon feet is not degrading Earth's environment by the emissions as much as lust for gaining supremacy in trade and weapons and using up the fast depleting world resources.
It may be noted that the problem lies in the misuse of S&T. Provided as sense organs for welfare of us humans, S&T is being misused to overpower nature and natural forces. Starting from stones, sticks, bows and arrows, S&T has gone for gun powder, guns, bombs, missiles and drones that have enabled the greedy humans to wage warfare using lethal weapons just to overpower an adversary, at the cost of limited resources of the Earth.
Several trillion dollar worth of resources are being made unavailable by the entropy driven lust for supremacy. Millionaires have become billionaires and billionaires are rolling in trilions, all climbing up the ladder of technology; but then to what end? ???
This is where it is important to revisit: Ehlrich's equation: I = PAT, where I is Impact, P is population, A is affluence and T is technology. This has been modified in the light of:
Ecosystem Balance = economic development + social development, while
Impact of Development = Impact of population growth + Impact of social development seeking affluence + Impact of Technology (promoting supremacy in trade and weapons) + Impact of improvement in quality of life.
It is apparent from the paper:
Research Demographic Transition: Impact of Population Control – Techn...
that the objectives of development processes which aim at improvement in quality of life of humankind have been hijacked not just for improving the quality of life of people and provide affluence but promoted their supremacy in trade and weapons through technological development.
With regard to one ppm increase in Global CO2 emission being equivalent to production of two BILLION metric tons of CO2 by {~7.5 billion population + technology}, if only the warring countries could slow down their race to superiority by containing the accelerated use of technology, S&T for arms build up; the rich could share their richness with the less privileged, and the poor engaged in conservation of resources, we may be able to reduce the level of CO2 by a fair bit. If we restrain the bombing spree and also the misuse of S&T for warfare/supremacy, simple maths will show that there may be no need to capture and then geologically store CO2.
Please do keep in mind the quote "Hate begets Hatred and Terror begets Terrorism, but terrorism cannot be annihilated."
Research Hate Begets Hatred and Terror Begets Acts of Terrorism Part ...
Each war including the current war on terrorism is costing the warring countries over US$5 trillion; the beneficiary is the Arms Industry and the so called defense contractors.
So Dear All, let us all wish that the warring nations take note that terror or terrorism cannot be eliminated, some formulae have to be worked out so that every one can live in peace.
Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
Very Healthy discussion by enneth M Towe and Martin James Hughes
Thanks for a befitting assessment, Kenneth M. Twoe.
Herewith is a Paper: Research Living in Entropy Driven World Socio-Physicochemical Interpr...
that possibly responds to your observation: Consider who started and planned this lengthy and costly war and who will be the monetary beneficiaries...continually warning us to "act now" as they fly off to yet another meeting to discuss the climate.
Excerpts of the Abstract of this Paper follow:
Countries with Corruption Perception Index, CPI (6.0 – 8.5) have been working for democratizing capitalism and mixing-in militarism. With large size of their economy, they have been able to harness the driving force for enjoying-the-richness psyche, and have mixed-in militarism for achieving supremacy in trade and weapons. There is no serious commitment from them for changing their psyche to the sustainable process of sharing-the-resources
Same Countries have, since the end of World War II, been following the Bretton Woods in an attempt to break the vicious circle, which is responsible for inducing corruption/social pollution, and disfavoring virtuous circle. Application of the principles of Physicochemical Sociology to extremism/terrorism suggests that on incidence of extreme measures such as War on Terror (Terrorism), the terrorized will prepare and be in readiness for defense. This action will likely be due to the realization that terror will sooner or later beget terror and hence there will be an urgent need for readjustment.
Reversal of the process is generally sought by Military Action as the only alternative. That however has been seen in earlier actions to set a vicious circle in motion and instead of annihilating or even containing the impact of terrorism, the process of democratizing capitalism and mixing-in militarism continues unabated.
Case examples are presented in the Paper to show how the entropy-driven governance system is systematically and intentionally perpetuating the entropy-driven vicious circle and irreversibly sapping the energy and material resources of the Earth in general and of the adversaries in particular.
The past century has witnessed the American economy being built on war and is still continuing to create crisis after crisis just to perpetuate an entropy-driven state on the world at large and grabbing that as an opportunity. Sustaining an entropy-driven economy is not without cost. America has waged many wars and abandoned when it reached a no-win situation or the break-even point (point of non-sustainability) had been reached, but not before onset of economic recession. This time they are in alliance with all those who can democratize capitalism and mix-in militarism.
Keeping the atomic weapons and maintaining atomic arsenals is not an economically viable proposition. The USA as well as Russia were both unable to maintain them. One of the reasons for the cold war adversaries to agree to reduction of the inventory of their arsenals was their high maintenance cost. An earlier study had estimated that the USA had to incur an expenditure of $4 trillion to maintain its superiority in atomic weapons. The warring countris have not learnt any lessons form the huge impoverishment of the depleting resources and are now looking for much more lethal nuclear options.
"The Americans have, after the successful dismemberment of the USSR, turned to fulfill the unfinished agenda of the Sykes-Picot Agreement to dismember the Ottoman Empire and to make sure that there is no United Arab kingdom in the Middle East after World War I. Under the Sykes-Picot agreement, the British and the French drew new boundaries, fracturing the Middle East. The hidden agenda was to perpetuate an entropy driven status over Greater Syria and to transform the Middle East.
The Americans have finally succeeded in using the threat of terrorism as a pretext to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and to terrify Pakistan as a prelude to invade the country and have only partially been successful in their efforts to terrify Iran but have successfully alienated Iran and Saudi Arabia from Muslim Brotherhood.
The intervention by US-led coalition in March 2003 in Iraq provided huge impetus to the arms industry but their production entailed an equally huge waste of global resources; leave aside the terrible impact on the environment of the country on which the war was fought. It is not the physical environment that has been irreversibly damaged but the social fabric and the social aspect of sustainability principles that has been worse degraded. It has demonstrated its disregard for sustainability principles in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Bosnia Herzegovina and Afghanistan by almost completely destroying these Countries physically, socially and economically. The countries just named are in shambles after over a decade of skirmishes and war, but Americans have not stopped looking for greener pastures to engage in wars."
American empire has attained such status that traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All its enemies, including former enemies and allies do not pose any military threat since it has become the largest arms supplier of the world. The most likely forms of threat to the USA are terrorist actions, rather than conventional warfare. American Oligarchy has accordingly been spending on arms for supporting covert US military activities, including interventions, throughout the world. The American citizens as well as the people of countries where American democracy has been exported are therefore living in an entropy-driven world.
Remember Dear All, This is an entropy driven world; you cannot ask questions nor can you give answers. Pray if you believe in Almighty Allah.
Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
I agree with @ Arben J Salihu that reaching broad consensus on the SCIENCE FINDINGS is being affected by politics.
We could observe it several times at several foros, not only in Kioto.
Let's believe, though, that (most) scientists are independent people, rebellious and devoted to science, not politics.
Only science can speak louder and more effectively than politics, can't it?
Our land, water and soil support a remarkable range of human activities, but they can only take so much and we must remember to treat them not as a given but as a gift,” he told supporters in Michigan. “These issues know no ideology, no political boundaries. It’s not a liberal or conservative thing we’re talking about.
I agree with Dr Kenneth statement "Science by consensus has never been been acceptable" claiming climate change is a motto of politicians. But I have a question to Dr. Kenneth. "Why my county is becoming hotter every year?
Dear Amin,
The topic has been discussed in the following published journal articles. These may be useful.
Politics and Climate Change: Exploring the Relationship Between Political Parties and Climate Issues in Latin America
Article Politics and climate change: Exploring the relationship betw...
Power and politics in climate change adaptation efforts: Struggles over authority and recognition in the context of political instability
Article Power and politics in climate change adaptation efforts: Str...
The national and local politics of climate change adaptation in Zimbabwe
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17565529.2014.934777
The Impacts of Climate Change on the World’s Economic, Political, and Demographic Structures
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/art_sci_etds/14/
Climate Change Politics
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-062011-154926
The Impact of Climate on Political, Social, and Economic Change: A Comment. https://www.jstor.org/stable/203067?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
The Global Politics of Climate Change - Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/global-politics-of-climate-change-challenge-for-political-science/58CFD111F52793A6B12C57691A1420B2
Essays on the Politics and Political Effects of Climate Change. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1j908363
Regards
Yes it is true, the subject "Climate Change" is no more in the hands of scientists and researchers. It is purely part of international politics and economy. Scientists and researchers have focus eyes on climate changes but decision about mitigation measures is in the hands of politicians.
Kenneth Towe
You keep on disseminating your false data on the increase in temperature
Depending on your audience you have other data
1. The increase is not a "fractional" degree
2. The increase in atmospheric CO2 occurred for almost the full extent over the past 50 yeras NOT 200 years
Ken
My final answer, as always:
study climatology and notice that an increase of 0.83 C is a huge number for climate change
Dr. Harry Do you believe that increase of the 0.83 C air temperature is due to human activity or is it a natural process?
dr Sadeqi:
I refer to a much better authority: IPCC
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Ken
You mix up science and politcal opinions in one sentence
As a physico-chemist nad having worked in the realm of atmospheric chemistry I want to and can judge the atmospheric science part of climate change; for the rest I am just a voting citizen
First have the scientific data and facts right then there is the projection to the future of a possible change
and then the political appreciation of that change and measures (yes or no and at what expenses): not my area of expertise and so my opinion is worth the common 2 cents
And why should I comment on your opinion about others in this forum who communicate with you?
dr Sadeqi
In addition I like the analysis of
Vaughan Pratt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughan_Pratt)
here:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/03/natural-climate-variability-during-1880-1950-a-response-to-shaun-lovejoy/
This is another view about climate 'science' by none other than Freeman Dyson who lost the Nobel Prize for Quantum Electrodynamics, simply because they would not give it to a group of 4 people!
http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
mr Yapa
Thank you for the interesting interview.
He has a view that is shared by others who are better qualified than he himself admits
Glad that you liked it. Not sure how you 'qualify' comments? For me, if a comment passes the test of 'common sense' that is what counts.
Dyson admits he is no expert and mentions that he is the only one with a differing opinion and that he would like some younger scientists to vent the same opinion
But there are meteorologists who do so, while ackoledging temperature increase
To name a few
Judith Curry, Roy Spencer
and the more popular site Whattsupwiththat that claims to be the most visited site on Global Warming
Continuing from where I left 15 days ago:
Dear All
I am emphatic on the point that the whole world seems to have only one Agenda: "DEMOCRATIZE CAPITALISM; MIX IN MILITARISM, AND DEPLETE THE EARTH'S RESOURCES AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE FOR NO ONE KNOWS IF TOMORROW COMES HOME AT ALL"
Every body knows that it is hard to reverse the Entropy-driven Plan set to escalate to acquisition the resources that are fast depleting. Nine tenth of the Global Population is a helpless spectator to implementation of the Agenda because in one way or the other it is under some obligation to the ONE TENTH that constitutes the ruling elites.
The difficulty lies in the naked truth that the elites are not stopping at Democratizing
Capitalism and fixing the resources into wealth but they are mixing in militarism and capitalism to achieve-maintain-sustain Supremacy at the cost of resources that lie in the domain of the NINE TENTH.
What a Pity! We can only lament and cannot even advise on THE UNIVERSAL LAW: THE LAST PERSON WHO CAN SAVE AN ACCIDENT AND DOES NOT SAVE THE ACCIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCIDENT.
Clearly it is the ONE TENTH that can save the accident and is not saving the accident.
We engage ourseves in commemorating Earth Day and Environment day.
It is now time to engage all concerned, including ourselves into learning Lessons such as the following:
LESSONS TO LEARN
1. Resource impoverishment is cause for downfall of Imperialism/Expansionism/ Extremism.
2. Resource fixation into wealth and diversion of wealth into building arsenal of arms is war against humanity.
3. The war of hatred has never been won by perpetuating the Hate Game because "Hate begets hatred, and Terror begets terrorism but neither hatred nor terrorism has been annihilated; they assume different forms instead.”
Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
Ken
It is apparent you just do not read replies or comments of others
I gave you a reply point be point but as always you write not even before you read but you refuse to read the replies by others here
You just keep on with the same riddle on and on
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change