too much hate and sh*** in this world...

[lokuputha]

About all I watch on there anymore is the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes because I like watching them talk down idiots. lol

I don't like that O'Reilly guy...he just makes all conversations a one man yelling trip.....and after I saw this picture, Hannity & Colmes,



I don't like these guys either...i dont know y

...maybe its just the picture

[owequitit]

I dont think its that the other stations are blatantly liberal, as much as the fact that fox news is so ultra right wing that it makes the others look more left than they really are.

Again the truth lies somewhere in the middle. There are blatantly liberal biased news sources. The New York and LA Times are perfect examples. That is why there was all the stir at CBS when it was found out that they were blatantly misleading during the last election.

That no longer constitutes news, but simply propoganda.

The right has their sources too. The Washington Post and FOX news come to mind...

I also like the Wall Street Journal, because of all the newspapers, theirs position is the least political and their bias is the easiest to detect. They are interested in the allmighty dollar, and only the almighty dollar. If Bush does something to undermine the security of the dollar, you can bet your ass they are all over it like white on rice. They also tend to substantiate their claims with actual numbers, facts and figures, as opposed to rifling off an opinion and making it look objective to sway minds.

They return the same favor for Democrats too.

The real way to see through the situation, is to read all of the sources, pick a point in the middle and go from there.

From the middle you will see the opposed positions clearly. Once you see these positions, then it becomes easy to formulate questions about those positions. Now that you have questions, you can seek answers. The answers to those questions will typically make you realize that the truth does lie in the middle and both sides have good points and bad points. Now you are forced to decide which side is more right from your position, because you can't have both. They are mutually exclusive.

[owequitit]

This thread can only end badly...

I agree that Cheney as president is a scary concept... though I think he's probably more powerful as the VP... out of the main spotlight. George does the dance and Cheney does the dirty. W really is the average American guy (just one that grew up with a buttload of money!)

I personally concentrate on what I can influence directly in my life. I don't bitch about the president, because my quality of life has been pretty much the same through Ron, Sr., Bubba, and W. I don't bitch about the war because I'm not there, and neither are any of my close friends (the one that did go went because he wanted to, went back twice afterwards, and he's home safe now). I don't complain about things I don't understand (like gas prices... you can blame the war, you can blame the middle eastern countries, you can blame the Bush family... I don't know enough to even guess).

If I need more money, I get a better job. Something I have breaks, I fix it or replace it. I get sick, I rest until I get better. I need help, I ask for it. That's my life. That's in my circle of influence. That is what matters to me. As long as I'm capable of doing all those things, I can't honestly complain about anything.

Absolutely.

I feel the same way. The status quo for my family has pretty much remained during the same time period.

Doesn't it seem funny to anyone else that no matter how much the Dem's and Rep's fling poo at each other, the system marches on and the wrinkles work themselves into a glossy finish?

Perhaps there are forces and systems in place that supercede the abilities of the President and Congress.

Of course, I already knew that because it was covered in Civics class. It is called checks and balances, and it works marvelously.

We also have 2 law making teams that are opposed to each other, and just like adding vectors in physics, when all the bitching and flinging is done, we are standing somewhere in the middle.

Hmmmm.....interesting.

[bracersi]

We have been bombing Iraq since the Gulf War and we never stopped. We have occupied Iraq since then as well. Numbers and publicity was just minimized a bit. I sat my ass out in the gulf for a good year from 99-01 and saw a lot of missions involving sam sites and red zones being targets of missions located in Iraq, heard a lot of blast go off, and saw a lot of explosions. We are never actually gonna leave the place. What is going to happen is we are going to put a couple bases down and hang out.
Do I think it is a good idea? Who knows. As far as I am concerned I take a look at what is. Republicans and Democrats a like are both a bunch of hypocrits and together they are going to run this country into the ground. They are more concerned with fighting eachother, other then building this country. Senate hearings are now filled with scandals and power struggles rather then resolving real issues. The media plays off it like a game and it gets worse. Only reason the war is a hot item is because democrats are going to use it to there advantage to make republicans look bad, even though the dems voted for it themselves.
As far as government lies. There never was WMD and everyone knows it. We been so far up suddams ass since 88, that when he farted we could smell it. I say again "we have been occupying Iraq since 88 and never left" and that is a fact. Even if WMD did exist we could have demolished the place in a matter of seconds. In a battle group there is always atleast one ballistic sub. That sub carries 36 nukes, with 100 warheads in each nuke, each one of those warheads has the capability of hiroshima x100. Is Iraq really a threat when we have one of those sitting off the coast of Iraq every second of every day of every year for the past 20 years?
There is no one party to blame either because everyone has there hand in it. Switching the house to dems is not going to change anything. We need a revamp of our government. Bipartisan needs to be promoted and parties themselves need to be looked down upon. We need to start electing officials on there own credibility and not on their affiliated party. We need to start imposing a strict code of conduct upon our elected officials.......possibly the UCMJ. Unfortunately something like that will ever happen. Because the poeple who make the rules are the ones who don't want to follow them.
We blame bush, but the thing is bush is only going to do what people let him do. I don't blame anybody. I can tell you who is responsible for all this though.....the people who voted for these officials knowing damn well what they are going to do, and then they act suprised when shit is all fucked up.
As far as me, I'm done blaming people. I served my country and I cast my vote every election. I did what I needed to do. My view is much like deev's now. I get sick, I rest, I need more money I get a second job, I am hungry I eat.........etc.

[wed3k]

A perfect illustration of apathy, and what will ultimately lead to our failure as a society.

When people get too lazy to fight and just give up.

thats me right there, could care less how much im getting taxed or charged for gas because i already got over the fact of it being so high so i just kinda work around it. already have enough prolems in my life, dont need to start worrying about others.

[texasvtak]

Seriously dude, shrink the sig. Im on 1440x900 right now with aim on the side and I gotta sidescroll.

[owequitit]

While I agree, this has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

Doing community service and being a more considerate person is something I highly recommend for everybody. No matter how shitty your life is, lending a hand to someone less fortunate always feels great, and is beneficial to society.

But...the war in Iraq is not only a huge waste of money and manpower, but it's also the catalyst for an ideological civil war between Dems and Repubs. It's tearing this country apart.

On other forums I frequent the righties are too crazy to even argue with, but I think people here are level-headed enough to take this at face value. Yes, we have interests in the Middle East. Yes, Saddam was a threat...to whom I'm not sure, but definitely more to a bunch of countries besides the U.S.

But perhaps the Middle East wouldn't be so much of a problem for us if we hadn't got involved. The whole thing during the Cold War w/... Afghanistan?... Israel... Iran Contra... our history there isn't exactly peachy keen either.

There were points in history where intervening was necessary for the good of the world. IMO, the last instance of that was...WWII. The Cold War was totally unnecessary, and proof of that exists in China. They have their Communist ideals but their business centers still play a major part in the global economy, and to an extent they're almost allies with the U.S.

Not to be a peace loving hippie but if the US minded it's own business and stopped approaching so many situations w/blind force we'd be in much better shape now. Granted, the economy is probably the strongest it's ever been by any indication, but that doesn't quell people's basic fears of nukes from North Korea or the situation in Iraq never coming to a close.

I made a thread about this on H-T. There are plenty of prosperous countries that keep to themselves. When and why did US decide to take care of the world?

My only point in mentioning IRAQ was to illustrate the point that we went in for good reasons, but those reasons were wrong. Yes, the human race makes mistakes too.

Who knew? We had tons of independent (having nothing to do with the others) information that said we were justified.

We got in there and found out we were wrong. So now that we have gone in, toppled a government, and put a country in a state of crisis, what do we do? If we are doing what we should be, we stay the course.

The problems in the Middle East are manyfold.

1)They don't like us because we are haves and many of them are have nots.

2)Their ultra conservative religious gov't regimes don't like us because freedom is a threat to their power system. We are the bastion of freedom, and are therefore enemy #1. Even if we do nothing in the region, we are a threat to them, because people might get ideas.

3)Part of the animosity level towards us is because of our half assed commitments in the past. We said we would do something, we started to, political tide at home turned and we walked away. The people who we walked away from shouldn't be expected to like that.

4) During the Kennedy Administration, we tightened our ties with Israel. Prior to this, punishment was leveled evenly by Truman and Eisenhower anytime there was a problem. Kennedy began supplying them with weapons.

How do you suppose this makes us look in the face of the Arabs?

Then, when you add the "dabbling" of the US in other area affairs such as elections etc, to make sure that our interests were protected, how do you think that made us look?

We didn't do anything that other countries don't do as well, we simply do it bigger and better because we have the resources.

Is there no meddling on the part of those countries? Not hardly. They get involved with each other all the time.

5)In the Arab world, failure to act swiftly and decisively is a sign of weakness.

When our Embassy in Iran was held hostage for two years, we were perceived as weak and indecisive in that part of the world. Once that perception exists, it is much harder to go back the other way. Once that perception exists, they feel reasonably certain that they can do what they want and we won't do anything because we are weak. Just like a bully on a playground. It is very likely that this is where the belief that we don't have any resolve comes from. Countries with resolve would have started bombing the shit out of Iran the very same day until they folded. We didn't.

6) In Gulf War I Osama Bin Laden became our enemy for a very simple reason. EGO. He is human, and no different from every other megalomaniac that has walked the earth. He had great success with the Mujahedin in Afganistan, and had brought glory and power to himself by helping to get the Taliban into power.

When Kuwait was invaded by IRAQ, he offered to waltz in and take care of IRAQ and protect Kuwait. He wanted the glory in the eyes of Allah.

The Saudis and the Kuwaiti government decided they would rather have the US step in because they knew we could get the job done. So we did.

And we got the job done. But, it was a slap in the face to Bin Laden. Instead of harboring animosity for the Kuwaities, it worked out much better strategically for him to place the blame on us since we are not predominantly Muslim, and we have close ties to Israel. Automatic support among the radicals.

As far as the ideology war goes, it had begun long before the Iraq war. Look at how contentious the election of 2000 was.

On the one side, we had the Democrats, who have become increasing liberal over the last few decades, trying to sell us Global Warming and an end to poverty and Social Security worries. Now I am not a genious, but I have yet to see substantial scientific evidence that substantiates global warming as purely a human endeavor. It is much more likely the result of exiting an ice age (DUH! the temps warm up when you do that!). It looks even more ridiculous in the face of the global cooling scare the greenies tried to sell in the 70's. It was before our time, but I would be willing to bet your local public library has lots of stuff from that time period.

Then they tell us that if we don't change anything, Social Security and Medicare will be perfectly fine. Now again, I am not a genious, but how are we going to be fine if we maintain the status quo, and there are 8 people receiving benefits for every 1 person paying in (the Baby Boomers outnumber us 8:1, and that doesn't count the older generations that have seen a huge increase in average life expectency)? It doesn't add up. But everytime someone mentions that, the poo flinging starts. Why? Because Social Security was part of FDR's New Deal, and that was and still is the cornerstone of the Democratic Parties claim to fame.

How about the budget surplus that was ballyhooed about at the end of Clinton's term? Guess what, it was imaginary. Why?

When the government published a FOWARD LOOKING budget (i.e. they are predicting the future) they have to make certain assumptions, just like you or I do, since we can't see the future.

When they came up with those calculations, they didn't do anything misleading. What they did do, was to assume that the economy would continue to grow at the same rate that it had all through the 90's which was nearly 20% in some cases. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. The economy started to turn down just before the election of 2000. So all of the numbers that were used to calculate that surplus were wrong.

That is why the surplus disappeared right after Bush took office in his first term. His policies hadn't even taken effect yet because he had only been on the job for a few months and the process takes up to several years to really take effect. The Democrats would have you believe that it went to shit because a Republican took office, and a lot of people would buy that. Why? Because they are ignorant of reality and don't know any better.

[owequitit]

Part II

Then on the other side of the fence we have the Republicans.

They tell us that endless deficit spending through lower taxes will save the world because it creates more economic growth. That is true to a point. Lower taxes puts more money into circulation, because the gov't is stealing less of it. Because of the way the tax laws work, we can't just horde it, or they take taxes, so we have to in some way invest or spend it. When we invest it, we are giving someone else the opportunity to succeed, because we have lent them capital to grow, start or restructure. This is a good thing. The rich get richer, and the borrower gets richer too. This is why a capitalist economy grows, and eventually even the poor benefit. Our status quo is much higher today, than it was even in the 70's. Why? We can't really benefit ourselves without in someway shape or form benefitting others too.

The problem with this gov't strategy is what are we going to do when the government really runs out of money? UH OH! There goes the structure that allows the economy to flourish!

It also opens a huge window for foreign investment. We sell debt instruments to raise money (bonds, T-bills, notes, etc). While the vast majority of that money is owed to people right here in the US, over the years, an ever larger amount is held by foreign countries. Japan and China being the 2 largest. What happens if something happens and we need to stand up to China, but they own 20% of our government? By dumping their load, they would topple us without ever shooting a bullet...

Not a good position to be in.

It has also been shown that deficit spending only creates economic growth to a certain extent. We can endlessly drop taxes and increase spending, but at some point we hit the law of diminishing returns. We cut taxes a lot, and the economy only grows a little.

This is my single biggest complaint against the republicans, because this one sole situation could lead to the swift and untimely demise of life as we know it.

I disagree with their stance on stem cell research. We are throwing the promise of treatments that may save thousands of lives out because we don't want to harm a fetus that has already been aborted...at least if we use it for research, it will go to some good instead of just being nothing.

I disagree with their push for religion. I don't need the gov't to tell me a damn thing about what to believe. That was one of the main reasons for the seperation of church and state in the first place. And I sure as hell don't need a moral lecture from those crooks.

I disagree with a lot more, but there is more I want to cover.

While I agree that it would be ideal to go back to isolationism, it just isn't realistic. Have you ever noticed that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place? We are expected to help everybody by sending endless amounts of money to help cloth and feed everybody in the world who wants it, and yet, we are supposed to just sit on the couch like Al Bundy in Married With Children, and endlessly hand out that money without voicing an opinion, objection or concern.

And god forbid if we actually get involved in something if we don't like the results of our spending.

If we do that we are a bunch of greedy bastards! How dare us!

Yet, if France doesn't want to invade Iraq because Saddam owes them over $8 billion and they are afraid that if they do invade, they won't get paid, they are perfectly justified!

Fuck that!

You want my money, fine, but you can bet your ass that I AM going to be involved.

We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't, so we may as well be damned while protecting our own best interests.

Isolation also won't work, because we are no longer isolated or self sufficient. We are dependent on other countries, and they are dependent on us. We either succeed together, or fail together. Succeeding alone is not an option. I suppose failing alone could be. The global economy has made everything so intertwined that we are drawn closer and closer together with more and more common bonds by the day. Maybe that will lead to eventual world peace, because we won't be able to hurt others without hurting ourselves more. In our own self serving nature, this would put us in a position as a race where we are very hesitant to hurt others. That is a good thing.

[sackingz123]

holy crap.... ...

[wed3k]

Seriously dude, shrink the sig. Im on 1440x900 right now with aim on the side and I gotta sidescroll.

feg

[HondaB18]

On the one side, we had the Democrats, who have become increasing liberal over the last few decades, trying to sell us Global Warming and an end to poverty and Social Security worries. Now I am not a genious, but I have yet to see substantial scientific evidence that substantiates global warming as purely a human endeavor. It is much more likely the result of exiting an ice age (DUH! the temps warm up when you do that!). It looks even more ridiculous in the face of the global cooling scare the greenies tried to sell in the 70's. It was before our time, but I would be willing to bet your local public library has lots of stuff from that time period.

I'm not gonna comment on the other stuff (political, news, Bush, Iraq, WMD etc) but I'll comment on this. Have you read Diary of a Dying Planet? I'm not claiming that the article is 100% accurate but they do have some interesting points in the article. Although I am not a tree hugging environmentalist I do care for the environment to a lesser extent. I know that natural disasters do happen but with the recent strings of natural disasters that have happended within a short amount of time (tsunami in asia pacific, hurricane Kartina along with the other storms that followed, earthquakes in Hawaii etc) its proof enough for me to be persuaded that something is about to happen (not necessarily Global Warming but leaning to it).

[ACC0RD22]

I'm not gonna comment on the other stuff (political, news, Bush, Iraq, WMD etc) but I'll comment on this. Have you read Diary of a Dying Planet? I'm not claiming that the article is 100% accurate but they do have some interesting points in the article. Although I am not a tree hugging environmentalist I do care for the environment to a lesser extent. I know that natural disasters do happen but with the recent strings of natural disasters that have happended within a short amount of time (tsunami in asia pacific, hurricane Kartina along with the other storms that followed, earthquakes in Hawaii etc) its proof enough for me to be persuaded that something is about to happen (not necessarily Global Warming but leaning to it).

I think alot of the natural disasters have to do with yellowstone (as wierd as that my sound). Its fairly well known that its a supervolcano, and that its due to erupt in the near future (normal eruprion cycle is ~10k years, were somewhere around year 10,200 since the last eruption, or something.) Since yellowstone is such a large patch of lava, if it moves, it could influence a plate in the pacific to move, and create a massive tsunami, like we saw.

I honestly dont give any creedance to bad hurricanes though, we have been having those forever, and Im especially disregarding that now that we know how light of a season it was this year. What were the numbers, like 3 recorded hurricanes?

However, I am not a geologist, meteorologist, or even an environmentalist. Im just trying to shed an alternative POV on the situation.

EDIT: I just read that article you posted, and its merely fanaticism. humans produce far less CO2 than volcanoes, animals and other natural causes do. Do you want to do your part to stop CO2 emissions? breathe less. Think about how much cleaner our cars/technology is that even 50 years ago, and just 30 years ago, we were looking an ice age in the face.

Climate is cyclical. we are coming out of an ice age, like owequitit said. Therefore, it is expected that things will get warmer. However, Im thinking that, in another 10-15 years, we will be looking at an ice age again. Think about yearly patterns and think about how cyclical those are. you cannot tell me that in the bigger scheme of things, there isnt a bigger cycle dictating everything else that happens.

[gloryaccordy]

owequitit-

Ultimately I think isolationism is the key to our success. I'm reading a book now- "The End Of The Nation State" by Kenichi something. Anyways he talks about the new global economy and "region states" of high economic activity like Tokyo, NYC, Shanghai, etc...anyways, something in that book that is relevant to the discussion is the idea of 'civil services' and the sense of entitlement felt by citizens whose regions aren't contributing to the global economy. The more you give people, the more they expect, regardless of what they put out.

Now this isn't to say there shouldn't be some kind of welfare system in the country, as shit happens, and I'm willing to give up some of my paycheck to keep people who have fallen into bad situations fed and off the streets. No matter how successful a country is there will always be people at the bottom. However, US's situation is different in that we don't just provide civil services to our own citizens, but also, hundreds of millions of people all around the world. While I think it's awful that there are people around the world living in squallor under the rule of coldhearted dictatorships, IMO there has to be a concerted, proportional effort from all prosperous countries, rather than a complete shift of responsibility on whoever is #1. It's pretty "taxing" on everybody here.

As far as the Middle East, we may have reached a point of no return. Had the region grown unstable w/o our interference (be it an active or passive role in the region's decline) I highly doubt they would have their proverbial guns pointed in our direction. Perhaps they would be generally angry with the West, which would still be a problem, but much easier to deal with as they would be EVERYBODY's problem, instead of just the US and Britain's. Personally I think we should just walk away slowly and focus our efforts within. We're doing pretty well now even with all the bullshit...I can only imagine how well we would do if we focused on our own success...

The situation in the Middle East, IMO, is reflective of my problems with religion...there's nothing wrong with believing, but there is something wrong with manipulating and killing people in the name of it. However, the same could be said of "democracy"...

I too like the WSJ...it's unfortunate that the liberal media has a stronghold on college campuses; however, upon graduation I was able to snap out of their stronghold and begin to formulate opinions for myself. In any case, like you said, WSJ just deals with the newest, most powerful religion...the almighty dollar...and tells it like it is. To me, if it's not about the economy, industry or science it really doesn't appeal to me, so the WSJ works out pretty well.

I also agree that the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. On the whole though, there's no such thing as "the truth" anymore. Integrity in any aspect of American journalism or politics has gone out the window, IMO, with all the scandals going on on all levels, from here in Long Island all the way up to Mark Foley and beyond, as well as all the terrible, openly biased journalism taking place on both sides. At the same time though, if you are a full-grown adult, and you don't take the time to investigate and digest information before forming an opinion, you're an idiot, and I see a lot of them in forums I frequent all the time.

Again, as long as my family is good, my money is good, and I'm getting pussy and continually learning and contributing to society, I can't complain at all. I just hope America doesn't crumble under it's own self-gained weight in my lifetime.

[lokuputha]

Check this out for all those tired of the death and distruction brought on by modern wars:

US Department of Peace


And for those Canadians:

Canadian Department of Peace

[owequitit]

I'm not gonna comment on the other stuff (political, news, Bush, Iraq, WMD etc) but I'll comment on this. Have you read Diary of a Dying Planet? I'm not claiming that the article is 100% accurate but they do have some interesting points in the article. Although I am not a tree hugging environmentalist I do care for the environment to a lesser extent. I know that natural disasters do happen but with the recent strings of natural disasters that have happended within a short amount of time (tsunami in asia pacific, hurricane Kartina along with the other storms that followed, earthquakes in Hawaii etc) its proof enough for me to be persuaded that something is about to happen (not necessarily Global Warming but leaning to it).

People who have you convinced of global warming are manipulating you.

What I am about to tell you about started 7 years ago. A point in time where I had no fathom about Global Warming and was thus on the fence. My information does not come from Al Gore's propoganda, it doesn't come from the left, and it doesn't come from the right. It comes from the scientific community, not organizations like Green Peace or the Sierra Club, or the "Union of Concerned Scientists" who claim to be "scientific", but generally provide little backing or qualifications.

Nope. My information came from one of the leading climatoligists in the world. HE is accepted by those who are known to be qualified and trustworthy. Yes, the REAL scientific community. You know, those physicists, geologists, chemists etc? The ones that do the real work?

He gave a huge long presentation on global warming, and each point that is typically given for the reason or cause of the phenomenon was covered. They were subsequently shot to hell by gathered scientific data, which could all be substantiated.

There were a couple of really really big questions that were brought up that the "global warming community" can't or won't produce answers for.

1) It is known fact that natural processes account for over 90% of total annual CO2 production. If we COMPLETELY remove all man made contributors (cars, planes, factories, etc) we are still left with somewhere around 97% of the CO2 production. How can we reasonably think that if we eliminate our production, "global warming" will cease to be?

It won't have that much of an impact. Why won't 3% of CO2 production have an extreme impact? All gasses other than Nitrogen (inert) and Oxygen compose less than 2% of the total atmosphere. That 1.X% includes, CO2, Argon, Carbon Monoxide, and yes, water vapor.

I don't know if you know this, but water vapor is the worst greenhouse gas known to exist, AND it exists by far in the largest quantities (water typically makes up about 1% of the atmosphere, while CO2 (the second most common) makes up about .00035%).

HMMMMM!

Why isn't there a crusade to reduce water production?

Why?

Because we can't do a damn thing about it, that's why.

So instead we are going to blame everything we love to hate about ourselves, blame CO2, and chase the ends of the Earth to rid ourselves of it. Do you realize that if we eliminate our small part of CO2 contribution, we will drop it to a staggering .00034%? OMG, alert the media! We will drop the concentration from 350PPM(parts per million) down to a whopping 340PPM!

We are all saved!

Oh wait, I forgot to mention that most of our "alternative" power sources produce H2O as a byproduct...

So now we are going to be pumping TONS of water into the atmosphere, and since water is a much worse greenhouse gas, I am sure that will make everything better. But that is OK, because we can sleep better at night knowing that we have saved our children from the evil global warming.

Nothing like cutting off your nose to spite yourself.

What are we going to say when the temp keeps going up? It will, because we are exiting an ice age. The opposite would be a melted ice age...

Of course, in reality it probably won't have much effect, because increasing the water vapor by 340PPM will have almost no effect, because it is such a small part of the total.

Also, most legislation is aimed at the established industrialized world, when most of the pollution is produced by the industrializing world, such as China ETC. How is cutting our pollution by fractions of a percent going to save the world, when they are pumping out many magnitudes more than we will be saving? It makes no sense when you really start to look into it.

2) If our processes are responsible for all of this pollution, and "global warming", then why can we scientifically trace the increasing temperature trend to well before the Industrial Revolution?

We used small farming, horses and carriages, and created virtually no air pollution whatsoever. Yet the temp was still increasing way back then. Why?
If our man made processes are responsible, how come the problem existed before our processes? I haven't heard an answer to that question yet. Not in 7 years...

Oh, but nobody mentioned that to you did they? Why would the mention the IMPORTANT part of the story?

No offense or anything, but just because there are good questions, doesn't mean there are no good answers. Just because those answers weren't covered doesn't mean they don't exist.

And no offense or anything, but you might want to have something a little more substantial than Rolling Stone magazine if you are going to invest your belief in it being true. They aren't going to stand up in the face of true scientific evidence, I guarantee it.

P.S. It was also posted in their "political" section, which may be a very clear indication of their intention...perhaps.

As far as your observation of the disasters, are you actually observing the quantity and severity of disasters in a historical context, and documenting their frequency/severity over a time period that would allow you to account for cyclical climate patterns, or just what you are seeing reported on the news?

Have you yet read anything about how mild the hurricane season was this year? OOPS!

They forgot to mention that in big bold letters on the news didn't they?

Want to know why the hurricane season was weak this year? Yup. There is a perfectly logical answer to this one too.

It just involves a little bit of study.

El Nino came into effect at the beginning of this hurricane season. El Nino suppresses hurricane activity in this part of the world. What is the Yin to El Nino's Yang? It is called La Nina, and it is just the opposite.

Basically, they are both cyclical and occur in 5-7 year cycles. They have for centuries, because the Spanish during the time of their prominence observed it and documented it first. Yeah, way back Centuries ago, before factories and autos etc etc etc.

Basically, due to all of the factors at play in our atmosphere, oceans, etc, different parts of the Pacific Ocean warm up more than others. This change in location of the temps changes the climate patterns when each is in effect.

Basically an imbalance is caused. Then over time, that imbalance goes the other way. Like many things in the Universe, it is seeking a constant state of equilibrium, but because of the way physics works, it never quite reaches it. It just goes back and forth, back and forth like a pendulum.

70% of the Earth's surface is covered in water. Temperature variations in our oceans DO change things; SIGNIFICANTLY.

I am not going to go into great detail about it, but you are free to pick up a meteorology textbook if you would like. If you want a recommendation, I have a few, so let me know.