[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 08:00:57 +1000
You disappointed me Paul, but I must admit of not being surprised. If you had
gotten any of the points I made you would never have come back with this;
"Now -- how do you know the Sun is 'hotter'? How do you know that other planets
are hotter? How do you know that the Earth has changed its temperature --
warming and cooling? Surely you are not trusting all those scientists with a
private agenda (Hi Jack!) to tell the truth? They are the ones after all who
are responsible for spreading lies about planetary climate are they not?"
See how you wriggled? The particular physical records you mention have indeed
been collected by mainstream science, however any of the information that is
contrary to the current agenda is ignored, to the point as already mentioned ,
of banning of its pointed release in a documentary.
NASA releases information of the planet Mars warming up.. Globalists chose to
hide or ignore this piece of information, which the documentary does not.
Then you said "but inexorable increase in CO2 for some few centuries and to
observe that this just happens to coincide with history spanning the industrial
revolution."
Ignoring the undeniable evidence from the same sources, that the temperature
rise preceded the industrial increase of CO2.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 4:48 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change
Greetings all
Well tonight I was going to try to respond to Philip's four lengthy attacks
of the night before last but the five (and a half) posts of last night have
convinced me of the pointlessness of that endeavour. Clearly the efforts of
four protagonists acting with religious zeal will always bury the voice of one,
especially when the four just know they are right despite what the world's
concensus of scientific thought says. Might is right! Yeah! [Acts 7:57]
Because I am not able to respond as I'd like -- you know, clear, calm
reasoned debate -- I'll just try to address a few points.
j a
"I admit that, at this point in time, I am not expecting to have my view
changed"
"I don't know. I didn't say I knew. I did say "...when I decide..." "
You seem too conflicted to discuss this!
But anyway - currrently the sun is hotter, other planets (without peolple)
are currently hotter to match the suns increased output, Throughout time the
earth has constantly gone through cooling and warming cycles, All the
indications of man-made global warming are from computer models and my
weatherman can barely predict next weeks weather let alone 25 years from now,
The people pushing global warming are alarmists, The people who are pressing
the need to curtail human activity to fix this problem are mostly liberal big
government types and they always need a crisis. I'm sure others could expand
this list greatly.
I've listed some of my reasons - Now I repeat - Please list your big reasons
for believing.
Last first. I've confessed my paltry qualifications. I acknowledge others are
smarter and more knowledgeable than I. It seems reasonable to accept this
concensus especially since there is little opposition.
Now -- how do you know the Sun is 'hotter'? How do you know that other
planets are hotter? How do you know that the Earth has changed its temperature
-- warming and cooling? Surely you are not trusting all those scientists with a
private agenda (Hi Jack!) to tell the truth? They are the ones after all who
are responsible for spreading lies about planetary climate are they not?
I suggest that '... [a]ll the indications of man-made global warming are from
computer models ...' is just not true. The indications are simple data read
from indicators such as ice cores. This isn't a model -- it's a simple record,
a lot like the marks doting parents make on door edges to mark the height
attained by their children, usually on their birthdays. When they attain
puberty, it's reasonable to read this record and conclude that each year they
have grown taller, just as it is possible to read in ice cores that there has
been an imperceptible but inexorable increase in CO2 for some few centuries and
to observe that this just happens to coincide with history spanning the
industrial revolution. If the Sun is getting hotter, it will -- as you suggest
-- cause a temperature increase, all other things being equal, but this is all
the more reason that we should not exacerbate it. While I haven't seen it
mentioned, ultimately the 'greener' nuclear technology, while it does not
contribute greenhouse gasses, it does contribute an increased heat load which
will add to temperature rise which will evaporate more water which will raise
the global temperature further. Everything seems to have a sting in the tail
does it not?
Now when it suits the fundamentalist fraternity, the most improbable,
ethereal coincidence is loudly touted as conclusive evidence of some fantastic
event. Yet when sober scientists following their curiosity -- which is what
science is all about -- come to an overwhelming concensus, these same
fundamentalists condemn this concensus as a conspiracy. For what purpose
beggars the imagination. Just what are the problems? How will we be harmed by a
wiser management of our resources? While there is a decided danger if the
scientific concensus is correct, I don't see a danger if it is not correct and
we still implement the corrective measures being suggested. Amos 5:13; Proverbs
13:16; 22:3
Tell me, in your opinion, are the people plotting the path of asteroids and
comets with a view to detecting those which might impact the Earth (remember
that one or more of the fragments of the Shoemaker-Levy comet which hit Jupiter
would have devastated the whole of the Earth) wasting their time and the
contents of the public purse?
Finally -- "I admit ..." "I don't know ...". Sorry but I don't see a
conflict. Hints?
Neville J
This is the whole issue. Global warming is the cause, increased CO2
("greenhouse gas") is the effect.
Also, your position regarding the correctness of the majority has been proven
wrong to your satisfaction (though not to the satisfaction of the majority on
this forum) before, regarding the "heretic," Galilei.
First item first -- why does global warming show such a close correlation
with the industrial revolution (which just coincidentally -- no connection at
all apparently (gentle sarcasm) began an increasing and continuing conversion
of solid and liquid carbon compounds to CO2 plus other compounds) if the latter
is not -- at the least -- contributary to the former? And if it is all down to
the Sun, where is the evidence that the Sun has been on an increasing energy
output for the same period of time? Bit suspicious that!
Second item -- I can't recall this item. It would seem that you can. Give me
the reference and I'll confess again -- that should warm the cockels of your
heart! Regarding the "... correctness of the majority ...", please re-read
"Re:666" "From Paul Deema Mon May 28 14:48:56 2007".
Re conspiracy theories -- they certainly are "... found under every rock ...
'. I Googled 'conspiracy theories' and got 1,600,000 hits and while many of
these are people indulging their own particular brand of paranoira, many, many
of these hits are sites devoted to listing thousands of other 'conspiracies'.
Just how many of these should I hold to my bosom? If only there were just a
fraction of this many hits devoted to rational opposition to the global warming
concesus, I would be familiar with the relevant arguments, but all I seem to be
able to find are sites which support the concept. Now you're not going to try
to convince me that there is a conspiracy to stop them showing up I hope --
this isn't China yet.
Philip M
Concerning your concerns about water. Yes we are surrounded by it, but, if my
memory serves me well (and I admit it doesn't always oblige) only 3% (or was it
7%?) is fresh. All your objections result from the fact that each year there
are more of us. Someone needs to tell us all forcefully that we've been
fruitful -- we've close to filled the Earth. It's time to stop already. In the
expectation that the population will not stop expanding, we need rules. There
are quite a few doomsday novels in the SF genre which explore these phenomena
-- "The Death of Grass" (UK "No Blade of Grass") by John Christopher comes to
mind. Mankind has a history of acting ugly when a basic comodity runs short.
The idea that you are going to satisfy everyone with (impersonal) your solution
is fanciful to say the least. But rules -- any rules -- are necessary to avoid
a greater catastrophe. You just have to resign yourself to the idea that you
are not going to get just what you want in the interest of the greater good.
Time for bed.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in
Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.6/828 - Release Date: 1/06/2007
11:22 AM
Other related posts:
