[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:00:10 +1000
"I follow the crowd when I decide that the crowd is correct." Paul D.
The whole crowd followed the biggest lie in history, when the dawn of the year
2000, was called the dawn of the New millenium.
Were you among those who argued against those very few of us who saw through
the lie? Did you decide then that the crowd was correct? If you did, then I
can understand why you and the crowd cannot perceive when you are being conned
by such things as the private creation of credit. Or do you still believe that
the year 2000 was the start of the millenium. It had to be a lie, for no other
reason than that the answer was simple arithmetic, which any third grader in
1940 would have understood.
As promised I have a few interjections within your original post.. but please
remove your rose coloured filters. responses in maroon.
Philip.
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 3:55 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change
Philip M
I should have realised that I couldn't get away with a short answer to your
question! |[:-)
There are always people wandering through life looking for something --
anything -- to attack.
Please be assured I enjoy life and science far too much to waste my time
looking for antipathy. My motives are to promote truth, and refute lies or
error, to the best of my ability, always ready to correct myself whenever shown
the need of it. To do anything else invites my soul to the Hell fire from which
there is no escape, and which lasts forever. .-
The reigning world scientific view is that global warming is a fact. It has
taken many years for this position to be reached and among the participants
there is a small minority which does not agree. As regards the current trends,
and evidence, only a fool would deny that temperatures are warming up. The only
dissenting minority on this that I have noted, is coming from those who assert
that the rise is not universal, but an averageing out due to other causes,
geological, solar and the sea. Such in my opinion do not deserve being accused
of being one of the following .
There are in the world, cynical opportunists with the desire and resources
to exploit this minority view, knowing full well that there is a section of the
population always willing, even eager to jump on a bandwagon. This includes
those people who seem to have a built in need to disagree with anything which
commands a majority view. This last is very bad reasoning. You are prejudging
motives, much as you judged mine above, and which I duly answered. Why do you
not discern that opportunists (cynical or not) have resources to exploit the
majority including the general population, who do not jump on any bandwagon,
but merely trust what they are told, for a very real agenda of profit and
power.
These opportunists however, are generally unsuccessful (quite successful)
in persuading organizations such as CNN, BBC, ABC to take them seriously (if
for no other reason than that they OWN them) so they turn to others such as
Fox, Channel 4 (UK), and Ch 10 (Australia). which they also own,
and give little comfort to the dissenting minority even though an
occasional hearing for credibility sake is allowed.
What does it matter if Channel 7 or 9 plays Mels movie the Passion every
Easter, when for 364 days of the year the Jewish antichrist agenda is more than
adequately covered.
As I've remarked before, there are warning signs which indicate what is
likely to be simple sensationalism and what is likely to have substance. Dealt
with before, but I repeat. Have you seen the shows on TV lately showing in
quite a sensational way life in prehistoric times, with realistic prehistoric
creatures, always with the narrator speaking in the affirmative, never the
theoretical. Thats not sensationalism?
First is the distinct whiff, if not the outright stink of accusations of
conspiracy. Now you are showing your true colors.. Why should an accusation of
a conspiracy stink? You bewailed elsewhere that scientists were not exempt from
immorality in greed, etc. Why exempt them from being victims of conspiracy.
Next is the identity bringing this revelation to your living room (see
above). If you delve a little deeper, you start to find things like a
significant percentage of antagonists whose views on other subjects also lack
qualified popular support. Like those who jump on the environmental bandwagon,
having no science? Yet get plenty plenty TV coverage. Or the homosexual
bandwagon.. Plenty plenty TV coverage, which sensationally makes them to be
just like ordinary people, hiding the real truth that they are dung hole
diggers who love to revel in the smell of human excrement. Where is your
balance, when you allow for such, and yet sight unseen favour a rejection and
censorship of an alternative science program, that is definitely not
sensationalist.
Speaking of which, there was one tiff I thought rather controversial,
simply because it was unknown to me, and that was the claim that cloud
formation was affected by cosmic radiation, the connection between the solar
sunspot cycle, and solar winds (magnetic fields) , which raised and lowered the
cosmic radiation level effecting clouds, and thus the weather.. Subsequently I
find this theory, though not proven, to be quite well known.. Yet we all knew
that Indigo Jones long range weather forcaster used sunspots in his
predictions.. decades ago. But this is about climate change, the thrust of the
programme not just global warming.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
And, as shown in this case, there is commonly the complaint of some of the
participants that their contributions have been 'edited'. I highlighted your
weasel words. (give their names) There is only one man who has publically
retracted, yet if you hear his words, editing could hardly change the points he
made. and he was
Carl Wunsch - Professor, Department of Oceanography, M.I.T.
Yet have you ever seen how any TV presentation is made.. Of course it has
to be edited as part of its compilation. But retraction? When you hear the
show, and what one man said you would wonder they had the courage to appear at
all. One had to threaten the IPCC with legal action to have his name removed
from the list of supporting scientists, supposedly 2,500, names, because he
totally disagreed with the findings, and hs dissent was not included.
These are general comments -- I am familiar with just one of the names on
your list (are these the contributors?) Philip Stott (the Biogeographer) and
some of his out-of-step views
Philip Stott - Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University
of London
-Please point out some of these out of step views, and out of step with
whom? - but the signs are there to be read. Please illustrate? What signs.
As I said I will watch it when it airs (in fact I look forward to it) but
I'm not going to waste my download quota on the video. Its a shame you had not
wasted so much time and words on attacking what you have not seen with so few
actual facts.
If The Great Global Warming Swindle had been under the aegis of Horizon --
it would have had a different name of course -- But of course.. the name has
that stink of conspiracy!!!!!
End of this part of the interjection.. Philip.
I think I can rely on you to inform me whether in fact the video, when
aired, was substantially truncated or honestly reported. I feel confident that
you will be watching with that intent regardless of my existance.
Now, have I prejudged the debate? I am influenced by all inputs including
the items mentioned above, the general comments in the press and on the web,
your advocacy and my general curiosity. I admit that, at this point in time, I
am not expecting to have my view changed. But my indication that I will watch
should tell you that I wish to know just what it has to say.
Finally, did you see the Horizon production "An experiment to save the
world"? It dealt with an attempt to duplicate an experiment claimed to have
been successful by the experimenter, in demonstrating cold fusion? That is what
I think of as even handed, genuine, careful investigation. If The Great Global
Warming Swindle had been under the aegis of Horizon -- it would have had a
different name of course -- that alone would have induced to me to watch it,
but of course, and for the reasons I've given above, it wasn't!
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: 269.8.3/824 - Release Date: 29/05/2007
1:01 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.4/825 - Release Date: 30/05/2007
3:03 PM
Other related posts:
