[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 08:01:08 +1000
All of your comments below seem to indicate you have not had my earlier
attention to your question. Here is the first part worth repeating.
You are not suggesting that the temperature rise caused the industrial
revolution are you? I'd guess not, Why not? but then the alternative is -- what
is the correlation? Is it just coincidence? read below again. All that aside, I
haven't found information supporting your proposition. How about a reference or
two so I can understand what you are talking about? Well the exact references
in detail are given in the documemtary which you have not seen.
From previous:
All of the statistics, from the ice cores show that over the millenia the co2
rises after temperature increase, not the way you are saying , which is the
major error Gore made. You asked for a hint why. Let us assume global
temperature were to rise as it did after the little ice age, due to solar
activity (most probable) or geological/volcanic or what ever, then human and
animal activity and indeed plant life increases naturally. More carbon is made,
and as a consequence more co2.follows. I could add in here that invention and
industrial activity is more likely out of the warm era than out of the ice age.
All of the great cathedrals (or other structures) of Europe did not get
constructed during the mini ice age. Even today most large megastructures
(national geographic) get put on hold during really bad weather. further
supported by what I said below.
Paul said: If the effect is positive going up -- worrying -- it will be
negative -- comforting -- coming down
And this depends upon what part of History, or what part of the world where you
live. If you were in the age of the mini ice age, as much as London enjoyed
skating on the thames river, much of Europe suffered accute famine. I'm sure
the following increases in warmth were not worrying. One may say likewise today
for the people of Greenland, or Northern Canada and Russia who would love to
see a return of the warmer climates they enjoyed in the past. I also would ask
you who is being "sensational" in talking of rising seas, particularly when
this affects only those who took advantage of settling land that came from the
sea during the mini ice age. The point is that climate change is natural, just
as the sunspot cycle is today very active, solar mininum almost nonexistent,
See space weather today, where we are only just one year past the 2006 solar
mininum. Space Weather News for June 2, 2007
http://spaceweather.com
A big sunspot is emerging over the sun's eastern limb, posing a threat for
significant solar activity. Already it has unleashed several M-class solar
flares. One of the eruptions, an M3-flare on June 1st, caused a shortwave radio
fadeout over Europe. Amateur astronomers with solar telescopes should keep an
eye on this photogenic sunspot, while shortwave radio listeners should be alert
for flare-triggered fadeouts and other propagation effects. Visit
http://spaceweather.com for photos and more information.
a point I have been driving home here even on this list I should think for
many years, the real obvious reason for our climate. The sun is doing its
normal thing, however much I don't particularly like it.
You ignored completely the sound reasoning behind my words in the email which I
reproduce here in part.
"You seem able to grasp the "conspiracy theory" if it's in the minority, why
can't you grasp that it may be in the majority? How about the opportunists with
the desire and resources to exploit the majority?"
Addressed above.Paul..
I think you missed the point. The conspiracy is by the few, exploiting and
controlling the majority. By which we mean a world wide conspiracy..You seemed
to have no problem with accepting that millions around the whole world are and
were even more so for millennia controlled by the well oiled Vatican
administration.
Yet you cannot see the possibility of the other side of the coin, operating in
secret, using monetary manipulation controlling not only the media which NEEDS
money, but today even this vast Vatican installation as well.. Extended as
well to nearly all of the puppet rulers of Islam.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune."
This blindness of yours is not due to any thoughtful research but only due to
your astonishment and disbelief that any such a conspiracy could exist. At
least I hope it is that, and not some more sinister reason. Like my own
brother, who after being forced to accept the evidence , merely retorted, "I
can still do all right and come out rich within this system" That is evil.
This monetary manipulation of banking and the creation of credit for all
nations world wide, is no real hidden secret, easily discerned by any serious
researcher, and is the KEY to the lock of their control, which if removed ,
would destroy their operation.. Yet you have not come back with one proof to
discredit this evil money trick. You refuse to look.
A minor (by world standards) operation in Australia occurred after the
Commonwealth Bank was sold off, when the major banks contributed $50,000, each
to establish Card services, called Bankcard then. That was a capital injection
of $350,000. By the end of the second month of operation these cards had paid
out to retailers, and had people in hock to the extent of three million
dollars. For which they charged 18% interest on late payment.
Go figure! Keeping in mind ,,,,,,,,,etc
and you said the documentary was not banned.. I used the word in place of my
earlier 'Opposed' "threatened" wherin the evidence in a major article was
given.. It was not shown before June, necesary to help people assess the need
for the Kyoto protocol for Australia.. Again presented,
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 5:03 PM
Subject: Climate Change 24 May 2007
Climate Change 24 May 2007
Alan Jones 2GB
It is extraordinary the kind of stuff that the public have to deal with
to try to work out wherein lies truth and fiction on so many issues. Industrial
relations is classic.
But what about this issue of climate change?
There is no scientific agreement that such change actually exists.
Then you get outfits like the Australia Institute which calls itself a
think tank, that would be sophisticating things, telling us that there should
be a greenhouse gas levy on all domestic flights to rein in climate change
pollution.
Well there's also no agreed body of science arguing that even if there
were such a thing as climate change, that it's caused by man, greenhouse gases.
But anyone who argues that greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change
is regarded as perfectly normal.
Anyone who challenges it is a sceptic or any challenge is controversial.
Now the ABC to their credit are going to broadcast a British documentary
which questions the science behind climate change.
Well now that documentary is being labelled by some as discredited.
It sure is, because it challenges some of the nonsense that we're being
force-fed.
It's even being suggested that the ABC board are behind the decision to
screen the documentary.
Well I wonder why there's been no publicity about this documentary anyway
until now.
After all, it went to air in Britain at the beginning of March.
The reason we've heard nothing about it is it didn't fit the normal mind
set.
It argued that the theory of man-made global warming had become such a
powerful political force that other explanations about climate change are not
properly aired.
The programme shows leading scientists disagreeing with the view that the
greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide emissions causes rising global temperatures.
A raft of scientists, not the first, argue that the sun's radiation is a
better explanation.
The Vice-President of the United Nations-sponsored Inter-Governmental
Panel on Climate Change Yuria Iezrael has himself said there is no evidence
that greenhouse gas emissions could ever cause global climate change.
This documentary that was on Channel 4 and will be shown on the ABC
highlighted research showing that the effect of the sun's radiation would be a
better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice age to warm
inter-glacial periods and back again.
Indeed the scientists on this programme argue that the earth's climate is
always changing and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the
burning of fossil fuels.
Nothing new about this.
There's a raft of eminent scientists who've long argued that.
The scientists on this Channel 4 programme went further.
All this focus on reducing carbon emissions may not only have little
impact on climate change but the unintended consequence of stifling development
in the third world, thereby prolonging endemic poverty and disease.
These are points made by our own Prime Minister.
The roll call of experts on the British television programme was
impressive.
Nine professors.
Experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science,
bio-geography, paleoclimatology.
I made all these points at the time of this programme back in March.
They bear repeating.
Experts from MIT, Nasa, the International Arctic Research Centre, the
Institute Pasteur, the Danish National Space Centre and the Universities of
London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.
But have a look at the outcry now that the ABC dare show the programme.
Virtual suggestions that the programme should be banned.
Don't let anyone see this.
Why?
Scientists disputing the link between carbon dioxide levels and global
temperatures.
The only Australian political leader arguing that we should have a cold
shower and a rethink is Prime Minister Howard.
As I said back in March, to date this debate has lacked perspective.
It still lacks perspective and balance.
I wondered aloud then why the British documentary had no media coverage.
Well it's getting some now, but it's coverage designed to discredit.
I wonder why?
Of course Alan Jones is controversial, so he is attacked.. As was
Pauline Hanson, who was justly correct.. and violently attacked.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 1:38 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change
Philip M
I'm not sure whether I disappointed you in just the reference post or from
earlier. I'll proceed on the basis of the former being true. My comments
inserted below.
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; At
this point, my comments were directed to j a thus they were not directed at
you. Were the points I 'failed to get' in one or more of your four
(specifically) unaddressed posts? I was snowed as I commented.
"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? No -- I don't. j a has the habit (as do most of my
protagonists) of ignoring the vast majority of the points I make, making a
consolidated one sentence reply and finishing with a challenge which can only
be responded to with another lengthy response which is again, largely, ignored.
I thought it might be useful to reverse the process. At this point we have not
been favoured with j a's response so I cannot comment further. 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. My understanding is that it is not banned and will be shown
(and I will watch).
NASA releases information of the planet Mars warming up.. Globalists I don't
know what a 'Globalist' is in the context of this forum. Is it that hated group
which various undisciplined yahoos around the world gravitate noisily and
destructively toward? chose to hide or ignore this piece of information, which
the documentary does not. This information (re Mars' temperature) is freely
available on the web.
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. You are not suggesting that the
temperature rise caused the industrial revolution are you? I'd guess not, but
then the alternative is -- what is the correlation? Is it just coincidence? All
that aside, I haven't found information supporting your proposition. How about
a reference or two so I can understand what you are talking about?
Philip.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Neville J
Philip said, "You disappointed me Paul, ..."
Me, too, but there is none as blind as he who will not see. I quite agree.
And as for Galilei, the point I was making, and that Paul missed, was that
Galilei was a heretic. He was in the minority. Are you saying that he was a
heretic and a minority? One does not imply the other you know! And of course
heresy is not synonomous with untruth, just dissent from the dominant --
usually religious -- view. The vast majority said that he was a nutter. I am
not saying that Galilei was right, only that he opposed the majority. By Paul's
own reasoning, therefore, Galilei must have been wrong. Wrong -- you will look
in vain for my assertion that the majority is (necessarily) correct. And, since
Galilei was wrong, geocentrism must be correct. And again wrong! Really
Neville, this astounds me. Firstly, you have not demonstrated that he was
wrong. Secondly, Galilei could be wrong and Mars is the centre of the universe!
(Or indeed almost an infinity of alternatives). If you lived there, it is
likely that you would, on the basis of your observations and the roots of your
theological reasoning, [see below] come to the conclusion that you lived on a
body which did neither rotate nor revolve and was the centre of the universe.
This dichotomic view of existance is just so common and so regrettable.
QED I think not.
Neville.
I'm disappointed that you chose to talk about me and not to me. Philip M is
alert to all postings here and posesses a modicum of intelligece -- he would
not have missed your comments had they been appropriately addressed to me.
Concerning theological reasoning. It appears that in many, if not most
languages, the word for 'ground', '...that is beneath our feet...' etc, is
synonomous with '... this planet ...', 'The World' etc and so the Bible could
be read on any planet and assumed to be describing what is beneath your feet.
Yes I know that there are are -- probably -- no camels on Mars and that the
various ruins and living cities etc etc are not present, but lack of evidence
has never been an impediment to religious or other mystical belief. I am only
referring to the gelogical correlation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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: 269.8.7/829 - Release Date: 2/06/2007 5:26
PM
Other related posts:
