[geocentrism] Re: Climate change

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:52:28 +1000

short reply: 

 Besides, I don't think there is any group sufficiently smart to achieve what u 
suggest.  That ignores reality, pehaps because you accept the lie that all 
races are equal. As far as I am concerned, the true Jew Race is far superior to 
the rest of mankind in the matter of , for want of a common term , "business 
resourcefullness", which means intelligence. Superiority in other gifts like 
aboriginal art I may give to Australian aborigines..  Unhappily Intelligence is 
not synomonous with good morality. 

. I wonder what your definition of money is? The truth is, money is nothing. 
Give everyone on the planet $1,000,000,000 .......and a significant part of the 
remainder will have five car garages. But I don't see conspiracy -- just self 

And  self interest cannot breed conspiracy to get control of the car industry? 
and why not take over the garages of all types as well..  Does Cartel sound 

None of that complete part of your post has anything to do with denying 
conspiracy. In fact it provides the means, and supports the application by a 
dedicated group of families whos intelligence is up to the task you deny anyone 
be capable of. Its only "money" to the sheep. To this "elite" its a total 
monopoly of the creation, control, and issuance of credit, that even 
governments submit to. You have not looked at the evidence..  
http://www.themoneymasters.com/   I gave you this before...  where ever it says 
US just put "My country"  and with minor word changes the system is exactly the 
same. eg  Islam can't have interest..  So they have loan costs, which come to 
the same value...  Clever jews   greedy arabs, and dumb followers. 

I will agree with you that easy credit does make it easy to siphon money from 
some people's pockets, but again, I don't see conspiracy -- just self interest. 
Go figure! Keeping in mind ,,,,,,,,,etc

Paul you are missing the point, or you are deliberately trying to hide it. What 
about the criminal activity involved in  lending $2million from $350,000 merely 
by the process of honouring a bad check , without really having the money in 
the account. and charging interest?  by private bankers..  criminal.!  

Actually banks can lend the same deposit up to a thousand borrowers and even 
more. Reason   simple math..  Every new $100.00  created as credit is a new 
deposit, when banked. Fractional reserve control does not make it moral or less 
criminal. But go to the moneymasters and study it.. \


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 8:48 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change

  Martin S

  I am heartened by your defence of my position. In response, may I say that -- 
basically -- I reciprocate.

  I must take issue with one of your points though. I don't know if an 
automated Michelson interferometer can be successfully (and economically) 
deployed to Mars, but even if it could, the budgets are constrained and most 
people are already convinced that the Earth moves -- there are after all, other 
indicators. Most people believe that there are higher priority projects. I am 
encouraged by your assertion that such a test would be decisive and have been 
considering what other tests migh be helpful in this matter.

  Concerning the Antiquity of Man exchange.

  My first problem here is the position taken by Richard Milton in his response 
to Michael Brass' response to the review of his book. I see as self serving the 
action of labelling each of MB's objections (in bold italicised red underlined 
font) "Error". A simple labelling of [MB] (responded) and [RM] (replied) 
preceeding the response and the response to the response would have served the 
purpose and deflected the possible accusation of lack of objectivity.

  My second objection is the 'In your face!" challenges. This reminds me of the 
kind of defence mounted (if the informal references upon which I rely are 
accurate) by Martin Luther against the charges of heresy -- "Show me where I'm 
wrong!". With careful choice of question, one can throw all the effort required 
upon one's accusers and save oneself the effort of defence with lengthy 
reasoned answers. It's dramatic, a common debating tactic and smacks of lack of 
substance. Further, it is characteristic among humans who feel threatened by 
the opposition's superior debating skills (or numerical superiority) even when 
confident of one's factual position.

  That said, and bearing in mind that I have not read the book, know nothing of 
the author or the reviewer, have only the sketchiest understanding of 
radioactive dating tecniques, and suffer other areas of general ignorance, the 
reviewer has raised a number of objections to the author's claims which may 
well have scientific merit. Fair enough. If you publish, you invite criticism. 
This is the debate which advances the state of knowledge. Eventually a 
concensus will emerge which is likely to be the best estimate we have of the 
truth of the matter. In the meantime, this exercise has made me aware that 
Michael Brass has written a book entitled "Antiquity of Man" involving a number 
of scientific disciplines to which Richard Milton has a number of objections. 
Despite my rapidly atrophying brain, should I hear these names again in another 
context, a small bell will probably ring. Thus the state of my knowledge has 
been imperceptably but positively advanced.

  A final observation. It springs from the final challenge -

  Produce a single conclusive scientific fact that confirms the Darwinist 
interpretation of evolution.

  This is clearly impossible and the questioner knows it. Even if produced, 
such evidence would simply be the subject of a further challenge. What we have 
here is an argument between two people, each of whom is convinced of the truth 
of his position. It is unlikely that either of them will change their position, 
but following the debate furthers the state of knowledge of the readers, some 
of whom may change (or form) their position. Such is the evolution of 
knowledge. (No pun intended).

  As I've indicated previously, this is the limit to my responses on the 
subject of evolution. It is another can of worms and I can barely contend with 
the can of cosmology worms.


  Neville J

  Yet your opinion is based upon nothing except ... your opinion. (As usual.)

  And if I quote others, you accuse me of an appeal to authority or to 
popularity. How then am I to proceed? If I may be permitted a further opinion 
(and it is an opinion) I think your response is based simply upon pique at my 
drawing attention to what, in my opinion, is not supportable. Despite your 
response, I still think this is the way forward.

  Concerning the "Flower Pattern discovery" of which I have been cognizant for 
some time. I have not previously raised the matter but since you do, please 
allow me to respond. I have a planetarium program -- other than GU3.0 -- which 
can be directed to draw 'flower patterns' of the planetary motions of all the 
planets relative to the planet chosen to be the centre. This is not really 
novel. This program also has the attribute of producing tables of astronomical 
coordinates suitable for setting telescopes accurately to view the chosen body. 
In the absence of a similar attribute in GU3.0, your assertion that it produces 
similar -- and accurate -- predictions is moot.

  I am puzzled by your confident assertion that neither we nor our offspring 
will establish a means of conducting "... the experiments ...". You must be 
aware that the pages of history are littered with statements such as this which 
have been shown to be false. Refer also to Clarke's First Law and Asimov's 
corollary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws.


  Philip M

  I'd prefer to address your observations in a composed response but it is now 
06h30K and I do have to get some sleep some time so I'll have to just slip 
responses in (in blue).

  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. Then it is 
difficult for me to comment.

  Concerning which caused what. I suggest that if you have a curve of 
temperature rise and a close facsimilie curve of a human activity -- the 
industrial revolution -- there is likely a connection. I cannot see that a rise 
in temperature would generate an industrial revolution despite your reasoning. 
You say the temperature rise is 'many years' before the industrial revolution. 
(It would help if I knew just how many). May I suggest that a more believable 
explanation might lie in the industrial revolution definition dates. Perhaps it 
or some precursor condition is actually earlier than commonly recognised. After 
all, there was no monach's edict to begin inventing and exploiting with which 
to date it. History is not an exact discipline. 

  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, 
Oh no! The amount of carbon on the planet is fixed. and as a consequence more 
co2.follows. If plant life increases, the amount of CO2 decreases -- it goes 
into cellulose and starches and sugars -- all carbohydrates (CHO). This is why 
planting trees is such a catch phrase. CO2 is also used by marine organisms to 
make their shells which, with the passage of time turns into limestone (CaCO3). 
Accumulations of vegetation turn into coal and oil -- hydrocarbons (CH). All of 
these mechanisms fix and sequestrate carbon. Along come a bunch of gung-ho 
robber barons and after they've burned all the oak trees the navy couldn't keep 
to itself, they start digging up coal and drilling for oil, all of which they 
burn in a profligate and increasingly profligate manner. The more is burned in 
production of steam engines and other engines of production, the more the need 
increases. Part of the expansion process includes building, of which concrete 
is a large part. Concrete uses portland cement which is made by roasting 
limestone in furnaces -- guess what they are burning -- driving off the CO2 in 
the process. I could add in here that invention and industrial activity is more 
likely out of the warm era than out of the ice age. Don't know about you but I 
only light fires when I'm cold. 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. The bottom line is 
this -- if you store up carbon for millions of years, and then burn it in 
hundreds of years, you are producing a big spike in CO2 concentration.

  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. Not if you're a true cosmopolitan it doesn't. 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, I don't see any 
correlations between sunspot numbers and temperature. If there were, the 
~eleven year cycling of temperature would have been noticed long ago, whereas 
the Butterfly Pattern was only discovered in 1904. See space weather today, 
where we are only just one year past the 2006 solar mininum. Space Weather News 
for June 2, 2007

  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?" Society exists in a state of 
dynamic tension. If the rationalists take a vacation the fundamentalists will 
gain ground. If those who desire to make money stop advertising, even more, if 
they stop producing -- especially consumer goods -- then those with little 
money -- the exploited ones -- will have more money. Well they could have 
except that they are the exploited ones because they are the less able and will 
find some other way to lose their money. Apart from imposing some mammoth 
lumbering paternalistic bureaucracy to oversee the smallest details of every 
individual's live, I don't see how you can change that.

  Addressed above.Paul..

  I think you missed the point. The conspiracy is by the few, exploiting and 
controlling the majority. I don't see why you keep raising this conspiracy 
spectre. Just simple competition is enough to ensure exploitation. Besides, I 
don't think there is any group sufficiently smart to achieve what suggest. 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. Pretty 
much -- yes. 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. I wonder what your 
definition of money is? The truth is, money is nothing. Give everyone on the 
planet $1,000,000,000 and the picture would not change because wealth is not in 
pretty pieces of paper, it is in production. If production is less than money, 
money depreciates to match and conversly. The social evils arise from what is 
produced. If production focuses on gaudy, short lived consumer goods, useless 
alternative medicine and gold plated Rolls Royces (Lincoln Continentals if you 
live somewhere else |[:-)) then a large part of the society will spend itself 
pointlessly poor and a significant part of the remainder will have five car 
garages. But I don't see conspiracy -- just self interest.

  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. I use my credit 
card for as many of my purchases as I possibly can. Yes, there is a small cost 
involved -- the cost of running the infrastructure -- but apart from my 
careless late payment on I think two occasions, it has cost me nothing and is 
immensly useful. I feel sorry for those (and I know one) who just can't resist 
that bargain, this unnecessary pair of shoes, holidays on credit in advance and 
payed off over the coming 11 months etc. I also feel for those who jump off 
bridges without a parachute (not necessarily on account of debt), those who 
knowingly -- and this must be the majority -- become users of addictive drugs. 
I feel for a large number of the world's unfortunates, but it doesn't matter 
how you organise the planet, they will always be there. John 12:8; Mark 14:7; 
Matthew 26:11. I will agree with you that easy credit does make it easy to 
siphon money from some people's pockets, but again, I don't see conspiracy -- 
just self interest.

  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, 

  Sorry Philip but there are three things for which I will drop everything in 
order to change channels -- ABC's "Rage!", David Letterman, and 2GB's Alan "The 
Parrot" Jones. We all have our pet peeves and these are three of mine.

  Philip it is now 08h30K -- I think I've made a reasonable effort to address 
your unanswered points. I have to get some sleep.

  PS Your latest epistle has arrived -- obviously you are an early riser. I 
have read j a's latest and will get to that tonight with luck -- especially if 
you don't load me up in the interim |[:-)


  Good night all

   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: 269.8.7/830 - Release Date: 3/06/2007 
12:47 PM

Other related posts: