[geocentrism] Re: Conspiracy and global warming.
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Philip M
I'm not going to respond to each tiny point. Not because I don't have answers,
but rather I'm tired of responding to every time consuming challenge here only
to be dismissed with trite condemnations, accusations of being brainwashed, etc
etc.
Instead, I'll respond to two. First, if you check, you'll find that I was well
aware that the new millennium did not begin til 01_Jan_2001.
Second concerns your population-of-Australia-lives-in-Tasmania proposition.
Some data -- the mass of the Earth is about 5.98 × 10^24 kg. In 1999, the
Earth's population was about 5.978 * 10^9. A representative value for the mass
of one member of the population is about 50 kg -- satisfactory for the sake of
argument. In 1963 the peak rate of population increase was reached -- it was
about 2.2% pa. In 2000 it was estimated to be about about 1.14% pa (about 75
million increase pa), no doubt due to those factors of which you so thoroughly
disapprove.
Given these figures, it would take about 2702 years for the mass of the
population to equal the mass of the Earth. Would you consider this to be over
populated?
Of course you might point out that it is not possible to convert all the mass
of the Earth into people. Well then, how long would you think that -- at the
same rate -- it would take until the population of the Earth each had one tenth
of a square metre to call its own? That's ten people per square metre over
every square metre of the Earth's surface from the poles to the equator, from
the top of every mountain and hill down to sea level and the surface of all the
oceans, lakes and streams. My calculations say about 1204 years. Would you
consider this to be overpopulated?
And yes -- whatever is in the water -- that's what I drink.
Finally, I'll volunteer this. You keep referring to me as though I only care
about Australia. I don't -- I regard myself as a citizen of the world -- a
cosmopolitan, and as such, I care about the planet, not just now but for the
next five billion years or so. I look forward to (but of course will not see) a
world government. If you think about human development, you'll see that there
is a net consolidation effect and that the lot of Man has improved as the
consolidation process has advanced.
Paul D
________________________________
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 17 November, 2008 11:53:15 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Conspiracy and global warming.
I just noticed Pauls email address.. He may not be a real person... Yahoo
addresses are forbidden by many list groups, and some businesses because of the
use of it to escape identification.. , However Nevilles Post has brought up the
particular posting from Paul which I had saved to answer.. on two counts, a.
it needed an answer, and as well Paul, b. you asked me a personal opinion..
Paul, I am not as judgemental of you as much as Neville said, "you are just as
blind to all topics now as you were on the day that you joined. What is the
point? " Neville I would more likely ask the question, "are you drinking
fluoridated water from Melbournes tap supply?"
Now to your specifics.. I do not hold out much hope of agreement since you
always take the negative scientific view of the media e.g Today our Queensland
Premier, a woman, so that excuses her of any blame, said on TV in answer to a
recognised University Professor who reported that the use of recycled sewerage
into the drinking water was very dangerous... " I'm not going to take any
notice of faulty science.... what would he know ... We know etc... "
Paul you are very quick to support media and government consensus on
controversial scientific matters, and ignore those which "let you down" so to
speak.. You go silent.. You have never once acknowledged , nor does the
majority of uneducated fools who fell for the scam, that the entire world of
Media and popular science, and their followers , argued against allcomers till
the bitter end, that the New Millennium year commenced at Jan 1 2000. At
enormous cost to everyone had a big party on the wrong day of the wrong year.
This despite the fact that the Greenwich Observatory, as well as its
counterpart US Naval observatory in the US both quietly reported the truth of
the matter throughout the whole fiasco. Only one major media entity in
australia, Macca in Australia all over every Sunday ABC continued to berate the
fools. See my attachment of the time..
Now these are the same people in whom you expect us to put our faith as regards
global warming, still, whilst the theory has collapsed almost 2 years ago as
the sun went into a quieter cycle, and the world entered a new cooling
phase.. Not unknown to those in whom you put your faith, as they quickly
abandoned the direct saying "warming" and replaced it with the buzz of Climate
Change, without in any way suppressing the waste and expense of continued talk
about carbon reductions , or the erroneous use of the old scare words global
warming. A lot of people have those carbon certificates.. hoping to make on
the price increase.. I took mine (The bonus for going solar)and sold them
immediately ...That makes me greedy, but MOT dishonest enough to lie about the
science. And not really greedy.. I paid in my share ... I answer here below
in teal
Philip M
Paul in essence you are saying just in case CO2 will cause global warming, we
must pay the enormous cost of stopping or changing our life style.. But the CO2
fiasco was based on really bad science. It denies basic principles, ignored the
sun among many other , and supported big business profit innitiatives ..
Well we have to change our lifestyle sooner or later -- there are not the
resources for all to live as we in Australia live, let alone the profligate
life style of USA and those who would emulate them. It might as well be now.
And in your opinion, which differs from so MANY others, we should just go on as
we have done till now? Yes.. it is my opinion that we should not go on as we
are now, that we should all return to a true Christian faith, no birth control,
or abortions, every family staying together till death, having large families
even up to 10 children if it so happens. That this differs from so MANY has no
bearing on the truth of the matter. That MANY disagre with me is for the same
reason you do.. You are misinformed, duped, misled, about so much , not only
science, but politics, and most of all economics and money...the real
controlling factor behind all the suffering you are told to worry about.. I am
not denying the suffering all over the
world, but it is not due to the factors of overpopulation and the things
alledged to follow on from this. It is directly due to the manipulation of
politics through the control of money by a few who have a specific agender to
fulfill.... An occult agender... You would not be so much against that last
phrase if I had said "religion was behind most wars.."
Paul, sit down and do your figures.. Take whole the population of Australia,
and put them in Tasmania.. Provide the means to mobilise and supply them from
that small land .. do you say thay will die? Do your figures man.. Use acres
of land... or sq meters... Well my figures are 20 years old.. With all the
asians here now, you might need to add in a bit of Victoria..
Provide the means to mobilise and supply them from that small land Eleminate
the rest of the world entirely from the equation.. as though it cannot be
accessed in any way You tell me why that would be impossible. You should
be able to answer all your own objections... if you are not fluoridated
entirely.
I'll ask you a personal question here if I may -- what is your opinion on the
suggestion that we have already '... filled the Earth' and should stop
multiplying? I just gave you the answer... but you work out how.. We can never
overfill the earth, and we should increase our multiplying just as I said
above. EVERY problem in China , just one, (pollution) India (people) is
resolvable, in a prosperous way.. You will see this when you have worked on
your Tasmanian project above.. I AM ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ME
HAVE TO COME AND DO THE EXERCISE FOR YOU.
Some of the more pessimistic assessments of global warming (those involving
methane hydrates (see ie
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm)) suggest the
possible extinction of humanity among other species. Are you prepared to stand
before the Judgement Seat and plead that you were so sure of yourself that you
were prepared for selfish reasons to take the risk of this extinction? Or that
you acted as you thought was right in opposing those more prudent regardless of
the possible penalties?
Answered above, but I repeat.. I do not deny pollution is bad.. But YOU HAVE
TO KNOW HOW THAT CAN BE FIXED. You will work it out as above. Have you ever
read any books on economic democracy?
In any case are you not being a bit free and easy talking about Aussie
obligation re pollution whilst the "big brown cloud" currently in the news is
from the new asian industrial revolution?
Are you prepared to stand before the Judgement Seat and plead that you were so
sure of yourself that you were prepared for selfish reasons to take the risk of
this extinction? You seem to have gotten it wrong about what concerns the
Judge. He will judge harshly those who used birth control to thwart His command
to multiply. Even more harshly the murder of abortion. This sort is the
selfishness that leads man to extinction, caused of course by the rejection of
the Judge Himself. It is rather trite of you Paul to call on the Judge, in whom
you do not believe, to judge me..
Please do that important exercise I gave you.. To start with how many square
meters of Tasmania will each person get....then how will you organise them to
survive. Phil
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Paul D
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 6:49 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Conspiracy and global warming.
-----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:08:22 +0000 (GMT)
Neville J
1. How do you know that the political view is supported by "most of those
qualified to express an opinion," rather than being the view broadcast by those
who have access to the media?
I don't know. There is no such thing as certainty. But on the balance of
probabilities, it is the more reasonable position. No, it has nothing to do
with probabilities, but simply where you are putting your faith.
2. Do you accept that what the Sun does is a pretty big part of what nature
does and that what we (individually or collectively) do is pretty insignificant
in comparison?
I accept that the Sun is the dominant factor. I also accept that what Man does
is cumulative with the efforts of the Sun. Again, I accept that what we are
doing is taking the Sun's energy accumulated in millions of years of vegetation
deposition and releasing it in a few short years. It is as though the Sun shone
more brightly during this period.
This seems a rather desperate attempt to hold your position in the face of
scientific evidence. You are too stubborn to reason with, but appear to obtain
comfort in having a view presented to you by those who you think should take
your responsibility to reason away from you and place on their own shoulders
the responsibility of 'educating' you. I fail to understand what you get from a
forum like this, since you are just as blind to all topics now as you were on
the day that you joined. What is the point?
Neville
www.realityreviewed.com
Philip M
Paul in essence you are saying just in case CO2 will cause global warming, we
must pay the enormous cost of stopping or changing our life style.. But the CO2
fiasco was based on really bad science. It denies basic principles, ignored the
sun among many other , and supported big business profit innitiatives ..
Well we have to change our lifestyle sooner or later -- there are not the
resources for all to live as we in Australia live, let alone the profligate
life style of USA and those who would emulate them. It might as well be now.
And in your opinion, which differs from so MANY others, we should just go on as
we have done till now?
I'll ask you a personal question here if I may -- what is your opinion on the
suggestion that we have already '... filled the Earth' and should stop
multiplying?
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Some of the more pessimistic assessments of global warming (those involving
methane hydrates (see ie
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm)) suggest the
possible extinction of humanity among other species. Are you prepared to stand
before the Judgement Seat and plead that you were so sure of yourself that you
were prepared for selfish reasons to take the risk of this extinction? Or that
you acted as you thought was right in opposing those more prudent regardless of
the possible penalties?
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Paul D
________________________________
Search 1000's of available singles in your area at the new Yahoo!7 Dating. Get
Started.
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail!
http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail
Other related posts:
