Swine Flue

I'm not really interested in arguing about these items. If you're interested, do some research and reach your own opinions. Particularly with man-made global warming and somewhat less so with AIDS (not as much information is why I say that - and I still question some conclusions that others have reached, but I am very suspicious of many things related to HIV/AIDS).

citygirl said:
- Man-Made Global Warming (are you saying global warming doesn't exist?)

One reason I don't want to get into a debate here about things of that sort is the wording I quoted above - I'll give an example argument and then stop:

People rarely see "man-made" when they read the "global warming" part. In fact, it gets left off often in discussion for convenience's sake and seems to slip from the conciousness after awhile.

Whether or not I believe that the average temperature of the Earth is rising ("global warming") is completely aside from whether or not I think humans have anything to do with it. It's also a completely different subject as to whether I believe that this automatically means it's bad for the Earth.

And I think just asking if it's humanity's fault, or even if we are contributing, is a pretty big question right there. It could be very important in deciding what should be done, if anything. As would the question of whether or not it's really a bad thing.

For example, if warming is natural, and we are not contributing enough to the warming process to make a dent in reigning in the rise, does it make sense to damage or destroy economies as we force everyone to lower emissions, driving costs up and losing lots of money retooling and using technologies that are so young that they do not yet operate at a net profit (i.e. extra money has to be sunk into it to make it "affordable", probably via expensive subsidies), or do we acknowledge that we would like to live on a clean planet and start looking for real ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels over time? There are actually a number of promising technologies that could do that very thing, but they're nowhere near ready.

The answer to that question depends on the urgency of the need in my opinion. Some would say it depends on whether or not force (political in this case) should be used to get one's way. If you're in the first group, you want to know the facts and make an informed decision related to the effect and the urgency to do something.

The problem I have is that no one represents the truth because both "sides" say the other side is fabricating data, lying, so on and so forth. I have my own opinion based on having read quite a bit on the subject from both sides (both pundits and individuals/teams who don't seem to have an agenda). I also considering myself a man of science (having read science and technical articles in one form or another for most of my life).

I just don't feel like defending my position against either side's extremes of twisting the raw data.
 
El Queso - Hope you didn't read it as that I was attacking you in any manner. I was actually just interested in reading more as I wasn't sure exactly if I was understanding what you had written or not.

Interesting post re: global warming and I appreciate you expanding on your thoughts. You raise some interesting points, thanks for sharing.
 
ElQueso said:
You know, I am worried that I find myself agreeing at times with Orwellian ;) At least in some things!

Yeah that makes me worried too ;)

I spent most of this day reading about vaccination. Going to have a kid soon so me and my girlfriend need to take a responsible decision. I feel that should be a separate thread though.

And don't get me started on HIV/AIDS. I feel that that one day will be the biggest medical scandal ever. Maybe another thread to start soon.
 
citygirl said:
El Queso - Hope you didn't read it as that I was attacking you in any manner. I was actually just interested in reading more as I wasn't sure exactly if I was understanding what you had written or not.

Interesting post re: global warming and I appreciate you expanding on your thoughts. You raise some interesting points, thanks for sharing.

No, I didn't think that. I just wasn't in the mood at the time to discuss it. Well, sometimes moods change a little.

Do a search for the "hockey stick hoax". You'll see how a group of guys in the late 90's massaged their data to take out a pesky jump in temperature data in the Middle Ages, around 1100-1300 AD when temperatures were well above what we have today. this is some of the data Gore, for example, points to when he talks about how hot things are getting.

There's a quick description of the "hockey stick hoax."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022642.php

John Stossel did an outstanding 20/20 piece on global warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLcvCp4DHJw

Very interesting piece that goes in depth on some of the science (it is continued in 5 parts - look for it at the end of each part):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&feature=video_response

About HIV - read this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye8.1.1.html

Look at some of the links and do some research along the lines of what Mr. Foye writes about.
 
Well, you or your correspondents are denying that ocean waters are rising and acidifying? Then glaciers are disappearing and permafrost is melting? And surely these clowns trying to play this as another "loop" of circular changes? Let me ask you (or whoever pass their FCAT at least once): How in ta'Hell these mountains of ice that previously were GROWING and SUSTAINING for thousands of years, now SHRINKING in tens of the same (365/366 days) years?
How come that humans who slow down their rivers flow "unable" to see surrounding climate change?
Out of which GD idea it all come to freaking American vote to decide on pollution control?
Has it escape from ur attention that commercial fisheries around the world experiencing UNPRECEDENTED shortage that been NEVER encounted before?
Did you, or any of ur followers ever read ANY foreign reports on issues on water temperature, pollution condition, UNRECOVERABLE changes in coral rifs that WE ARE making. And I hope you were good boy in ur middle school when they tought you that Earth is mainly COVERED with WATER. So everything is BEGIN with WATER condition, GD.

If you can pronounse "yes", then WTF are you saying? Is it all politics to you?

Jesus with Rusty Shmeisser...
 
pikto99 said:
Well, you or your correspondents are denying that ocean waters are rising and acidifying? Then glaciers are disappearing and permafrost is melting? And surely these clowns trying to play this as another "loop" of circular changes? Let me ask you (or whoever pass their FCAT at least once): How in ta'Hell these mountains of ice that previously were GROWING and SUSTAINING for thousands of years, now SHRINKING in tens of the same (365/366 days) years?
How come that humans who slow down their rivers flow "unable" to see surrounding climate change?
Out of which GD idea it all come to freaking American vote to decide on pollution control?
Has it escape from ur attention that commercial fisheries around the world experiencing UNPRECEDENTED shortage that been NEVER encounted before?
Did you, or any of ur followers ever read ANY foreign reports on issues on water temperature, pollution condition, UNRECOVERABLE changes in coral rifs that WE ARE making. And I hope you were good boy in ur middle school when they tought you that Earth is mainly COVERED with WATER. So everything is BEGIN with WATER condition, GD.

If you can pronounse "yes", then WTF are you saying? Is it all politics to you?

Jesus with Rusty Shmeisser...

Climate change is nothing new. It has been happening all the time on this planet long before humans existed. And there's very little proof that man has anything to do with it.
But yes, humans are fucking up the planet with pollution that is causing many of those things above. That is for sure. But it has nothing to do with climate change.
 
it appears that the WHO conveniently changed the definition of pandemic shortly before H1N1 was declared a worldwide pandemic.

could this possibly be one of the reasons why the head of the WHO, as of dec. 29, 2009, STILL had not received her vaccine injection against H1N1? hmm........

"Chan acknowledged she had yet to get her own swine flu shot. Only just back from leave, she said she asked her medical service to find out where she can get vaccinated."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34620754/ns/health-cold_and_flu/

*********************************************

Public hearing on handling of H1N1 pandemic

http://www.wodarg.de/english/3069477.html

some excerpts:

On 11th June 2009, the WHO raised the level of influenza pandemic alert from phase 5 to 6 and declared a global flu pandemic. Therefore the contracts established were to take effect.

The pharmaceutical companies must have been waiting for this announcement, which was made even though the flu was relatively mild. This was possible because a new definition of pandemic levels had been adopted just beforehand.

Therefore, the current "pandemic” could only be launched by changing the definition of a pandemic and by lowering the threshold for its declaration.

It is only this change that made it possible to transform a relatively mild flu into a worldwide pandemic, to implement relevant plans, which allowed pharmaceutical companies to transform their contracts with many governments all over the world into cash.

Therefore millions of people were vaccinated for no good reason, and children were vaccinated whereas it was not even clear, if the vaccine had a positive effect on them because this was never clinically tested and proven.

The so-called "pandemic” vaccines were used. They involved higher risks than usual vaccines against seasonal flu: in some adjuvants were added and injected of which we know, that they stimulate the immune system manifold, which means that they could possibly lead to autoimmune diseases (such as multiple sclerosis) and immunological complications and stroger local side effects.

New procedures were allowed onto the markets to produce vaccine products including bio-reactors using fast growing cancer-like cells. The possibility that their proteins could induce cancer when injected involuntarily as impurities to the patient has never been excluded by clinical testing, that needs a much longer observation period than excluding other side effects like allergic and acute toxic ones.

So we can see that the WHO undertook an incomprehensible action, which up to now was never justified by any scientific evidence.
 
this time the WHO is under fire : I didn't think it would come this far.

"A group of outside experts will scrutinize the World Health Organization's response to the swine flu outbreak and likely examine whether the term pandemic was appropriate for what has turned out to be a relatively mild disease, the World Health Organization said Monday"

or read the article :

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=WHO fukuda pandemic&st=cse
 
But it has nothing to do with climate change.

Changes in the "tilt" of the earth can change the severity of the seasons - more "tilt" means more severe seasons - warmer summers and colder winters; less "tilt" means less severe seasons - cooler summers and milder winters. The earth wobbles in space so that its tilt changes between about 22 and 25 degrees on a cycle of about 41,000 years.
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html)

I hope this data is ‘meaningful” for my opponents.
So, let’s say summers in Florida should be getting more "summery" in 41,000 years loop, I hope in sinusoidal, not sharp abrupt motion (flow), right?
And winters in Alaska should be getting colder, following the astronomical (“non-human” intervention) flow in “Big Bang” expansion. Btw, this is still a theory.
So think about latest major inventions and discoveries in technogenez of Human development.
Do not forget high population expansion in the recent decades.

Do we know WHEN these 40, 000 years cycles were started? Why no one says: “Hey, we're at first (or last) 6,000 years of the “shift”, or something like that?
So assuming we're getting into one of these “shifts” then we’re should see some slow development, right? So think about 40, 000 years curve and scientific records for the last 3000, which btw not all purely scientific.
How come that melts of the glaciers and ice caps on the Earth poluses are so rapid?
It's being reported with photographic evidences that all such melt has began in the 3-4 recent decades.
Assuming it is still just a “shifting” in Planet’s trajectory around the Sun we’ll soon experience the most dramatic warmth and fresh water shortage, right?
But isn't winter turns should equalize that if the trajectory shifted?
Look here, it’s a local, right under ur noses, not Obama’s crew biased or Al Gore promoted: http://www.santiagotimes.cl/index.p...r-breaks-off&catid=44:environmental&Itemid=40

Or here, a bit more centralized.
Does this is sounds “political” to all of you:
Zurich/Nairobi, 16 March 2008 - The world's glaciers are continuing to melt away with the latest official figures showing record losses, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) announced today.
Data from close to 30 reference glaciers in nine mountain ranges indicate that between the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 the average rate of melting and thinning more than doubled.
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=530&ArticleID=5760
And someone could say “politics” over this?

And if colder places “should” get colder, why areas of these regions with permafrost are no freezing our asses off? The temperature reported about the same ration in relative seasonal changes but overall warmer. How is this possible in such “shift”? Should be Planet’s poluses start shifting too?

The report in the journal Nature Geoscience indicated that emissions of the gas surged under certain conditions from melting permafrost that underlies about 25 percent of land in the Northern Hemisphere.

Emissions of the gas measured from thawing wetlands in Zackenberg in eastern Greenland leapt 20 times to levels found in tropical forests, which are among the main natural sources of the heat-trapping gas
http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/news/viewdetail/permafrost_thaw_nitrous_oxide.html

So assuming there is still a “shift” then seasons should be intact and colder winter WILL freeze these regions and help to collect colder air masses in order to produce snow and to collect ice at mountains and glaciers. Am I missing anything? Does anyone noticed of huge snow and or ice pile-up in South Korea or Kenya?

Then read this. This is not fucking “youtube” bullshit, this is our GD science that anyone can verify by going over there and request a copy or freaking talk to locals.
In recent years, scientists too have taken notice of the phenomenon. "Evidence has mounted really quickly that this is a large-scale problem," says ecologist Brad Griffith of the Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Although much remains to be learned, big changes clearly are taking place in the plumbing of the Far North, and the effects are sure to reverberate through entire ecosystems. "If we begin to think it's happening in a lot of places, then the implications for wildlife and subsistence resources are pretty substantial," Griffith says.
More than half of Alaska's surface, including its water, sits on perennially frozen soil or ice--called permafrost--that has long served as a pool liner. As University of Alaska–Fairbanks (UAF) permafrost scientist Vladimir Romanovsky likes to point out, "The stability of Arctic ecosystems depends on the ice that holds them together." And there's the rub: As our planet heats up with global warming, permafrost is starting to thaw. The effect for many bodies of water has been "to pull the cork out from underneath," says ecologist Torre Jorgensen of the Fairbanks biological research firm ABR, Inc.
Other factors too are probably playing a role, as evidenced on Alaska's permafrost-free Kenai Peninsula, where lakes and wetlands are giving way to woodlands. Evaporation caused by higher temperatures and a drier climate may be among the reasons, but degrading permafrost looks like a major factor in the drying trend elsewhere in the state
http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazin...-and-Views/Archives/2006/Alaska-Meltdown.aspx

Does all of this sounds to you as a 40,000 years shift?

Let me hear your side of “Shift’a’Gate” story.
 
Back
Top