Global Warming? A Misunderstanding with a dash of Lies

I can hardly pick up a newspaper anymore without seeing one story or another making reference to so called Global Warming.

This term provides me with a daily irritation for its wide spread misuse that relies more on its connotation than its actual meaning. By relying on a word’s connotation rather than its actual meaning, a statement can be made and accepted as fact or agreeable by a wide range of professional groups. Other people reading works with references to these terms would take this to mean that these professional groups (Not having publicly disputed the work and using the same terminology themselves) have endorsed this particular view or statement.

Global warming describes a phenomenon of the global mean temperature increasing. This term appears in all kinds of works as Global Warming not global warming. I don’t know when this started to occur but the results demonstrate a mass miss-communication that is currently driving politics and activism on a global basis.

I have in my frustration frequently searched the internet and library resources for the term, “The Global Warming Theory”. Those familiar with accepted scientific methods know that before something can be referred to as a scientific fact it had to be proved out as a theory first. Since no one has ever submitted a formal paper defining this theory the term seems to have appeared out of thin air. Each work published seems to rely on a previous works use of the term.

When people read articles and they see the term Global Warming they take this as a synonym to Green House Theory (a theory that Green House Gases cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere causing increases in global temperature).

This has caused a huge communication problem between the public, activists, journalists, and the scientific community. Journalists reporting for the public ask the scientific community if Global Warming is a fact and if it is occurring. The scientific community interprets these terms using the literal meaning and answer in the affirmative that this is a fact. The journalists then report this to the public as a whole and the headline usually ends up saying something like, “Global Warming is Real!” The public, upon reading this and previous articles they have read, believe this is confirmation of the Earth warming being caused due to Green House Gases released into the atmosphere by man.

When the scientific community publishes data that shows what they think global warming over the last 100 years has been based upon ice core samples or whatever, it tends to be reported in the newspapers as, “Global Warming responsible for Temperature Increases over Last Hundred Years!” The public again interprets this to mean that the Green House Gases released by man over the last 100 years are responsible for the increases in temperature being reported.

I think the reason that this bothers me so much is that I care about the planet so much because I want to ensure a good quality of life for my children. As long as people are talking apples and oranges, we can not have an intelligent discussion about what is happening in the environment.

I believe that the reason that this has continued so long is that many in the scientific community realize that the public is misinterpreting the information and that activist groups are reinforcing this with misinformation, but with this flood of concern came a flood of research dollars. Since they don’t feel they have violated any scientific ethics in their release of data they don’t feel the need to go out and try to correct these misconceptions. I hear some of them justify this because their job is research not trying to get involved in what they view as politics.

I wish someone would fix this so that when someone puts together the headlines for news articles that they choose better terminology instead of global warming.

If people realized how much we don’t know about this phenomenon, they would push their elected representatives to prepare for the coming climate change instead of trying to resist it with expensive strategies that may or may not be worth it.

Read about Homoeopathy buddy, these guys believe these poisons are actually the cures for what ails you.

Introduction:

Homoeopathy today is a rapidly growing system and is being practiced almost all over the world. In India it has become a household name due the safety of its pills and gentleness of its cure. A rough study indicates that about 10% of the Indian population solely depend on Homoeopathy for their Health care needs.

It is more than a century and a half now that Homoeopathy is being practiced in India. It has blended so well into the roots and traditions of the country that it has been recognised as one of the National Systems of Medicine and plays a an important role in providing health care to a large number of people. Its strength lies in its evident effectiveness as it takes a holistic approach towards the sick individual through promotion of inner balance at mental, emotional, spiritual and physical levels.

The word ‘Homoeopathy’ is derived from two Greek words, Homois meaning similar and pathos meaning suffering. Homoeopathy simply means treating diseases with remedies, prescribed in minute doses, which are capable of producing symptoms similar to the disease when taken by healthy people. It is based on the natural law of healing- "Similia Similibus Curantur" which means "likes are cured by likes". Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843) gave it a scientific basis in the early 19th century. It has been serving suffering humanity for over two centuries and has withstood the upheavals of time and has emerged as a time-tested therapy. The scientific principles propounded by Hahnemann are natural and well proven and continue to be followed with success.

ORIGIN

The principle of Homoeopathy has been known since the time of Hippocrates from Greece, the founder of medicine, around 450 BC More than a thousand years later the Swiss alchemist Paracelsus employed the same system of healing based upon the principle that "like cures like". But it was not until the late 18th century that Homoeopathy as it is practiced today was evolved by the great German physician, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann. He was appalled by the medical practices of that time and set about to develop a method of healing which would be safe, gentle, and effective. He believed that human beings have a capacity for healing themselves and that the symptoms of disease reflect the individuals struggle to overcome his illness.

Over two hundred years ago, the German physician Dr. Samuel Hahnemann discovered the principle that what substance could cause in the way of symptoms, it could also cure.

Hahnemann was struck by the effect that certain drugs, when taken by him while quite healthy, produced symptoms that the drug was known to cure in sick. For instance, when he took Cinchona Bark, which contains quinine, he became ill with symptoms that exactly mimicked intermittent fever (now called malaria). He wondered if the reason Cinchona worked against intermittent fever was because it caused symptoms indistinguishable from intermittent fever in a healthy human.

Hahnemann continued to experiment, noting that every substance he took, whether a herb, a mineral, an animal product or a chemical compound, produced definite distinct symptoms in him. He further noted that no two substances produced exactly the same set of symptoms. Each provoked its own unique pattern of symptoms. Furthermore the symptoms were not just confined to the physical plane. Every substance tested also affected the mind and the emotions apart from the body.

Eventually, Hahnemann began to treat the sick on the principle ‘let likes be treated by likes’. From the outset he achieved outstanding clinical success.

TRUE:

THE VAUNTED "CLEANUP FUNDS" HAVE BEEN SPENT: 95% ON LAWYERS.

But only 5% on engineering, waste removal, and de-tox applications.

by the way, they are spending MOST of that money on re-cleaning dirt (some of which IS contaminated - there ARE enviro problems that must be resolved! - which go so far past reality that you you could have a kid (literally) EAT the dirt of the site for years and not have any toxic effect.

The result GENREATES FAR MORE VOLUME OF WATE than was orignally planned that even MORE money is spent dumping (and cleaning) the "new" waste.

Which is ALSO a waste of money.

They should clean up the sites to a "rational" level that doesn't present run-off and local harm, and should restrict the "any part" lawsuit responsibility so the waste can be processed.

The rest is overkill, enriching the EPA, and its lawyers, and the enviro's - and their lawyers. Neither group wants to see the lawsuites end.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.