Turn deserts green, feed hungry people and combat climate change!

[spn82756]

A surprising number of my Christian friends regard the ideas about climate change as a socialist conspiracy to take away their freedom to drive their cars.

I say that combatting climate change may be the perfect excuse to turn the world’s poorest one billion people in to a market for food that has been produced in the desert through both aquaculture as well as agriculture powered by improved methods of desalination.

If world oceans rise by one meter over one hundred million people will be forced out of their homes. The Maldive Islands would be gone and virtually the entire nation of Bangledesh would be uninhabitable. I posted the following comments to the Gates Foundation official group. I would greatly appreciate your prayers, comments and criticism. Since Bill and Melinda Gates plan to spend something like $24 billion to make the world a better place I certainly would not want to give them bad advice!

Topic: Improve Aquaculture

Feeding people is one thing…the falacy of climate change is another.

facebook.com/topic.php?topic=15192&uid=164385420820#/topic.php?uid=11309713071&topic=13786

 

[manualman]

I have a question; Why can’t we use the ocean to turn electric turbines?

As noted, we can. But SHOULD we? That’s the hard question. Even the ‘almighty’ government has limited resources. We will destroy our civilization if we pour all our resources into the wrong investments. THAT is the legacy of Lehman Brothers!

At present, the simple truth is that a large scale tidal power generation facility would produce electricity at prices far beyond that of coal, nuclear or natural gas. So it won’t happen unless something changes to alter the economics.

It’s all well and good to discuss on internet forums where resources should be allocated. The trouble is that the economy is far too complicated for any bureacracy to ever handle. Flawed as free markets are, they are the best system ever devised by man for increasing and distributing wealth. The problems actually come in when artificial outside forces warp the market and alter the risk/reward balance in favor of something else artificially. We do this right now by the enormous general revenue expenditures of the US Federal Government. If we were smart and true to the principles that made us great, we’d make sure to always allocate the costs of programs and policies in such a way as to balance the effects.

For example, we’ve spent something like a trillion dollars on the Iraq war. WMD’s, yadda yadda, we all know that Iraq was special precisely because they could too easily interrupt oil supplies and prices and civilization wouldn’t survive that. But all that expense should be PAID for by taxes on oil. Yes, this would make oil and gas INCREDIBLY expensive. So? It IS incredibly expensive! We are just payng for it elsewhere, so we don’t realize it! If we had to PAY the $9/gallon of gas that it actually COSTS to stay on a oil based economy, the free market would very quickly bring alternative energy supplies out to replace oil. But instead, we bury the cost of oil reliance in the general deficit and pretend it isn’t happening.

In short, we won’t correct our problems by more command and control efforts. Just change the spending and taxing policies to reflect the ACTUAL costs of the things we do and free markets will take care of it in no time.

 

[DennisTate]

Absolutely! The irrigation of Israel after Jewish settlement is a great example.

Its interesting…here is Australia it has always been thought that with a little investment the North of the country could be irrigated and farmed. A recent report has shown that significant agriculture would be impossible due to the irregularity of rainfall (i.e. heavy rain in the wet season only) Unfortunately I think this might also be the case in many of the places you mention.

We can learn quite a lot from what has been accomplished in China over the past few decades. I personally would be extremely happy to see large scale salt water aquaculture practiced and then desalination of the used water to add to the water table to support the planting of the types of trees that can thrive in dry conditions.

Since deforestation is a major cause of desertification then it stands to reason that reforestation could help us take back the deserts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Wall_of_China

China has seen 3,600 km2 (1,390 miles2) of grassland overtaken every year by the Gobi Desert.[2] Each year dust storms blow off as much as 900 square miles of topsoil and are increasing in severity each year. The storms destroy agriculture fields and cause massive problems to the cities, even other countries (Japan, North Korea, and South Korea). [3] The Green Wall started in 1978 with the proposed end result of raising northern China’s forest cover from 5 to 15 percent [4] and thereby reducing deserts.

As of 2009 China’s planted forest covers more than 500,000 square kilometers (increasing tree cover from 12% to 18%) – the biggest artificial forest in the world.[6] However, of the 53,000 hectares planted, a quarter has died and of the remaining many are dwarf trees, which lack the capacity to protect soil.[4] In 2008 winter storms destroyed 10% of the new forest stock, causing the World Bank to advise China to focus more on quality rather than quantity stock species

 

[DennisTate]

As noted, we can. But SHOULD we? That’s the hard question. Even the ‘almighty’ government has limited resources. We will destroy our civilization if we pour all our resources into the wrong investments. THAT is the legacy of Lehman Brothers!

At present, the simple truth is that a large scale tidal power generation facility would produce electricity at prices far beyond that of coal, nuclear or natural gas. So it won’t happen unless something changes to alter the economics.

It’s all well and good to discuss on internet forums where resources should be allocated. The trouble is that the economy is far too complicated for any bureacracy to ever handle. Flawed as free markets are, they are the best system ever devised by man for increasing and distributing wealth. The problems actually come in when artificial outside forces warp the market and alter the risk/reward balance in favor of something else artificially. We do this right now by the enormous general revenue expenditures of the US Federal Government. If we were smart and true to the principles that made us great, we’d make sure to always allocate the costs of programs and policies in such a way as to balance the effects.

For example, we’ve spent something like a trillion dollars on the Iraq war. WMD’s, yadda yadda, we all know that Iraq was special precisely because they could too easily interrupt oil supplies and prices and civilization wouldn’t survive that. But all that expense should be PAID for by taxes on oil. Yes, this would make oil and gas INCREDIBLY expensive. So? It IS incredibly expensive! We are just payng for it elsewhere, so we don’t realize it! If we had to PAY the $9/gallon of gas that it actually COSTS to stay on a oil based economy, the free market would very quickly bring alternative energy supplies out to replace oil. But instead, we bury the cost of oil reliance in the general deficit and pretend it isn’t happening.

In short, we won’t correct our problems by more command and control efforts. Just change the spending and taxing policies to reflect the ACTUAL costs of the things we do and free markets will take care of it in no time.

Exceptionally good comments Manualman!

I did my best to elaboarate on another way of approaching economics in my political campaigns:

bankingsystemflaws.blogspot.com/

When well trained workers have high quality technology to work with then the total of all wages and benefits paid out to employees is only a fraction of the retail value of the products they produce. As a result of this fact the only way to move products out of warehouses is to extend higher and higher levels of credit. One problem with an abundance of red ink is that compound interest on all this government, business and personal debt over a period of decades will grow to astronomical levels. At this time there is approximately TEN TIMES as much debt in Canada as there is money. A simple explanation for how this happened can be seen here:
michaeljournal.org/plenty34.htm
In my opinion this rather simple mathematical problem is perhaps the number one cause of inflation in the Canadian economy over the past three decades. This is also perhaps the number one reason why our costs of production are so high and Canadian products cannot compete on the world markets as well as they could under better conditions.

From 1940 to 1970 the Government of Canada put roughly half of the total money supply into the economy through loans issued through the federally owned Bank of Canada. Provincial and municipal governments could borrow the money to build roads, schools, hospitals and sewage treatment facilities at zero or one percent interest. In 1970 we changed our system and since that time a higher and higher percentage of all government debt is financed through loans issued through privately owned banks. At this time it is ninety eight percent. This policy may be great for our banking sector but it was estimated that in the one year of 1995 alone our federal government could have saved roughly SIXTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in interest payments if we had gone back to creating half the total money supply through these low interest rate loans issued through the bank that is OWNED BY ALL CANADIANS.

Considering that our deficit was approximately thirty billion dollars for that year, simply by changing back to an already proven monetary and banking system, we could theoretically have had a FEDERAL BUDGET SURPLUS OF THIRTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in 1995

.

The most utterly intelligent comment on economics that I have ever read is in the Bible:

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. (Genesis 11:6).

19 For laughter they make bread, and wine that the living may feast: and all things obey money.

Ecclesiastes 10:19

 

[kimmielittle]

As noted, we can. But SHOULD we? That’s the hard question. Even the ‘almighty’ government has limited resources. We will destroy our civilization if we pour all our resources into the wrong investments. THAT is the legacy of Lehman Brothers!

At present, the simple truth is that a large scale tidal power generation facility would produce electricity at prices far beyond that of coal, nuclear or natural gas. So it won’t happen unless something changes to alter the economics.

It’s all well and good to discuss on internet forums where resources should be allocated. The trouble is that the economy is far too complicated for any bureacracy to ever handle. Flawed as free markets are, they are the best system ever devised by man for increasing and distributing wealth. The problems actually come in when artificial outside forces warp the market and alter the risk/reward balance in favor of something else artificially. We do this right now by the enormous general revenue expenditures of the US Federal Government. If we were smart and true to the principles that made us great, we’d make sure to always allocate the costs of programs and policies in such a way as to balance the effects.

For example, we’ve spent something like a trillion dollars on the Iraq war. WMD’s, yadda yadda, we all know that Iraq was special precisely because they could too easily interrupt oil supplies and prices and civilization wouldn’t survive that. But all that expense should be PAID for by taxes on oil. Yes, this would make oil and gas INCREDIBLY expensive. So? It IS incredibly expensive! We are just payng for it elsewhere, so we don’t realize it! If we had to PAY the $9/gallon of gas that it actually COSTS to stay on a oil based economy, the free market would very quickly bring alternative energy supplies out to replace oil. But instead, we bury the cost of oil reliance in the general deficit and pretend it isn’t happening.

In short, we won’t correct our problems by more command and control efforts. Just change the spending and taxing policies to reflect the ACTUAL costs of the things we do and free markets will take care of it in no time.

Ah!!..Thank you

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Agreed 100%. You can not farm on desert sand. Its impossible! However there remians much untapped farmland in the world, ie Iraq (some areas between the rivers are very fertile), Mexico, Argentina, etc… These places just need the infrastructure (damns and irrigation) and capital (farm Machinery) and of course training. My economics proffessor also owns a large farm here in Californias Central Valley. He indicates that becuase of technology, crops per acre have increased 2-3% every year, since 1920. This due to better machinery, fertilizers, soil treatments, that allow for example more tomatoes to grow on a single plant than normally. Farm output has always exceeded population growth here in the San Joaquin Valley. The problem is that goverment takes available farmland away…or refuses to give allocated water to farm such lands… Such is the case now in the San Joaquin Valley, where water is redistributed away from farms and into the San Joaquin/Sacramento river deltas to save a 2 inch fish…

I thought you all had a drought because of a court order to protect some little non-native minnow that caused the irrigation pumps to be shut off.

 

[DennisTate]

Hiyas

There are many scientists who debunk this theory

They may try to debunk this theory but their confidence in the ice caps not melting sure does not fit with satellite images of the disappearance of the Arctic ice:

youtube.com/watch?v=JMQ21p93JZc
Melting Arctic Sea Ice

I did a blog yesterday that covers this subject in quite a lot of detail:

greendesertstoreducecarbon.blogspot.com/

Is Pope Benedict XVI In The Best Position to Effectively Combat Climate Change?
Homily for January 17, 2010 by Dennis Tate. Assignment #2 for MNST 130 class at St. Francis Xavier University.

Pope Benedict XVI may be in an even stronger position than you Mr. Branson to transform the world economy virtually overnight through the introduction of a new Vatican Currency Unit that could be linked
with each and every national currency where the Vatican State is free to do business."

“It seems to me that turning the world’s one billion hungry people into a market for food produced in our deserts through both aquaculture and agriculture could be the way to reduce the amount of heat going into the atmosphere at the same time that we add fresh water to the water table of North Africa and the Middle East. Every cubic meter added to North Africa will NOT be on top of Florida, New Orleans, Holland or the Maldive Islands!”

 

[spn82756]

They may try to debunk this theory but their confidence in the ice caps not melting sure does not fit with satellite images of the disappearance of the Arctic ice:

youtube.com/watch?v=JMQ21p93JZc
Melting Arctic Sea Ice

I did a blog yesterday that covers this subject in quite a lot of detail:

greendesertstoreducecarbon.blogspot.com/

Is Pope Benedict XVI In The Best Position to Effectively Combat Climate Change?
Homily for January 17, 2010 by Dennis Tate. Assignment #2 for MNST 130 class at St. Francis Xavier University.

There is not much to debunk. AGW is a farce. Look at the non-biased studies.

 

[DennisTate]

Well. The people who hold the money are running the show. Look at the present Global economic downturn…

Credit led to the first Great Depression in the US and it meant the death of Lehman Brothers who owed (if I recall correctly) $27.00 for every actual dollar they held. Imagine their surprise, and mine, when they reacted to the sudden (???) realization that they were so “exposed.”

Peace,
Ed

Hi Ed: Over the past few months I have heard several gifted people give a prophecy that 2010 was a year in which God would begin to take wealth out of the hand of the wicked and put it in the hands of God’s people.

I believe that all of us can learn a LOT from the example of Fr. Moses Coady and how he got the Antigonish movement started that now is active in 120 nations. A Vatican currency unit could become a powerful force for raising up the valleys and bringing down the mountains!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonish_Movement

“As educators and priests, the leaders of the Antigonish Movement were primarily
concerned with human and spiritual development. The title of Moses Coady’s only
book – Masters of Their Own Destiny – encapsulates this desire to see ordinary
Nova Scotians achieve economic and social freedom.”
…
“Ordinary Nova
Scotians he argued, had only themselves to blame for their poverty and vulnerability. They had permitted money and
business to become mysterious forces outside of their control. Fishers and
farmers for example, were exploited by marketing middlemen. Everyone was
exploited by moneylenders. If they took the time to understand their
circumstances and took the risks of co-operative action, they could achieve
economic security and on that foundation greater freedom and self-realization.”

"Dear Mr. Branson:It is my firm belief that the number one technological device
to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases has already been invented. It is the
tree.

What is desperately needed at this time is not necessarily a new mechanical
device but instead a paradigm shift in economic theory regarding monetary policy. We require a readily understandable explanation on how leaders in business and government can direct not only millions, but actually trillions of dollars of investment into combating global warming."

 

[DennisTate]

There is not much to debunk. AGW is a farce. Look at the non-biased studies.

I disagree but it is critical to understand what is meant by global dimming if we are to fully understand climate change.

Climate change = Global warming - Global dimming

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

Between the 1950s and the early 1990s, the level of solar energy reaching the
Earth’s surface had dropped: nine percent in Antarctica, 10 percent in areas of
the U.S.A., by almost 30 percent in one region of Russia, and by 16 percent in
parts of the British Isles. This seemed to be a global phenomenon, so Gerry gave
it a suitable name: “global dimming.”

DAVID TRAVIS: The 9/11 study showed that if you remove a contributor to global dimming, jet contrails, just for a three-day period, we see an immediate response of the surface temperature. Do the same thing globally, we might see a large-scale increase in global warming.

…

JAMES HANSEN: It has been overlooked how sensitive ice sheets are to global temperature. We can see that in the last year, the mass of Greenland decreased by 200 cubic kilometers of ice. That’s a lot of ice.

In another article Dr. James Hansen stated that we could be looking at a much greater rise in ocean levels than has previously been thought:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

“The geological record suggests that ice at the poles does not melt in a gradual and linear fashion, but flips suddenly from one state to another. When temperatures increased to 2-3 degrees above today’s level 3.5 million years ago, sea levels rose not by 59 centimetres but by 25 metres. The ice responded immediately to changes in temperature.”

(Dr. James Hansen)

 

[spn82756]

I disagree but it is critical to understand what is meant by global dimming if we are to fully understand climate change.

When I was in High School…Mr Hansen wrote a book. It was called "The Weather Conspiracy…the Coming of the New(next) Ice age.

Mr Hansen has ZERO credibility with me and many scientists. I’ve been a meteorologist for 30 years. AGW is bunk…

 

[kimmielittle]

They may try to debunk this theory but their confidence in the ice caps not melting sure does not fit with satellite images of the disappearance of the Arctic ice:

youtube.com/watch?v=JMQ21p93JZc
Melting Arctic Sea Ice

I can’t do utubes.

I did a blog yesterday that covers this subject in quite a lot of detail:

greendesertstoreducecarbon.blogspot.com/

Is Pope Benedict XVI In The Best Position to Effectively Combat Climate Change?
Homily for January 17, 2010 by Dennis Tate. Assignment #2 for MNST 130 class at St. Francis Xavier University.

Nice blog

Do you think the Holy Father was speaking in his role of fallibility or infallibility?

Do you think the Holy Father can be lied to?
Does He get his information from IPCC? Mann, Hansen, et al ]

IPCC Mann…Hansen…et al…have a very uncharitable history of presenting their truth.

The article went on to criticize past “pseudo-science” and “scientific manipulation,” citing the time the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency blamed India’s wet paddy fields for emitting high levels of methane, a potentially strong climate-warming gas.

abcnews.go.com/Technology/International/india-reacts-himalayan-glacier-mistake/story?id=9634241

As always, just my thoughts

 

[kimmielittle]

A repost of mine

Hiyas

Please allow me to introduce one of my heroes.

1; She’s a girl
2; She’s older than me.
3; She debunked the World UN IPCC ] in 2007
4: She did it with limited resources…no grants etc

 Quote:
                                             **15-Year-Old Outsmarts U.N. Climate Panel, Predicts End of Australia's Drought**

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
Thu, 05/24/2007 - 08:56 ET

•                                       [s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-share-en.gif](http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=newsbusters)

• media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/graphics/print.png

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/05/2007-05-23Byrnes.jpgLast week, NewsBusters readers were introduced to Portland, Maine’s fabulous fifteen-year-old, Kristen Byrnes, whose website “Ponder the Maunder” marvelously takes on anthropogenic global warming myths including those being advanced by soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore.
As will be revealed post haste, this newest – and likely youngest – member of the growing list of folks skeptical about man’s role in climate change actually walks the walk better than she talks the talk.
Yet, despite her youth and precocious scientific acumen, it seems quite unlikely that she’ll be sitting down with Matt Lauer or Diane Sawyer any time soon to discuss her research concerning one of the most popular subjects on the media’s front-burner. Why?
Because a prediction that she made last month concerning Australia’s drought has marvelously borne fruit making the scientists employed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change look a bit foolish.
To set this up, here’s what the IPCC Summary for Policymakers report released on April 7 predicted regarding Australia (emphasis added):
**As a result of reduced precipitation and increased evaporation, water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern **Australia and, in New Zealand, in Northland and some eastern regions. ** D [11.4]
…] Production from agriculture and forestry by 2030 is projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia, and over parts of eastern New Zealand, due to increased drought and fire.
About two weeks later, in an Internet discussion group which I belong to that deals exclusively with anthropogenic global warming issues, Byrnes wrote the following to an Australian participant (emphasis added, released with her permission and that of her parents):
I was just looking at my ENSO 3.4 chart when I was responding to Eduardo’s email. It looks like the ENSO has been positive for 95% of the last 6 years. Since Austrailia [sic] experiences warm and dry conditions during positive ENSO, six years of drought would not surprise me. But it is headed negative very quickly now, so you might want to dust off your umbrella.
Well, just last week, there were signs from Australia that the six-year-old drought might be over. As reported by News.com.au on May 18 in an article deliciously titled “Drought Could Be Ending”:

newsbusters.org/node/12968

My suggestion: Feed the hungry… protect the environment

BUT not because of politicized “science” ?]

 

[spn82756]

A repost of mine

Hiyas

Please allow me to introduce one of my heroes.

1; She’s a girl
2; She’s older than me.
3; She debunked the World UN IPCC ] in 2007
4: She did it with limited resources…no grants etc

 Quote:
                                             **15-Year-Old Outsmarts U.N. Climate Panel, Predicts End of Australia's Drought**

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
Thu, 05/24/2007 - 08:56 ET

•                                       [s7.addthis.com/static/btn/v2/lg-share-en.gif](http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=newsbusters)

• media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/graphics/print.png

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/05/2007-05-23Byrnes.jpgLast week, NewsBusters readers were introduced to Portland, Maine’s fabulous fifteen-year-old, Kristen Byrnes, whose website “Ponder the Maunder” marvelously takes on anthropogenic global warming myths including those being advanced by soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore.
As will be revealed post haste, this newest – and likely youngest – member of the growing list of folks skeptical about man’s role in climate change actually walks the walk better than she talks the talk.
Yet, despite her youth and precocious scientific acumen, it seems quite unlikely that she’ll be sitting down with Matt Lauer or Diane Sawyer any time soon to discuss her research concerning one of the most popular subjects on the media’s front-burner. Why?
Because a prediction that she made last month concerning Australia’s drought has marvelously borne fruit making the scientists employed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change look a bit foolish.
To set this up, here’s what the IPCC Summary for Policymakers report released on April 7 predicted regarding Australia (emphasis added):
**As a result of reduced precipitation and increased evaporation, water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern **Australia and, in New Zealand, in Northland and some eastern regions. ** D [11.4]
…] Production from agriculture and forestry by 2030 is projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia, and over parts of eastern New Zealand, due to increased drought and fire.
About two weeks later, in an Internet discussion group which I belong to that deals exclusively with anthropogenic global warming issues, Byrnes wrote the following to an Australian participant (emphasis added, released with her permission and that of her parents):
I was just looking at my ENSO 3.4 chart when I was responding to Eduardo’s email. It looks like the ENSO has been positive for 95% of the last 6 years. Since Austrailia [sic] experiences warm and dry conditions during positive ENSO, six years of drought would not surprise me. But it is headed negative very quickly now, so you might want to dust off your umbrella.
Well, just last week, there were signs from Australia that the six-year-old drought might be over. As reported by News.com.au on May 18 in an article deliciously titled “Drought Could Be Ending”:

newsbusters.org/node/12968

My suggestion: Feed the hungry… protect the environment

BUT not because of politicized “science” ?]

Okay! I’m voting for you for president too!!!

You may want to change your name to KimmieSuperDuperIntelligent. 'cuz you are!

 

[kimmielittle]

Okay! I’m voting for you for president too!!!

You may want to change your name to KimmieSuperDuperIntelligent. 'cuz you are!

Hiyas

I’ll need your vote…and at least three more. You see, I don’t think I’ll get Mr. Gores’ Mr, Mr. Hansens…Mr Soros…and a few more of course I’m not worried about the UN ]

 

[DennisTate]

When I was in High School…Mr Hansen wrote a book. It was called "The Weather Conspiracy…the Coming of the New(next) Ice age.

Mr Hansen has ZERO credibility with me and many scientists. I’ve been a meteorologist for 30 years. AGW is bunk…

Interesting comment spn82756:

Perhaps it may be some consolation that the people over at Richard Dawkins Facebook Group are surprisingly positive toward the basic idea of combatting climate change through turning deserts green:

I give a link into the thread here in my own Facebook group:
Topic: Rising ocean levels pose great threat to Antigonish and Sherbrooke and …
facebook.com/group.php?gid=25829456480&v=app_2373072738&ref=ts#!/topic.php?uid=25829456480&topic=13367

Oh, this group may have special relevance to you because I am trying to raise awareness regarding a potential anti-feticide bill that actually would have a chance of being passed in Canada’s parliament:

Topic: “BAN INTRA-CARDIAC POTASSIUM CHLORIDE INJECTIONS ON SINGLETONS.”
This is the exact wording for a piece of legislation that could potentially save the lives of several dozen unborn Canadians each year.

At this time Canada has absolutely no legislation regarding the treatment of the unborn so doctors are free to take the life of a late term fetus who could possibly survive the attempted abortion. Their lives are ended by an injection of potassium chloride directly into their heart that incidentally are beating at 120 - 160 beats per minute even before they sense danger.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_heart_rate
//The fetal heart rate is faster that the normal heart rate of an adult. The younger the fetus the faster the rate. In middle and late pregnancy the fetal heart beat can be heard almost anywhere over the uterus depending on the position of the fetus. In the first trimester of pregnancy the fetal heart may be detected with an ultrasound machine. The sound is asynchronous and different from the maternal pulse that may be detected and heard in the nearby arteries (uterine arteries), called uterine souffle.
The normal fetal heart rate ranges from 120 to 160 beats per minute.//

Many active members of Canada’s Liberal Party applaud the courage of Conservative M.P. Rod Bruinooge who risks his own political career in order to do the best that he can to protect the lives of the unborn.

I would be honored to be chosen eventually to represent the Liberal Party in Central Nova in a federal or in a provincial election. If I was chosen as candidate at the federal level I definitely would introduce a bill to BAN INTRACARDIAC POTASSIUM CHLORIDE INJECTIONS ON SINGLETONS.

 

[athair_siochain]

Hiyas

There are many scientists who debunk this theory

epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37cd65f0-802a-23ad-4a69-5a1509a4a551

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=37cd65f0-802a-23ad-4a69-5a1509a4a551

How many are on the payroll of big oil companies?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I’d like someone to explain where the water will come from the “turn the deserts green”. In the American southwest, no or almost no water reaches the mouth of the Colorado River as it is.

 

[DennisTate]

I’d like someone to explain where the water will come from the “turn the deserts green”. In the American southwest, no or almost no water reaches the mouth of the Colorado River as it is.

Good question. I would like to see solar desalination of ocean water from the Pacific Ocean perfected and then pump the water up past the mountains so that the Mojave Desert is turned Green. Doing Aquaculture in concrete trenches previous to desalinating the salt water would seem like a good way to be more efficient.

 

[DennisTate]

How many are on the payroll of big oil companies?

Good question, I believe that God caused the Republican Party to be humiliated in 2008 because the GOP were far too close to big business. I highly recommend:
The Future of Food
thefutureoffood.com/

Food Inc

The World According to Monsanto

for more information on why perhaps God intervened and humiliated the GOP despite the fact that are closer to the truth on supporting Israel and protecting the unborn. Millions and even billions of lives are threatened by genetic modification of crops.

Getting out more information on the implications of Theistic Evolutionary Theory may be one of the best ways to combat this trend.

carbonbias.blogspot.com/

Did God Evolve?
I actually do believe in evolution but I think that anybody who would dogmatically limit evolution to our four dimensional space time continuum lacks basic mathematical aptitude.

Back in the 1990’s I read several articles on GUT and string theory. Later on I read Stephen Hawking’s Universe. in his chapter The Anthropic Principle he speculated that perhaps there were an infinite number of unsuccessful universes out there somewhere in which was no life due to the fact that electromagnetism, gravity, weak and strong nuclear force were not properly tuned for life as we know it. It seems obvious to me that another possibility is that the first intelligent life form might be composed of energy. Probably a fundamental energy such as SuperForce or Super Energetic Matter which may be the common denominator for all four forces active in our fourth space time dimensional continuum.

13.72 billion years is roughly equal to ZERO time when compared with eternity. If fundamental energy would always have existed, as I assume Dr. Hawking seems to believe due to his suspicion of their having been an infinite number of unsuccessful universes and probably Big Bang + Grand Collapses, then if evolutionary theory could be expanded to have occurred within infinite time as opposed to limiting abiogenesis and evolution to abouit 4.5 billion years than you increase the probability of evolution being possible by essentially an infinite factor! I do believe in evolution occurring, but I suspect that perhaps 99% of evolution probably occurred before our Big Bang which was probably planned and choreographed by the Life Form/life forms that would probably be composed of fundamental energy.

Is evolution more probable to have occurred within 13 billion years or within eternity?

I must admit that these ideas about invisible higher space time dimensions sure does remind me of what many people who have a brush with death report.

near-death.com/ritch.html

Jesus gives him a tour of four different dimensions in the
afterlife. They both fly toward a large city on Earth where they notice
a group of assembly-line workers at work. He witnesses the spirit of a woman trying desperately to obtain a cigarette from the workers who are oblivious to her presence. This woman died severely addicted to cigarettes.

In a house, Jesus shows him the spirit of a boy following a living teenage
girl and begging for forgiveness while the girl is completely unaware of the boy’s presence. Jesus tells George that the boy committed suicide and is “chained to every consequence of his act.”

Jesus shows George a bar filled with sailors who are heavily drinking.
Spirits try desperately and in vain to get a drink or to control the sailors’ alcoholic behavior. These spirits are from humans who die severely alcoholic.

He is horrified as he observes a drunken sailor pass out and an alcoholic spirit jump into the body of the sailor. Jesus takes him to a new dimension away from Earth and shows him a kind of “receiving station” where spirits would arrive in a deep hypnotic sleep because of their beliefs. These are spirits who believe they must sleep after death until Jesus returns.(George Ritchie)