Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-31-2014 8:23 PM
79 online now:
Modulous (AdminModulous) (1 member, 78 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,095 Year: 24,936/28,606 Month: 2,237/1,786 Week: 452/647 Day: 57/79 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Increase in Natural Disasters? Prophesied?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8586
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 157 (256616)
11-03-2005 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
11-03-2005 8:50 PM


Increasing compared to...
So far as I am aware the thread was not a comparison. It was about whether they are increasing as per Biblical prophecies in the latter days.

I know Jar covered this already. I want to emphasize the significance of this. Something must be compared to some baseline to say if there is an increase or not. It is problems at this level, Buzz, that have reduced your credibility to somewhere just under zero. This is very, very simple; not rocket science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2005 8:50 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2005 11:33 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 157 (256655)
11-03-2005 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Asgara
11-03-2005 11:10 AM


Re: My Response To NosyNed
Hi Asgara. I've been doing some research and there seems to be no charts or graphs on conglomerate natural disasters. They all sppear to be on individual types of disasters, so I suppose we need to work on those. I'm going back to your last post in the original thread to address that, since it was closed before I got back to my PC. Digging up these statistics becomes very time consuming for all the individual types of disasters.

buzsaw writes:

but I maintained that the question was whether all disasters in conglomerate were on the increase,

Asgara writes:

Ok, buz please supply your evidence of an increase in ALL natural disasters. I haven't seen it yet.


======================================================================
Asgara writes:

Buz that NOAA list does not say what the criteria is for being on that list... your webpenny page doesn't either. It is a list not the list. It does not list all the major landfall hurricanes since 1900.

1. I took a good look at your list and mine. Actually mine has been updated to include the last seven years which yours does not list. Yours is obsolete and does not record the very significant last seven years of the major landfall hurricane disasters.

2. Yours does not show the increase by years as mine does. That, after all is what data we're after. Mine gives the number data for each year consecutively so as to observe the increase in frequency. Your chart does not show that.

Asgara writes:

That is my point buz, your list is not a list of either most intense, most deadly, or most costly US landfall hurricanes.

You can eliminate the three in question and still have a siginificant increase. Other than that, you still haven't refuted that that I am aware of. If mistaken, please show where.

Asgara writes:

You have given us some half-assed quotes from unlinked websites saying what you want to hear.

......And to my knowledge you have yet to go to those website statements which I've posted, copy and paste specific false statements and refute them. This is likely what would be required of me if the shoe was on the other foot.

buzsaw writes:

Yes, and I've already stated that to be the case, so for you to say I've shown nothing is just not right.

Asgara writes:

Buz you are making a mistake here. I never said you were wrong, and the fact that you may have some things right does not mean YOU have shown it. Your posts have not shown anything yet.

I "...have some things right......does not mean you have shown it"? :confused: If I've got some things right that means I've shown it to be right, no matter whether I've used someone elses stuff or my own. We call it research, et al.

Asgara writes:

You have claimed that global warming is producing an unprecedented increase in natural disasters since 1948 in concordance with prophecy,

Wrong! You know full well that global warming is not the only criteria I've given for the increase. It is just one factor.

Asgara writes:

What we are saying is that any increase is cyclical, and has been happening for many centuries, and has NOT only been happening since 1948.

What I'm saying is that though there may be some cycling, the overall increase conglomerately is corroborated by numerous other prophecies which have either been fulfilled as I've documented, or are for the first time in history being capable of fulfillment. In this thread I will work on documenting that to be the case with either most or all of the individual types of disasters, including floods and forest/brush fires, which we haven't even discussed yet.

In the meantime, I'm posting some link statements for you and others to read. Hopefully, if you or others choose to debunk them, you will address specifics in them which you believe to be in error and work to refute them. [b]Note also in the last link on the list that seismic activity relative to both earthquakes and volcanoes sppear to be increasing, regardless as to whether the major ones have increased that much. These charts factor everything from 2.5 up in intensity. Also, 2005, which is not on the charts yet is likely to spike the graphs up some. It's been significantly seismic this year.

Link quotes:

link writes:

In addition to dry weather, "irrational human activities" such as livestock overgrazing, rampant logging and excessive cutting of branches for firewood were at the root of the crisis, it said.

"Because of this, natural disasters are increasing in frequency, the threat is getting ever bigger and the losses are mounting," the newspaper said.


www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid

link writes:

The global increase in greenhouse gas emissions and growing concentration of radiatively active gases in the atmosphere has emerged as the most significant international environmental issue (UNEP 1999). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported that global mean temperature appears to be increasing in response to these anthropogenic factors (IPCC 1997) and there is increasingly evidence that weather and climate related natural disasters are increasing in frequency and magnitude. As a result the global community has begun the process of setting in place concrete limitations on the net emissions of greenhouse gases by developed countries through the Framework Convention on Climate Change and it’s subsidiary agreement, the Kyoto Protocol.

www.forest.nsw.gov.au/env_services/ papers/dtpamfcsipf/default.asp

link writes:

Climate change is increasing the probability of the occurrence and greater intensity of certain weather-related events with the risk of: more frequent and severe water shortages (dry regions becoming drier); more flooding (increased rainfall in humid areas, rising sea levels after the melting of ice caps, leading to a reduction in crop production in marginal areas and thus increased food insecurity). This is putting millions more at risk of losing their lives, livelihoods and assets. Current efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are unlikely to solve the problems. More drastic reductions are required; yet even these would only deter present trends.


www.nemot.info/index.php?ref=viewnews& newsid

link writes:

Washington -- More bilateral and multilateral cooperation is needed to fight forest fires in the Americas, says the United Nations, which warns that forest fires are increasing at an "alarming rate" in the region.


usunrome.usmission.gov/ UNIssues/Forestry/docs/a4102802

link writes:

Foresters have noted for many years now that forest fires are increasing in intensity and becoming more difficult to control. When we see the news of fires sweeping across vast areas of forests and into communities, our first reaction is that we must do more to put out these fires. Indeed, in the moment, that must be the priority.

www.davidsuzuki.org/Forests/Forests_101/FIRE/ - 20k

Statistal graph link: writes:

The fires occurring in recent years include more catastrophic, stand replacing fires– fires from which forests do not recover.


forestfire.nau.edu/statistics.htm - 30k

link writes:

Both charts show a dramatic major increase in such activity in a steady progressive upward trend over a period of at least forty years. The increase in earthquake and volcanic activity easily seems to be at least fourfold.


www.michaelmandeville.com/polarmotion/ spinaxis/vortex_correlations2.htm


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Asgara, posted 11-03-2005 11:10 AM Asgara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2005 2:45 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 39 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-05-2005 8:19 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 157 (256658)
11-03-2005 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
11-03-2005 9:18 PM


Re: Increasing compared to...
NosyNed writes:

I know Jar covered this already. I want to emphasize the significance of this. Something must be compared to some baseline to say if there is an increase or not. It is problems at this level, Buzz, that have reduced your credibility to somewhere just under zero. This is very, very simple; not rocket science.

An increase simply means you compare recent years with former years within a given timeframe, which I've stated, to determine whether there is indeed an increase or not. If you and jar want something else, please apprise me as to specifically what you want. Ned, after all the work and time I've spent on responding to all you people, to meanspiritedly call my credibility subzero is a nasty, nasty personal attack and imo, clearly contrary to forum guidelines.:mad: If I were a moderator, I'd suspend you for a day to think about that. Why don't you and a few of my other counterparts here be good examples to this peon creo and stick to addressing topic rather than these personal attacks?


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2005 9:18 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 11-04-2005 9:41 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 11-04-2005 10:01 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 157 (256663)
11-03-2005 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
11-03-2005 9:10 PM


Re: Questions buz needs to answer.
jar writes:

Mybe that will help you understand why most folk consider Robertson, Falwell, Phelps, Dobson, Scott and the vast majority of televangelists idiots. Complete idiots. Or perhaps just con men.

FYI, most do not consider these men as complete idiots. Likely about as many esteem some of them as highly as you esteem your admired people of notoriety.

jar writes:

Zephenaiah? You have got to be kidding me. For those that like to read along, here is a link to the first Chapter of Zephenaiah. Read all three chapters, they are short. It's talking about events from nearly 2500-3000 years ago.

OK, jar, since this prophecy (Zepheniah regarded by all Biblical scholars as a prophet) when have all the birds of the air, the fishes of the sea, man and beast been consumed off the earth? When, since this prophecy can it be said that the day of God's wrath, as described here has happened?

Joel also deemed a prophet by all Biblical scholars clearly speaks of future events.

jar writes:

I've already dealt with your assertions from Revelations.

You asked for prophetic references to disasters, did you not? How about refuting that these are references of Biblical prophecies concerning end times and of disaster?

jar writes:

SO basically buz, not one of those says anything about increasing natural disasters.

As per your usual, jar. Jar demands. Buzsaw produces. Jar denies. You're a waste of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 11-03-2005 9:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 11-04-2005 9:39 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 157 (256670)
11-04-2005 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
11-03-2005 9:43 AM


Re: My Response To NosyNed
Phat writes:

How do we know that record keeping is just not improving?

I believe i've show that there's more to it than recordkeeping.

Phat writes:

How do we know if the increase is part of a short term trend (as can be seen with Hurricanes) or whether it is a definite permanent increase?

We've discussed that along the way. I believe I've shown that the overall trend in recent decades has been more than just short term cycling and that that trend is predicted to continue. This all, as I've laboriously shown, to be corroborated by other prephetic fulfillments, such as those on the Middle East, technological capabilities, et al.

Phat writes:

Are you starting from the assumption that the Bible is the way that things will be? (If so, that is OK>Just admit it.)

I guess each reader will need to look at the threads and determine that, won't they? If you can refute my data and documentations, go for it. If it's all assumptions, as you're implying, your job of refuting should be easy.

Phat writes:

Oh...and one other thing: Quit b*tching! This persecution complex is getting old!

The personal attacks, strawmen, repetetive demands, et al, get old to. The moderating threats and demands here seems to be focused on one individual of the minority ideology. Suspend me, if that's what you want. I could use a rest.


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 11-03-2005 9:43 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 157 (256672)
11-04-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mespo
11-03-2005 11:56 AM


Re: More world population to get whacked
More world population to get whacked
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mespo writes:


A table from www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html showed the world population in 1950 to be about 2.5 billion. In 2005 it is estimated at 6.4 billion. So, simple arithmetic shows an increase of 3.9 BILLION potential victims since 1950 of fire, flood, famine, earthquakes, tsunamies, hurricanes, tornadoes and appalling auto depreciation rates.
You don't have to increase the frequency of disasters to kill more people. They're already there

Yes, the population increase factors in, but meteorologists, foresters and other professionals are seeing more to it than that, according to my research.


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mespo, posted 11-03-2005 11:56 AM Mespo has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 22 of 157 (256688)
11-04-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
11-03-2005 11:16 PM


Buzsaw "logic"
quote:
Dealing with the fact that the complete NOAA list includes a significant number of major hurricanes prior to 1948:

Asgara writes:

Buz that NOAA list does not say what the criteria is for being on that list... your webpenny page doesn't either. It is a list not the list. It does not list all the major landfall hurricanes since 1900.

1. I took a good look at your list and mine. Actually mine has been updated to include the last seven years which yours does not list. Yours is obsolete and does not record the very significant last seven years of the major landfall hurricane disasters.

2. Yours does not show the increase by years as mine does. That, after all is what data we're after. Mine gives the number data for each year consecutively so as to observe the increase in frequency. Your chart does not show that.


So the reasons for denying the existence of these earlier hurricanes are:

1) The list used by webpenny has been extended to include some later hurricanes

2) The layout of the webpenny article is better suited to show the supposed increase

No sane person could claim that these points had any relevance to the real objection. I leave to the audience the question of whether Buz actually believes them himself.

Some relevant facts ARE:

a) webpennys is a penny stock site - it is NOT an authoritative source on hurricanes.

b) NOAA IS an authoritative source which even the webpenny article implicitly admits - it claims to have simply added to a list compiled by NOAA. Obviously NOAA should be considered a more reliable reporter of its own data.

c) The webpennys report misuses the NOAA list because it assumes that it is a complete list of the major hurricanes. when in fact it makes no such claim and omits a significant number of major hurricanes that occurred before 1948. (This can easily be checked, and I did it - see below for what I found).

All these were raised on the previous thread. They conclusively show that the webpennys report is the invalid product of inadequate research.

Further information:

Webpennys.com
Here is what the site is about
http://www.webpennys.com/about/index.html

This is the purpose for which it was created:


WebPennys.com was originally developed in 1999 to cross-market my other web sites, as well as, bring increased investor awareness to my own stocks, which I often felt the company(s) under-promoted and/or under-represented the activities/value of their own company.

The webpenny report
http://www.webpennys.com/hurricane_frequency_study/index.html

The NOAA list (mis)used by the webpennys report
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/history.shtml

(note that the NOAA list does NOT give any indication of how it was compiled or why other hurricanes were excluded - thus the assumption that it represents a complete list of major - or even the "worst" hurricanes is not to be relied on)

This NOAA report was one of the sources used to compile the list used by webpennys. As you can see it can easily be found on the web.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/

If the selection was by intensity - as Buzsaw claims it should agree with this list linked to the report cited above

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table4.htm

We only have to get to the equal 7th place on this list to find TWO pre-1948 hurricanes omitted from the list used by webpennys
(The New Orleans hurricane of 1915 and the Grand Isle hurricane of 1909)

This table summarises the actual data on hurricanes hitting the US in the 20th Century
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table5.htm

This table does not show the claimed increase - there was a minor peak in the '50s but the 70's were the quietest decade of the century. More than half the major hurricanes (category 3+) occurred in the first half the century.

Thus the data shows that 1948 did not mark the start of an increase in major hurricanes hitting the US.

This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 11-04-2005 01:13 AM

This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-04-2005 08:10 AM

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-04-2005 08:21 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2005 11:16 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2005 11:15 PM PaulK has responded
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 8:01 PM PaulK has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24784
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 23 of 157 (256749)
11-04-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Buzsaw
11-03-2005 11:59 PM


Re: Questions buz needs to answer.
Buz, Prophets were folk that MIGHT be bringing a message from GOD. They were not folk that fortold the future beyond the immediate (within the lifetime of the listeners). To try and take utterances that were relevant 2500-3000 years ago as you did with Joel and Zephenaiah is IMHO, misleading. Zephenaiah was speaking about his own day and time. And, like many such Bible prophecies, it is a mixture of rehtoric and admonition. Keep reading Joel and you find that all the problems passed and it turns into a song of praise.

You asked for prophetic references to disasters, did you not? How about refuting that these are references of Biblical prophecies concerning end times and of disaster?

I did. I pointed out where you were taking things out of context and have always included links to the full text so that people could see exactly how you twist and spin sections.

The record stands. People can read your messages, and they can read mine. They will decide who is being open and through and who is trying to mislead.

The question still remains, "Natural disasters are increasing compared to ...?"


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2005 11:59 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 8:52 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24784
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 24 of 157 (256751)
11-04-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
11-03-2005 11:33 PM


Re: Increasing compared to...
An increase simply means you compare recent years with former years within a given timeframe, which I've stated, to determine whether there is indeed an increase or not.

What is the timeframe?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2005 11:33 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 11-04-2005 11:06 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 11-04-2005 11:29 AM jar has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4431
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 25 of 157 (256756)
11-04-2005 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
11-03-2005 11:33 PM


Everyone take a stress pill
Hi Buz. You don't have to respond to this message.

I just want to say, I've read the last four pages of the other thread, and I've read this thread.

I'm not sure what to make of it all as I'm not that informed. Sure, I as a believer am open to the possibility that an increase in natural disasters is on teh cards, and I apreciate that you have voiced this apriori, for a long time now. So don't get too frustrated, as people apreciate your efforts, and what you're trying to show here. I think boths sides are simply frustrated.

Basically it's a matter of belief for us though. Even if we amass evidence of increase, we can't clearly show that this proves the bible is correct, as it could just be post-hoc, coincidental and therefore inconclusive. But that's just my opinion, I lack knowledge.

I know the bible can seem vague, but I apreciate your biblical knowledge, so calm down!!!!!!;) The readers hear you!!!!They really do, and they can see what both sides are getting at, Tony will tell you that.

So my message to everyone is a recommendation for stress pills all round. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2005 11:33 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2005 11:11 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 11-07-2005 9:25 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Tony650, posted 11-08-2005 4:28 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 26 of 157 (256771)
11-04-2005 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
11-04-2005 9:41 AM


Re: Increasing compared to...
What is the timeframe?

I think buz has made his point that an increase can be within the timeframe of everything after 1948. That is to say since beginning to watch in 1948 there has been an increase in disasters.

Whether this is true, or whether it can be shown as part of a greater cycle if one looks beyond 1948 is irrelevant. If he's simply looking for an increase since a certain date, all he has to start from is that date.

Obviously I don't agree with his assessment that anything unusual is happening, and your points regarding the prophecies have thus far been dead on.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 11-04-2005 9:41 AM jar has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 27 of 157 (256775)
11-04-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
11-04-2005 10:01 AM


Re: Everyone take a stress pill
quote:

...but I apreciate your biblical knowledge,

What "biblical knowledge" would that be ? Buz can't even read the Bible as he demonstrated in the earlier thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 11-04-2005 10:01 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5173
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 28 of 157 (256778)
11-04-2005 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
11-04-2005 9:41 AM


Re: Increasing compared to...
quote:
An increase simply means you compare recent years with former years within a given timeframe, which I've stated, to determine whether there is indeed an increase or not.

What is the timeframe?



On a technical point, buzsaw seems to be correct. In mathematics we can say that f is increasing over time if df/dt is positive - apologies for introducing calculus. We don't actually need to compare one period of time with another. We can look at trends, simply comparing this years data to the previous years data. If there is a consistent upward trend, then we can say that there is an increase and there is no need to compare two distinct periods.

If I am reading buzsaw correctly, that is the position he is taking.

On the factual question - whether buzsaw has accurately reported the trends, and over a long enough period to them to be significant - consider me a skeptic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 11-04-2005 9:41 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2005 12:05 PM nwr has not yet responded
 Message 31 by jar, posted 11-04-2005 1:50 PM nwr has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10858
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 29 of 157 (256783)
11-04-2005 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nwr
11-04-2005 11:29 AM


Re: Increasing compared to...
While Buz might be technically correct to make a claim that something was increasing, he could still be wrong to claim that the increase was actually significant without a comparative base. If the incidence of disasters were simply returning to normal after a dip it would be increasing but it would not fulfil a prophecy that said that the incidence of disasters would be unusually bad.

With regard to the hurricane data Buz is reduced to arguing that the report he likes should be accepted as accurate because the layout is more convenient. The fact that the actual reports from NOAA refute his claim is to be ignored.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 11-04-2005 11:29 AM nwr has not yet responded

    
Mespo
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 30 of 157 (256784)
11-04-2005 12:21 PM


Population more than a factor
buzsaw writes:

Yes, the population increase factors in, but meteorologists, foresters and other professionals are seeing more to it than that, according to my research.

If more people build their homes in the path of hurricanes along the Gulf Coast and Florida more homes get blown away.

If more people build their homes in tinder-dry canyons in California, more homes get burned.

If more people build their homes in old growth forests in the Northwest, more homes get burned.

If more people build their homes on or near fault lines, more homes get knocked down.

Think Pakistan - If more people insist on REBUILDING their homes on the same fault lines where earthquakes killed their great-great grandparents, GUESS WHAT?

***********
And what's so magical about 1948? Oh, wait, I get it. That's when the modern state of Israel was born. Prophesy fulfilled, right?

(:raig


    
Prev1
2
3456
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014