Is Global Warning A Hoax!

[anonemouse 1]

Wikipedia knows not of what it speaks (probably because it's editable by the general public). Bethell doesn't deny AIDS. Instead of reading ABOUT what they say from a publicly-editable source, why not read WHAT they say?

He doesn't deny AIDS, but he does deny that HIV causes AIDS. Plus, he actually denies that there is an AIDS epidemic in Africa. Here's a review of the AIDS chapter in his book.

[anonemouse 1]

Actually, here is the table of contents to the entire book review. I haven't looked through it all yet, but it seems interesting.

[TommyO 5]

Yes, and there are many examples of that! All the crazy evolutionists getting out of control, mind you in your post you referred to them as environmentalists. I think I'm beginning to understand, it's not that you disagree with them because they are trying to protect the environment, you dislike them because you equate environmentalist with evolutionist.

Those Godless environmentalists!!!

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes, and there are many examples of that! All the crazy evolutionists getting out of control, mind you in your post you referred to them as environmentalists. I think I'm beginning to understand, it's not that you disagree with them because they are trying to protect the environment, you dislike them because you equate environmentalist with evolutionist.

Those Godless environmentalists!!!

Oops -- same difference! I actually do equate the two in my mind to a degree. Nature is good, man is evil, worship nature.

Speaking of which -- if evolutionists believe that we all evolved from primordial Soup and adapted to our environment, isn't man the pinnacle of that evolution and shouldn't what we do to trash said environment be just fine? Those species that are up to par will survive; those that aren't will be the victims of natural selection.

[gadgetlady 4]

He doesn't deny AIDS, but he does deny that HIV causes AIDS. Plus, he actually denies that there is an AIDS epidemic in Africa. Here's a review of the AIDS chapter in his book.

Actually, his discussion of AIDS in Africa is quite compelling. In Africa, to get a diagnosis of AIDS, none of the opportunistic diseases has to be present, no HIV test has to be conducted, and no T-cells are counted. The symptoms to diagnose AIDS in Africa are thus: 1) weight loss of 10% or more, 2) weakness or lack of energy, 3) prolonged diarrhea, and 4) fever (prolonged or intermittent). In addition, one minor symptom (persistent cough, chronic herpes infection, swollen glands) has to be present. I don't know about you, but I can think of quite a number of diseases that correspond with those symptoms.

Do I believe AIDS is not a serious issue? OF COURSE NOT!!! But do I take at face value a diagnosis that doesn't require any blood tests and by vague criteria gives millions of Africans AIDS overnight? Again, of course not.

[anonemouse 1]

From http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/02/post_3.php:

First, his suggestion that HIV was "invented." Bethell claims that, following a 1985 meeting in the Central African Republic, "overnight there were millions of Africans who had AIDS," and that HIV was not required for this diagnosis. Well, kind of. As Bethell notes but then subsequently ignores, well-equipped laboratories in Africa are few and far between. That was the whole point of the 1985 meeting: to try and figure out a clinical spectrum of AIDS that could be used to diagnose patients when viral confirmatory tests were lacking. By both necessity and practicality, then, the clinical definition did not include a positive HIV test--what use would that be when there was no clinical laboratory to carry out the testing, and no money to pay for it? Doctors basing their diagnosis on symptoms rather than a positive identification of a particular pathogen is nothing new, and it happens here in the U.S. every day as well. But as you'll see, Bethell (and other AIDS-deniers) hold that illness to a much more rigorous standard than they do the rest of infectious disease agents.

So instead, AIDS was defined according to four major symptoms: weight loss of 10% or more; pronounced weakness or lack of energy; diarrhea lasting for more than a month; and fever. Other symptoms commonly found included a persistent cough, chronic herpes infection, and swollen glands. There was a bit more to it than this, however: indeed, Bethell includes a diagnostic matrix which assigned a number of points to a variety of symptoms (for example, cough was worth 2 points, while generalized Kaposi's sarcoma was worth 12). Bethell quotes a journalist named Rian Malan (author of the aforementioned article in Rolling Stone) that "almost anyone in any African hospital could be said [to have AIDS]." What they neglect to mention, however, is that any physician is also going to take an extensive medical history. Simply coming in with a cough, diarrhea and weakness in an otherwise healthy individual isn)t going to trigger a diagnosis of AIDS, any more than someone entering a hospital with a headache and weakness won't automatically be diagnosed with a brain tumor, even though the symptoms may be consistent.

Bethell also tries to insinuate that HIV was somehow "removed" from the definition of AIDS in Africa, saying that following the African meeting, "HIV was no longer necessary for an AIDS diagnosis." However, the meeting he keeps harping on took place in 1985. The HIV virus was only identified a year prior, in 1984--so it's absurd and disingenuous to assert a newly-discovered virus was "removed" from the case definition of AIDS. Heaven forbid he let a little thing like honesty stop him, though, even while he chastises other reporters for ignoring the "real" AIDS story in Africa.

[anonemouse 1]

From the same site:

Finally, it's interesting that Bethell only discussed AIDS in Africa. Bethell just happens to sit on the Board of Directors of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis. [Edited to add: thanks to commenters, I'll note that he is not currently on the board; see here for the current board, and here for the current homepage]. This group denies that HIV causes AIDS, period, and runs the virusmyth website. They are also aligned with other AIDS-denial groups such as Christine Maggiore's "Alive and Well" group. Why, I wonder, didn't Bethell choose to discuss this in his book? Wouldn't a discussion of the idea that HIV simply doesn't cause AIDS be a more straightforward exposition than this roundabout discussion of the over-diagnosis of African AIDS? Could it be that Bethell--he who chides reporters for being too cowardly to stand up for the truth and dig deep for the facts--realizes that some of his own ideas are too "politically incorrect" to try to sell even to his core audience of science deniers?

[gailannr 1]

LOL! You guys are the kings of non sequitur. I didn't use the story to justify my position on global warming, but rather to cite an example of how the manic behavior of evolutionists can get out of control and cause more damage than the original thing they were trying to prevent.

Good one gadgetlady! You got a homerun on that one! Non seguitur hhhmmm I like that one!

[anonemouse 1]

Actually, I'll be the first to admit that the current Smokey Bear campaign is crap. And any wildlife biologist worth their salt would, too. As I am sure you are aware of, there are a lot of people out there that don't know a heck of a lot about what they are protesting against, no matter what they are protesting against. Sometimes, I think it is considered to be "cool" to be an environmental protester. Fire is good for an ecosystem. Not an out of control fire, of course, but a nice regular burn does wonders. Unfortunately, lots of yuppies like to build their homes right in the ecosystems that have naturally depended on fire. Personally, I think they get what they deserve when their house burns down. You build in a fire-prone area, and guess what, your house burns. Many wildlife biologists and ecologists think some of the worst things to happen to environmentalism were Bambi (anti-fire and anti-hunting) and Smokey the Bear.

[gadgetlady 4]

Thanks, gailannr. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I'm running out of steam here. I'm leaving on a long vacation in a few days and I don't have time to sit at my computer and look up other peoples' theories any longer <grin>

[gadgetlady 4]

Actually, I'll be the first to admit that the current Smokey Bear campaign is crap. And any wildlife biologist worth their salt would, too. As I am sure you are aware of, there are a lot of people out there that don't know a heck of a lot about what they are protesting against, no matter what they are protesting against. Sometimes, I think it is considered to be "cool" to be an environmental protester. Fire is good for an ecosystem. Not an out of control fire, of course, but a nice regular burn does wonders. Unfortunately, lots of yuppies like to build their homes right in the ecosystems that have naturally depended on fire. Personally, I think they get what they deserve when their house burns down. You build in a fire-prone area, and guess what, your house burns. Many wildlife biologists and ecologists think some of the worst things to happen to environmentalism were Bambi (anti-fire and anti-hunting) and Smokey the Bear.

OHHHHHHH we agree on something! Someone pop open the champagne and mark your calendars!!!!

[anonemouse 1]

OHHHHHHH we agree on something! Someone pop open the champagne and mark your calendars!!!!

Eh. I'm a wildlife biologist, not an entomologist. I have a bit of a phobia about bugs, actually, so I say let 'em burn. Smokey the Bear has really screwed the fire regime in these areas up. Like I said, a natural fire does wonders for some ecosystems. The problem is that with all this anti-forest fire crap, we've prevented the natural fires from taking place, causing a build-up of highly flammable fuel, which then causes massive wildfires. If the idiots would just let the ecosystems burn naturally, there wouldn't be much of a problem. Of course, many of the yuppies won't hear of letting their land burn naturally every so often.

[gailannr 1]

Thanks, gailannr. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I'm running out of steam here. I'm leaving on a long vacation in a few days and I don't have time to sit at my computer and look up other peoples' theories any longer <grin>

Your welcome and I will be leaving in about a week for a couple of weeks. Oh, no!!!! Everyone will be converted when we get back. Naaawww we have some old diehards that won't cave! I have enjoyed being on the ride with you!

[anonemouse 1]

Your welcome and I will be leaving in about a week for a couple of weeks. Oh, no!!!! Everyone will be converted when we get back. Naaawww we have some old diehards that won't cave! I have enjoyed being on the ride with you!

If I haven't been able to convert them since November, I'd say they're safe. At least for a couple more weeks, anyway.

[Rainbow_Warrior 996]

Climate change is real.

Fifteen of the warmest years on record have occurred in the period 1999-2016.

Our nearly 300 years of industrialisation has had a huge fast impact on the planet.

I know that reporting is fast in our modern 24 hour news cycle but there really do seem to be many more extreme weather events and natural disasters these days.