Re: The CON-servation scum
- From: amacmil304@xxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 20:13:51 +0100
On Mon, 11 May 2009 11:07:00 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <mikf05dub2pfdlvnud0256hj1po7h3p1ku@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Mon, 11 May 2009 07:36:59 +0100, MalcolmDemonstrably wrong.
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <ukke051apcj6n791rioetl6354e7o8hhos@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 10 May 2009 22:20:48 +0100, MalcolmThe potential has always been there, Angus, but the *fact* remains that,
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <4d6e05hl6kkbmik2j3bo6r0b7uc7cpg1o1@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:29:23 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <nnvb05tdek5uvr2hi1kqh4621upaj0vqnc@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
The total number of cases, worldwide, of avian flu occurring in humans,
I see you don't deny it. Do you now think that animal flu is a risk
to humans?
as of 9th May, i.e. yesterday, totalled 453. Bearing in mind that it was
first detected in 2003, and that in 2008 there were fewer cases than in
any preceding year apart from 2003, this confirms that, in its present
form, avian flu poses virtually no risk to the public.
Absolute garbage!
You obviously have no ability to recognise verifiable facts, which is
hardly surprising given your record. Nothing in the above paragraph is
"garbage" of any kind. If you think it is, you'll have to produce some
different facts - which you can't, can you?
You can't predict the future by past performance -You accused me of saying that "bird flu was of virtually no risk
as the financial world has found to its cost.
to humans". This has been the case since it was discovered in 2003, and
it is still the case. Bird flu in its present form poses virtually no
risk to humans.
But the problem is that you can't tell if it will remain in its
present form which incidentally has infected humans. So the potential
is there.
in its present form, avian flu poses virtually no risk to humans.
Rubbish!
Wrong. You really shouldn't raise subjects which you don't understand.
If you think differently, as you appear to, then please produce your
evidence.
You can't have evidence of what could happen in the furure.
Nor have you. Avian flu might mutate and become contagious to humans,
which it certainly isn't at the moment for very good physiological
reasons. On the other hand, it might die out of its own accord. The
current status of avian flu is that it poses virtually no risk to
humans. That is unarguable *fact*, though unsurprisingly, given your
record, you can't recognise that.
So you don't know but make statements like "Bird flu in its present
form poses virtually no risk to humans" - which is garbage from a
don't know standpoint.
You clearly don't.
You would say that :-)
Oh yes.
That is unarguable *fact*, though unsurprisingly, given yourWrong again.
record, you can't recognise that.
No.
And that:-)
But, at the moment, it isn't.
Yet another fake conservation habit of treating speculation as fact.You're the one who is "speculating" by making completely unsupported
claims about the future. I'm sticking with the known facts.
I'm not speculating anything. It has already crossed the species
barrier to humans and could at any time become a major threat.
That doesn't negate a risk.
I understand swine flu is associated with bird flu.So?
Would you have said that was going to happen a few months ago?
Avian flu H5N1 has not mutated since it first appeared in 2003.
Avian flu has proven, for good physiological reasons, to be very
difficult for humans to catch either from poultry or from each other.
That is a fact and it is also cause for considerable relief. It may stay
that way, or the flu may mutate and this may change.
Exactly, as it appears to have done.
That doesn't mean it might not mutate in 2009/10
So?However, at the
present time and for the last six years since it was discovered, it has
posed and continues to pose virtually no risk to humans.
Risk is not a historic entity.
You don't know it will continue to pose no risk to humans.
So do you not believe in any forecasts? What about those related toThat has been
said many times over - read the media or, better still, read the
scientific literature on the subject. You will also be able to find
properly researched forecasts of what might happen in the future. Be
warned that you will need some knowledge about viruses and their
behaviour in order to understand the research, something you have shown
in the past - e.g. when you were making wild and alarmist statements
about closing bird reserves - to clearly lack.
Forcasting the future is something for funfairs and fakes in general.
Try tarrot cards and you might be more accurate.
global warming?
I don't believe in forcasts that are drummed up by those who have a
vested interest.
.
- References:
- Re: The CON-servation scum
- From: amacmil304
- Re: The CON-servation scum
- From: amacmil304
- Re: The CON-servation scum
- From: amacmil304
- Re: The CON-servation scum
- Prev by Date: Re: What a bunch of fakes the RSPB are!
- Next by Date: Re: What a bunch of fakes the RSPB are!
- Previous by thread: Re: The CON-servation scum
- Next by thread: Re: The CON-servation scum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading