Re: [OT] Climate Change Is Going TO Kill Us All...

In article <753r821ediu7mhteddcj9n1r6o5ealgkgt@xxxxxxx>,
Stuart Krivis <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:27:57 -0400, Mayor of R'lyeh
<mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Yep, I'm sure there are people who would like to take the
world back 200 years (although I'm betting they'd hate it if it
really happened), but that's not really relevant.

Then why does your ilk constantly demand it?

My ilk? I would guess not, since I made no such statement.



The key idea is that we're screwing up the planet and we better do
something about it.

Which is a lie.

No it isn't.


Caring about the environment has to be at the core of everything we
do. We may not always be able to do the best thing for the planet,
but we have to try.

Too bad you haven't the slightest clue how things work. Your whole
premise seems to be that the earth had entered some sort of idyllic
steady state and than only 'evil' man could change it. This is
entirely false. Things have always changed and they always will.

You really don't understand.

My training was in Geology, so I'm quite aware that our planet is not
in any sort of static condition.

Wait. Did you go to *college* to learn geology? Do you have a graduate
degree? You better back out now, dude, because there are people on this
newsgroup who will immediately conclude that this means you don't know
anything about the subject, or that their "common sense" will tell them
all they need to know about the subject. They'll be perfectly willing to
argue with you on every point.

For instance, common sense tells them that there's no way continental
granite "floats" on top of a thinner basalt layer and moves around.
Rocks are obviously solid. (I wonder if these are the same people who
think that the earth is more prone to earthquakes after it rains because
the water softens up the rocks.)



I also didn't say that Man is the only force acting to change the
planet.

But Man _does_ change the planet, and we better get that more under
control.



Maybe you can return your nutrients to the soil? That would be a
good start. We won't miss you. :-)

Sorry. I plan to be heavily embalmed when my time comes. And its you
guys who want to kill of 90% of everybody. Perhaps you could start
with yourselves..

I don't want to kill "of 90% of everybody" (whatever the heck that
means), I was just suggesting that an early return of _your_ bodily
chemicals to the ecosystem would not be seen as a bad thing.

Or you could just stop posting crap. I'd be perfectly ok with that
too.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why the U.S. Probably Wont Attack Iran
    ... attempting to stand up to the US with nuclear weapons. ... are perfectly willing to destroy this planet, ...
    (soc.culture.iraq)
  • Re: OT Ping: Astronomy news followers
    ... :: What we are really seeing is science at work. ... About 70 years ago when Pluto was discovered, the other rocks in space about ... The original designation of Pluto ... as a planet was based on the fact that it was the only known large object in ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: A space of TB 4Xs
    ... while you only have to hit once. ... It's much, much, easier to nudge a rock off it's target then it is to ... only have to launch 1000 rocks to completely bollocks up ... before slamming into the enemy planet and you win. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic)
  • Re: A space of TB 4Xs
    ... Why bother building nukes when you can just toss rocks at them? ... Because it is a lot of work accelerating large rocks compared to small ... launch a counterattack from your home planet. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic)
  • Re: A space of TB 4Xs
    ... Big rocks would cause devastation wherever they hit so long as you can ... impart half-decent speeds to them. ... Unless that future planet is already achieved that state, and living ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic)