wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 10:57 am, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:46:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:33 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 19, 7:08 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

I've got a question. Why do you take this article as gospel, the end
all of all ends? After all, everything Canadian you instantly ****
on
right here in rec.boats. Then you glean one single article coming
from
the great white north, and it's the greatest piece ever written!
Pretty selective, don't you think?

Every day 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty
A third of the planet doesn't have electricity.
A billion people have no clean water.
A half a billion people going to bed hungry every night.

Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists
will
make life even worse for all these people, why do assholes like you
care
more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of
paying
attention to what's going on now?

Your childish and low-life name calling shows that you aren't bright
enough to understand an intelligent response, or you're too narrow
minded.

Here, Loogy, same question for you but restated:

"Since almost every action called for by the global warming alarmists
will
make life even worse for all these people, why do you care
more about what *may happen* a 100 years in the future instead of paying
attention to what's going on now?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I, and a lot of others ARE concerned about what's happening now. Does
that somehow negate the effort to give our progeny an environment to
live in at least as good as ours?

If idiots like you have your way, billions (with a B) of people will
starve, die of curable disease, and live without any hope of progress just
so your "progeny" can live with 10 to 20 parts per million less CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Is that OK with you?