Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 09:12:45 -0500, katy
wrote:


Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:09:33 -0500, katy
wrote:



I do know about tropical rainforests and it is a much simpler task to
fix



This is unequivocal proof that you haven't a clue about tropical
rainforests.

CWM

In regards to growing new rainforests? Yes..in respect to keeping the
ones that exist...no....and you have no clue as to what I do or do not
know...


You have even less of a clue as to what you know and don't know.

CWM

Coming from the totally clueless...

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:12:45 -0500, katy wrote
(in article ):

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:09:33 -0500, katy
wrote:


I do know about tropical rainforests and it is a much simpler task to
fix



This is unequivocal proof that you haven't a clue about tropical
rainforests.

CWM

In regards to growing new rainforests? Yes..in respect to keeping the
ones that exist...no....and you have no clue as to what I do or do not
know...

Chiming in from a timber farming area... New will never replace old growth in
our lifetimes. Here they get a marketable product about every 25-30 years.
These trees are a 1/5 of the size of "Old Growth". In the Rain forests the
indigenous tribes are split up and given christianity for hope...
Unbelievable. The animals are forced into ever confining spaces etc. No we
must just go ahead and enjoy what is left. I plan on using plenty of fossil
fuel and tossing my soda cans overboard (torn open of course). All is lost.
To late. Nothing left but discussion.

--
Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass

Mundo wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:12:45 -0500, katy wrote
(in article ):


Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:09:33 -0500, katy
wrote:



I do know about tropical rainforests and it is a much simpler task to
fix



This is unequivocal proof that you haven't a clue about tropical
rainforests.

CWM

In regards to growing new rainforests? Yes..in respect to keeping the
ones that exist...no....and you have no clue as to what I do or do not
know...


Chiming in from a timber farming area... New will never replace old growth in
our lifetimes. Here they get a marketable product about every 25-30 years.
These trees are a 1/5 of the size of "Old Growth". In the Rain forests the
indigenous tribes are split up and given christianity for hope...
Unbelievable. The animals are forced into ever confining spaces etc. No we
must just go ahead and enjoy what is left. I plan on using plenty of fossil
fuel and tossing my soda cans overboard (torn open of course). All is lost.
To late. Nothing left but discussion.


Animals adapt or disappear...natural selection...

In article , Dave
says...

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:23:47 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

War is peace.


Tsk, tsk. As a Republican, you should have said Peace is war.

Sigh. I should have known you wouldn't catch a literary allusion.

My favorite quote from that book was "if you're going to break
the big rules, you have to keep all the little ones". Pretty
good advice, IMHO.

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"
....PK

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:18:36 -0500, katy wrote
(in article ):

Mundo wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:12:45 -0500, katy wrote
(in article ):


Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:09:33 -0500, katy
wrote:



I do know about tropical rainforests and it is a much simpler task to
fix



This is unequivocal proof that you haven't a clue about tropical
rainforests.

CWM

In regards to growing new rainforests? Yes..in respect to keeping the
ones that exist...no....and you have no clue as to what I do or do not
know...


Chiming in from a timber farming area... New will never replace old growth
in
our lifetimes. Here they get a marketable product about every 25-30 years.
These trees are a 1/5 of the size of "Old Growth". In the Rain forests the
indigenous tribes are split up and given christianity for hope...
Unbelievable. The animals are forced into ever confining spaces etc. No we
must just go ahead and enjoy what is left. I plan on using plenty of fossil
fuel and tossing my soda cans overboard (torn open of course). All is lost.
To late. Nothing left but discussion.


Animals adapt or disappear...natural selection...

I suggest we form a committee to discuss forming a committee on what species
we should destroy next, I mean naturally select

--
Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


"katy" wrote in message
...


Charlie Morgan wrote:


On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:15:55 GMT, "scbafreak via BoatKB.com"
u25927@uwe wrote:




It's easy enough to say something stupid like that but ya gotta
provide some proof. Not everybody's had the logic circuits of
their brains short-circuited by LSD.... Not everybody
believes crap like you, Capt. JG the illegal drug using braggart.

Cheers,
Ellen

Nobody will ever be able to prove conclusively that what we ar
edoing to the
environment is causing climate changes and if there is a significant
event we
will never be able to prove conclusively that it was our fault but
we have a
lot of really good evidence that the pollutants we are putting into
the air
are causing global changes.


It's pretty easy to prove cause and effect as far as humans mowing
down tropical
rainforests causing changes in weather patterns. CWM

That's an entirely different discussion than the CO2 and global
warming discussion...


Actually, it isn't.


Only because you *want* it to be one and the same.

Max

He sibscribes to the basic Augustinian belief that man is inherently
evil...so no matter what it is, man must be at the root of it....he has
raised mankind to sich omnipotence that it is untenable...and his
articulation of his cause is redundant...so there...I used the "a'
word...



Huh? Humankind has the potential to do great things. Sounds like a very
pessimistic viewpoint you and Max have.


Yes...humankind has done many great things...but humankind is not
omnipotent and once again you are referring to some science fiction
world...


Scotty isn't omnipotent? Darn it...


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

"katy" wrote in message
...

Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:15:55 GMT, "scbafreak via BoatKB.com"
u25927@uwe wrote:



It's easy enough to say something stupid like that but ya gotta
provide some proof. Not everybody's had the logic circuits of their
brains short-circuited by LSD.... Not everybody
believes crap like you, Capt. JG the illegal drug using braggart.

Cheers,
Ellen

Nobody will ever be able to prove conclusively that what we ar edoing
to the
environment is causing climate changes and if there is a significant
event we
will never be able to prove conclusively that it was our fault but we
have a
lot of really good evidence that the pollutants we are putting into
the air
are causing global changes.


It's pretty easy to prove cause and effect as far as humans mowing
down tropical
rainforests causing changes in weather patterns. CWM

That's an entirely different discussion than the CO2 and global warming
discussion...


Actually, it isn't.

Only because you *want* it to be one and the same.

Max




I wish it weren't, but I'm living in the real world.


Luvung anywhere within a 500 mile radius of San Francisco is not luvung in
the real world...for that matter, mist of CA is not the real world...now
if you lived in Imaha or Dubuque or Minneapolis, then you could claim to
live in the real world...


According to you... as though living either in the frozen tundra or the
swamps of Florida where they can't even get an election sorted out... well,
ok. You convinced me.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:23:47 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

War is peace.


Tsk, tsk. As a Republican, you should have said Peace is war.

Sigh. I should have known you wouldn't catch a literary allusion.


Sigh, you're no lit major.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 11:18:36 -0500, katy
wrote:


Mundo wrote:

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:12:45 -0500, katy wrote
(in article ):



Charlie Morgan wrote:


On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 08:09:33 -0500, katy
wrote:




I do know about tropical rainforests and it is a much simpler task to
fix



This is unequivocal proof that you haven't a clue about tropical
rainforests.

CWM

In regards to growing new rainforests? Yes..in respect to keeping the
ones that exist...no....and you have no clue as to what I do or do not
know...


Chiming in from a timber farming area... New will never replace old growth in
our lifetimes. Here they get a marketable product about every 25-30 years.
These trees are a 1/5 of the size of "Old Growth". In the Rain forests the
indigenous tribes are split up and given christianity for hope...
Unbelievable. The animals are forced into ever confining spaces etc. No we
must just go ahead and enjoy what is left. I plan on using plenty of fossil
fuel and tossing my soda cans overboard (torn open of course). All is lost.
To late. Nothing left but discussion.


Animals adapt or disappear...natural selection...


You mean like passenger pigeons?

CWM


"The Passenger Pigeon is now extinct. Over hunting, the clearing of
forests to make way for agriculture, and perhaps other factors doomed
the species. The decline was well under way by the 1850’s." The last
passenger pigeon in the wild was shot in 1899...I suppose you want to
blame global warming for that? That was a period of time when
indiscriminate hunting practices rulled the day ala Teddy Toosevelt and
the Mighty White Hunter syndrome..and just what would have been your
solution in 1850 regarding your need to clear forests for fields to feed
your family or whether some pigeons lost their homes? Passenger pigeons
were very similar to mourning doves yet the mournig dove population is
alive and well and in some areas is so prolific that hunting has once
again been allowed (which I do not agree with). Peregrine falcons are an
example of a bird that, with man's help, has learned to adapt to new
environments. Instead of roosting and nesting in mountains and high
trees, they are now comfortable nesting in high rises and on bridge
structures...we have a pair that live son top of the Hames River Bridge
that had a nestful of babies this past season. Other animals have
adjusted on their own. Most cities report indicences of deer
populations within city limits and in the suburbs. Other wild animals,
like coyotes, possums. skunks, and raccoons have no prtoblem living side
by side with man. For that matter, the big vats, mountain lions, lynx
and bobcat, have no problems living with man. It's man who complains
because they act like cats and hunt. Bears are moving down the lower
penninsula in Michigan and every year the reports are of bears further
south. These are all examples of anumals that are adjusting. Problem
is, many don't want the animals to adjust...they cart them back to the
wilderness where their population can't be sustained by the food supply.
The natural inclination when a fgood supply dries up is to move..but man
won't let them move. So why isn't more being done by urban planners to
accomodate wildlife? The same reason the BLM goes in a slaighters
hundreds upon hundreds of wild horses every eyar. THey use up resources
man wants. So my take on this whole thing is if global warming is a
reality, let it happen. Man will not adapt. He would counter the heat
by building more and better AC units, etc to take care of his
comforts...he will move further and further away from the equator where
the rain forests will then start to repopulate temselves. THose that
can't afford to move will die. Maybe the few that survive and are still
able to reproduce can start all over again with the knowledge of what to
do tight the next chance. Or maybe we'll just disappear like the
passenger pigeon and our edifices will become a habitat and breeding
fround for whatever takes over.

I love wilrdlife. I believe in conservation. I do believe that man is
responsible for the extinction of animals to serve his own selfish
needs. But there comes a time, in the survival of the fittest, when one
species becomes dominant and takes over. Usually what happens in nature
is that that species eules for awhile and then dies away. Maybe it's our
turn to die away.

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Maxprop wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...



"katy" wrote in message
...



Maxprop wrote:



"Dave" wrote in message
news:ci8hs2h5dkios8a07couquqj31247pfsvn@4a x.com...




On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:24:24 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:





Global environmental change for the worse is happening because
human beings
are so shortsighted as to ignore their own long-term best
interests.

Thus endeth the reading of the gospel according to Jon.

Max, it's an article of faith with these folks. Challenging their
gospel is
like urging that the Bible is not divinely inspired--you'll never
get that
concession from the ultra-devout.


Those running the global warming show are in it for the money and
power. And they depend upon dupes like Jon to buy into their spiel.
Fortunately for them there are plenty like Jon around to fund their
chosen lifestyles.

Max

I already said that...


How am I "funding" my lifestyle by my willingness to make a few
sacrifices for the greater good?


Funding *their* lifestyle--that of the leaders of organizations
dependent upon your devotion and your donations.

Max

He thinks Hil and Bill live in a shack and drive a Yugo becasue of their
great altruism...



Guess you didn't hear Bill say that he didn't need yet another tax break.
I don't hear Cheney saying that.



How generous of him...he's probably maxed out...



Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't born
with that ability.

U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make any
difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna jump on
the Ralph Nader bandwagon...