"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who
are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental movement
is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal interest
way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent.

Stephen


It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment...

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who
are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal
interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent.

Stephen


It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment...



Actually, cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, we eat them,
but not fast enough, apparently.

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
ions...
"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who
are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and
animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore
malevolent.

Stephen


It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment...



Actually, cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, we eat them,
but not fast enough, apparently.

I wonder if the number of cows in USA is greater than the number of
buffaloes that used to be there before global warming became an issue?

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
ions...
"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons,
who are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and
animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore
malevolent.

Stephen


It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment...



Actually, cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, we eat
them, but not fast enough, apparently.

I wonder if the number of cows in USA is greater than the number of
buffaloes that used to be there before global warming became an issue?



Well, I don't know, but we kill most of them....


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

On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

Umm...ever hear of cows?

I'm just wondering whether it actually hurts to be this stupid...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 May 2008 09:16:58 +0200, "Edgar" said:

It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment...

Umm...ever hear of cows?

Yes, I quite like eating them and so do a lot of other people too.
So,if there were less people we would not need so many cows to provide food.
But there never seemed to be a climate problem arising from buffaloes when
N.America was swarming with them so I find it rather hard to believe that
cows are changing our climate now most of the buffaloes have been shot..
How many human beings put out CO2 equivalent to one cow? How many car
miles does it take to equal the 'greenhouse gases' resulting from one major
volcanic eruption?
I think global warming (assuming that longer term measurements confirm that
it is indeed happening) has provided the politicians with a heaven sent
opportunity to raise a whole lot of new taxes and claim to be doing it in
the interests of the planet.
And soon Al Gore and all his like thinking buddies will fly to somewhere
like (for instance) Bali to talk about it. How many cows would it need to
equal their gas output?
Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. The only thing I am sure about is that the
planet has too many human beings on it already..

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 May 2008 09:16:58 +0200, "Edgar"
said:

It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment...

Umm...ever hear of cows?

Yes, I quite like eating them and so do a lot of other people too.
So,if there were less people we would not need so many cows to provide
food.
But there never seemed to be a climate problem arising from buffaloes when
N.America was swarming with them so I find it rather hard to believe that
cows are changing our climate now most of the buffaloes have been shot..
How many human beings put out CO2 equivalent to one cow? How many car
miles does it take to equal the 'greenhouse gases' resulting from one
major volcanic eruption?
I think global warming (assuming that longer term measurements confirm
that it is indeed happening) has provided the politicians with a heaven
sent opportunity to raise a whole lot of new taxes and claim to be doing
it in the interests of the planet.
And soon Al Gore and all his like thinking buddies will fly to somewhere
like (for instance) Bali to talk about it. How many cows would it need to
equal their gas output?
Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. The only thing I am sure about is that
the planet has too many human beings on it already..


Good point. Everyone should be made to wear some type of methane gas filter
device on their ass...and the worse offenders, at both ends.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:29:43 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote:

How many human beings put out CO2 equivalent to one cow?

First, the CO2 was recently removed from the atmosphere. Fossil fuels
are the problem, not recently fixed carbon. Second, the greenhouse gas
implicated is methane.

Casady

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:29:43 +0200, "Edgar" said:

I think global warming (assuming that longer term measurements confirm that
it is indeed happening) has provided the politicians with a heaven sent
opportunity to raise a whole lot of new taxes and claim to be doing it in
the interests of the planet.
And soon Al Gore and all his like thinking buddies will fly to somewhere
like (for instance) Bali to talk about it. How many cows would it need to
equal their gas output?
Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. The only thing I am sure about is that the
planet has too many human beings on it already..

Before there was an Al Gore there was a Thomas Malthus. Had he been correct,
we would all be extinct.

I believe the next meeting is Hawaii.
G

On 27 May 2008 13:19:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

Malthus made some very valid observations that have stood the test of
time.

As did the ancients who said the earth is flat. Gonna join the Flat Earth
Society?

What do valid observations have to do with false theories?

Casady