December 28, 2003

Interesting. While human intervention may have accelerated things a bit, I agree with you Rob that the plants and animals will adapt or die.

Good ol' Mother Earth will survive anything we little humans can throw at it. The short term effects will seem devistating, but we humans are but a grain of sand in the hour-glass of the Earth. What damage we've done or will do will be undone with or without us.

Does this give us the right to act irresponsibly? No, but we don't have to throw away all technology and return to the Earth as a few fantics would have us do.

A couple of your arguements lacked substance, but your over all message is more reasonable that your Kiwi friend there.

My favorite is dummy's assertion that New Zealand is "climate dependant." As opposed to all those other countries that are located on space-stations orbiting the earth. Asswad.

Marc: I had Argumentation, Discussion and Debate in college also, and you have decided to take on Acidman with the well-known tactic of "damning with faint praise". It doesn't work in this case, because you have made the same assumptions as the NZ asshat.

"The short term effects will seem devistating (sic)." No they won't, because they aren't happening and they aren't reliably predicted to happen so why do you believe that enviro drivel in the first place?

"What damage we've done or will do will be undone with or without us." Another assumption: that "damage" has happened. Your shrugging it off with the philosophical "che sera, sera" doesn't hide the fact that you believe we've "damaged" the planet. We haven't.

"Does this give us the right to act irresponsibly? No..." Marc, you just tried to sneak in another enviro condemnation of man's practices there. Doesn't fly. No proof that anything man has done is "damaging".

"A couple of your arguments lacked substance..." I don't think Acidman made any arguement. He quickly and accurately defeated the claims of the asshat, but he has advanced no cause except his demand that real science be used to evaluate these environmental damage claims.

We should all be making that same demand, Marc, because all the advances of mankind have been made by following logical thinking patterns. In the realm of science, the only logical thinking pattern is the Scientific Method, a long established and accepted way of measuring the truth and logic of a science-based theory. The environmental "scientists" of today have perverted the Scientific Method to their own ends, and refuse to follow it in most cases. The claims that they present are NOT scientific, for the most part, and cannot be accepted as such no matter how much emotion is improperly placed into the equations.

Perhaps the first deluge of email from your readership wasn't enough to disuade the nitwit from corresponding with you further...give us the link....Please?

Every single thing written by that twit is conjecture based on junk (or no) science.

e.g.: A typical eco-tard argument.

The sky isn't falling, chicken little, so much as you'd apparently like it to so you can go back to living in a grass hut and die by the time you're 40.

Last I checked, human beings are part of this ole globe, so contrary to those who, in a religious zealotry that ancient Christians or Muslims would envy, we h-sapiens are the dominant species.

If Mom Nature decides we need to go, a la the dino's and dodo's, she will certainly arrange to make that happen.

In the meantime, Chicken Little's whose hats will not withstand the falling of the sky, ought to dig an underground shelter and quit pestering the rest of us.

Their posturing tends to get a bit tedious, and boring. Worst of all, they are never right.

Their ilk believed in the 70's that we would be in a world-wide famine by now. Perhaps in backwards socialist states that parallel the eco-freak philosophy, but this afternoon I am going to do steaks and brew and drive my Jeep and pet mah dawgs and toast all those who continue to shout that "the sky is falling"--because that is a sure and certain sign . . .

That the sky is still up.

LMAO.

Gut--tell the dude in NZ to go do something useful--like piss on a scarecrow!

jb

Aicdman, I think your "Bull Shit Meter" has failed. That e-mail was an end run around your ass, Acidman, just to get a link.

"But, please don't link with me. Your readers are rude, stupid and boring. One jerk has been filling my comments with childish nonsense. Where do you find these people?"

Please, try to fix your "Bull Shit Meter."

Well, if I were one of those "true believers" in global warming, I'd go fire up the SUV in order to drown New Zealand. As it is, I'll go watch Dogma.

I agree with Ms Anna. Someone was looking to you for a traffic boost. Sounds to me like it was probably some kid with a website that nobody visits. I wouldn't have even posted the e-mail.

My apologies from NZ...Unfortunately this country is full of such moonbats, and we have the most Marxist government in our history. Also with a population of about 3.5million, 1 million are on welfare of some sort. I look forward to the implosion which will inevitably come.

One of the most amazing feats of nature is how the water meets the land exactly at the coastline. I mean, what are the odds? It's horrible that that's now in the balance, and soon there may be a gap or overlap there instead.

Well said RIVRDOG. Though it wasn't my intention to be 'damning', you are right that I don't agree with Rob, nor do I agree with the New Zealander. I'm in the middle, leaning towards Robs position.

I agree that most of these enviro-scientists are taking very wild and dubious claims based on very little to no good science. This is why I said the Earth would survive anything we could possibly dish out to it.

The open pit mines and nuclear waste are terrible to eco-people, but to the Earth they are but scratches and pimples. They'll heal.

That said I also think its foolish to turn a blind eye to what we are doing. We may not damage the Earth, but we can damage ourselves. While I don''t think we are going to melt the icecaps or anything quite like that, poluting our drinking water with pesticides and other similar things is much more immediate and damning to us as humans.

However, that really wasn't the arguement that the New Zealander was making so I should have clarified my position to start with.

And again your keen wit and eye is quite a nice change. Your responce was intelegent and to the point without being inflamitory. You must have done well in debate.

Ah, yes. New Zealand -- land where there was a movement to tax farmers for bovine flatulence contributing to the hole in the ozone layer. Really. If the tree-huggers there weren't so scary, they'd almost be funny.

Hi...I´m just surfed in and want to say hello!
Regards George

black porn
interracial porn
xxx movie
adult movie
sexkontakt
private sexkontakte
sexshop
handylogos
autoversicherung
kredit
handyspiele
klingelton
handygames