"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE (AT) sprintmail (DOT) com> wrote

I was thinking more like Clint Eastwood, or maybe the Duke. Oh wait...I
have the solution: Ahnold

Mike Marlow raved thus:

::: we won't have to worry about any of this once the meteor headed our
::: way smashes into the Earth and really screws up everyones day. i
::: think it is due to arrive in 2014 and they say it'll miss us by
::: about 4 million miles....but i think they're hiding something.
:::
:::
::: mike.........
::
:: Better get Bruce Willis on the line...

Or Harry Hogg...

Abo

--

How come you don't see mouse flavoured cat food?

Barry Posner <bup100 (AT) psu (DOT) edu> wrote in news:3F82FD7D.B27976C1 (AT) psu (DOT) edu:



Humanists rewl :-)

"SimRacer" <no-unc.tarheel.fan (AT) mindspring (DOT) com-spam> wrote

:
: "BS from WNY" <stollfamily (AT) bluefrog (DOT) biz> wrote in message
: news:blum1202q1s (AT) enews4 (DOT) newsguy.com...
: > SHOVE IT!! Global warming: one of the biggest nonsense panics the
: > government ever invented.
: >
:
: Yeah, nobody ever really stops to think, what killed off the dinosaurs? An
: ice age. Stands to reason that from the coldest part of that ice age would
: begin a period of warming, leading to a large thaw, leading of course to
: another ice age. Eras, like weather, are cyclical. We are in the warming
: stage of the current era. Yes, glaciers are melting. Millions of years
ago,
: they weren't even there, they were lakes or seas or simple
snow-melt-runoff.
: They'll melt completely eventually and some grand force of nature will
bring
: another ice age upon us once again and guess what, they'll refreeze.
:
: And we're NOT killing our planet. The planet will be fine. We all may die
: off, but the Earth will be here until our sun burns out or explodes, and
I'm
: sure the Earth could care less whether or not people are on it at the
time.
:
and without the 'ice age' that occurred around the end of the dinosaurs we
wouldn't have NASCAR...no fossil fuel...

adrook (AT) yahoo (DOT) com (Kit) wrote in
news:e756f30f.0310071721.e5b8667 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com:


Yeah, we should be like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where the old testament
account of creation is taught in school. Then our kids would toss logic
and reason to the wind and fly planes into buildings or strap bombs on
themselves, all in the name of "the truth".

Kit <adrook (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
The Bible also supports humans and unicorns living together. Why are
there no unicorns in science textbooks?

Jason R. Heimbaugh raved thus:

:: Kit <adrook (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
::: I agree with you, but Id also like to add that the Bible supports
::: humans and dinosaurs living together. The ancient world could be a
::: lot different than the crap taught at public schools.
::
:: The Bible also supports humans and unicorns living together. Why are
:: there no unicorns in science textbooks?

'cause they were all washed away in a great flood, duh!

Abo

--

How come you don't see mouse flavoured cat food?

"Barry Posner" <bup100 (AT) psu (DOT) edu> wrote

bullshit. unadulterated bullshit, my friend. how expensive is it to replace
a unique species that becomes extinct? how expensive is it to replace the
genetic diversity that may well be useful in increasing agricultural output
or curing disease? what pricetag would you put on these things?

and do we just ignore the fact that while diseases like melanoma, COPD, and
asthma are expensive to treat, they're also damn inconvenient to have? what
about the virtually unpredictable potential for increased infectious disease
rates with climate change? what's the pricetag on that? give me a number. i
suspect you can't, because no one knows.

of course, i know you've already ignored the people who can't afford this
"bit" more expensive that the future will be to live in. but naturally it's
our right as polluters to decide that everyone will have to pay this "bit"
of expense.


lots of things are possible. consider probabilities. current expert opinion
does not suggest the possibility you suggest is all that likely.

generally over much longer periods of time, and those changes were
catastrophic to the species alive at the time. most mass extinctions weren't
caused by meteors, you know. moreover, climate change is hardly limited to
temperature change alone. for example, we have no evidence that ozone holes
like the ones we observe existed before industrial activities.


yes. humans have come up with very creative ways of fouling our nest.

while i agree that there's little to no chance of us causing our own
extinction in this way, we are certainly setting ourselves up for some
massive changes in how we and the other creatures on the earth will have to
live.

"Mark Stahl" <stahl (AT) aecom (DOT) yu.edu> wrote

No proof at all that those diseases, while terrible, have anything to do
with "greenhouse gas".

Lot of leftist propaganda but no proof.
--
-v-
Solamente ocho!

"Mark Stahl" <stahl (AT) aecom (DOT) yu.edu> wrote

:
: "Barry Posner" <bup100 (AT) psu (DOT) edu> wrote in message
: news:3F82FD7D.B27976C1 (AT) psu (DOT) edu...
: >
: >
: > Pence234 wrote:
: >
: > > The point is, my dears, that we are killing off the Earth habitat
: required for
: > > humans to exist.
: >
: > No we're not. At the very worst, we're making life in the future a bit
: > more expensive to live. At the very worst.
:
: bullshit. unadulterated bullshit, my friend. how expensive is it to
replace
: a unique species that becomes extinct?

as compared to 'how much would it cost to *try* to prevent the extinction'
that we most likely have little to no control over anyway?