On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:51:27 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Oct 28, 9:22 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:03:36 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Oct 27, 5:38 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:33:17 +0000, Malcolm
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>>
>> >> >In article ,
>> >> >amacmil...@aol.com writes
>> >> >>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:19:13 +0100, Robert Seago
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>In article ,
>> >> >>>   Frank Pittel  wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>> I see the global warming cultists are ignoring the fact that earth is in
>> >> >>>> a cooling cycle and has been for a decade.
>>
>> >> >>>Scientists have never as far as I know said that the weather has to get
>> >> >>>warmer each year to conclude that there is a long term warming trend.
>>
>> >> >>"How long will it be before sanity and sound science break in on what
>> >> >>begins to look like one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever
>> >> >>to grip the human race?"
>>
>> >> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastro
>> >> >>phe.html
>>
>> >> >>Interesting!
>>
>> >> >Ah, yes a well-known global-warming denier. That article contains some
>> >> >very obviously wrong information, so presumably the book contains a
>> >> >great deal more.
>>
>> >> >For example:
>>
>> >> >"The ice caps haven’t been melting as the alarmists and the models
>> >> >predicted they should. The Antarctic, containing nearly 90 per cent of
>> >> >all the ice in the world, has actually been cooling over the past 30
>> >> >years, not warming. The polar bears are not drowning – there are four
>> >> >times more of them now than there were 40 years ago"
>>
>> >> >This is ludicrously inaccurate nonsense.
>>
>> >> >The Greenland icecap is in rapid retreat. He should look at the
>> >> >satellite images which show this.  The Antarctic has been warming not
>> >> >cooling. He should look at the temperature records which show this as
>> >> >well as the satellite images of the iceshelves. Polar bears are much
>> >> >more numerous than 40 years ago because hunting of them stopped. Linking
>> >> >this increase to ice conditions shows the shallowness of his arguments.
>>
>> >> This coming from the well known fake conservationist who acknowledges
>> >> the climate change problem but supports the encouragement of mass
>> >> tourism in the name of "conservation".
>>
>> >> You even tripped off to the South Atlantic last year.  So much for
>> >> your care for climate change.
>>
>> >> What a fraud you are, Malcolm.
>>
>> >Did it never occur to you that if people are cut off from a natural
>> >environment they could come to believe it is not worth keeping?
>>
>> If they're cut of from it they couldn't do it any harm, silly.
>
>I didn't realise before how amazingly crass and stupid you are. 

I've always realised how amazingly crass and stupid you are.  That
makes me ahead :-))

>My
>apologies for overestimating your intellect. 

No need to apologise; you've never been able to work anything out.

>Never heard of landfill
>for waste, logging for paper, mining for gold, coal, uranium, etc.,
>factory fishing the oceans? 

Sure I have

>Many people who support these things, by
>buying into them one way or another, have never seen those destructive
>operations which take place to deliver the product. 

They can see it on video etc.  Perhaps with your way of thinking we
should send people to Iraq and Afghanistan to see what happens there
too.

>For them the
>environment is the local park, and wildlife comprises bored, often
>suicidally inclined, animals sitting in cages at the zoo or doing
>tricks at the dolphinarium.

If they didn't go to dolphinariums and zoos there wouldn't be any. And
if the fake conservationists didn't exploit the natural environment on
the same basis the human footprint would be reduced considerably.

Got it now, or are you still as crass and stupid as always?

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:35:38 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Oct 28, 3:56 pm, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:51:27 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>>  wrote:
>> >On Oct 28, 9:22 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:03:36 -0700 (PDT), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 27, 5:38 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:33:17 +0000, Malcolm
>>
>> >> >>  wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >In article ,
>> >> >> >amacmil...@aol.com writes
>> >> >> >>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:19:13 +0100, Robert Seago
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>In article ,
>> >> >> >>>   Frank Pittel  wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>> I see the global warming cultists are ignoring the fact that earth is in
>> >> >> >>>> a cooling cycle and has been for a decade.
>>
>> >> >> >>>Scientists have never as far as I know said that the weather has to get
>> >> >> >>>warmer each year to conclude that there is a long term warming trend.
>>
>> >> >> >>"How long will it be before sanity and sound science break in on what
>> >> >> >>begins to look like one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever
>> >> >> >>to grip the human race?"
>>
>> >> >> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastro
>> >> >> >>phe.html
>>
>> >> >> >>Interesting!
>>
>> >> >> >Ah, yes a well-known global-warming denier. That article contains some
>> >> >> >very obviously wrong information, so presumably the book contains a
>> >> >> >great deal more.
>>
>> >> >> >For example:
>>
>> >> >> >"The ice caps haven’t been melting as the alarmists and the models
>> >> >> >predicted they should. The Antarctic, containing nearly 90 per cent of
>> >> >> >all the ice in the world, has actually been cooling over the past 30
>> >> >> >years, not warming. The polar bears are not drowning – there are four
>> >> >> >times more of them now than there were 40 years ago"
>>
>> >> >> >This is ludicrously inaccurate nonsense.
>>
>> >> >> >The Greenland icecap is in rapid retreat. He should look at the
>> >> >> >satellite images which show this.  The Antarctic has been warming not
>> >> >> >cooling. He should look at the temperature records which show this as
>> >> >> >well as the satellite images of the iceshelves. Polar bears are much
>> >> >> >more numerous than 40 years ago because hunting of them stopped. Linking
>> >> >> >this increase to ice conditions shows the shallowness of his arguments.
>>
>> >> >> This coming from the well known fake conservationist who acknowledges
>> >> >> the climate change problem but supports the encouragement of mass
>> >> >> tourism in the name of "conservation".
>>
>> >> >> You even tripped off to the South Atlantic last year.  So much for
>> >> >> your care for climate change.
>>
>> >> >> What a fraud you are, Malcolm.
>>
>> >> >Did it never occur to you that if people are cut off from a natural
>> >> >environment they could come to believe it is not worth keeping?
>>
>> >> If they're cut of from it they couldn't do it any harm, silly.
>>
>> >I didn't realise before how amazingly crass and stupid you are.
>>
>> I've always realised how amazingly crass and stupid you are.  That
>> makes me ahead :-))
>>
>> >My
>> >apologies for overestimating your intellect.
>>
>> No need to apologise; you've never been able to work anything out.
>
>I withdraw my apology in this case. Very small amounts are always
>difficult to estimate, and attempts to do so invariably end in over-
>estimation.

That's what makes you a duff scientist.

>
>> >Never heard of landfill
>> >for waste, logging for paper, mining for gold, coal, uranium, etc.,
>> >factory fishing the oceans?
>>
>> Sure I have
>>
>> >Many people who support these things, by
>> >buying into them one way or another, have never seen those destructive
>> >operations which take place to deliver the product.
>>
>> They can see it on video etc.
>
>They can see Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck on video, too, but that
>doesn't make the cartoon some kind of reality,

More of a reality than the fake conservation doctrine they will have
spoon fed.

>
> > Perhaps with your way of thinking we
>> should send people to Iraq and Afghanistan to see what happens there
>> too.
>
>Which group? Those who support the war or those against?
>

Any group.


>> >For them the
>> >environment is the local park, and wildlife comprises bored, often
>> >suicidally inclined, animals sitting in cages at the zoo or doing
>> >tricks at the dolphinarium.
>>
>> If they didn't go to dolphinariums and zoos there wouldn't be any.
>
>Doh!  If you weren't so stupid, you'd realise how stupid that
>statement was.

If people don't support businesses they'll collapse.

>
>> And
>> if the fake conservationists didn't exploit the natural environment on
>> the same basis the human footprint would be reduced considerably.
>
>How lucky for the planet that "fake conservationist" is just a product
>of your diseased imagination

No answer I see.  Just the usual ad hominem response.

>
>> Got it now, or are you still as crass and stupid as always?
>
>Are you really so moronic to only mindlessly parrot what I say? Can
>you not create your own, original insults?

Saves time :-))