Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2015 7:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:



Why would they have to re-populate? YOU claimed the numbers
that show the severe decline in lions over the last 50 years are
just statistics, they don't show right, wrong or anything else.
And you said that if an endangered species is meant to survive,
it will, without regard to what we do. And if it goes extinct,
no big deal, it will just be replaced by another species.

THAT is your remarkable and totally ignorant position. Don't
try to wiggle away on us now.


Enough of this. Let's change the subject to something we can all relate
to. Dinner.

I'm going to have one of my grandfather's favorite meals. Roasted
Passenger Pigeon. I don't have to worry about eating them since he said
there are billions of them and therefore, won't be endangered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

Sounds alright.
If granny ate it, we can eat it too, LOL!
I was following around a mushroom picker
over the week end. She kept telling me all
the mushrooms we're picking were edible, safe to eat.
At the end I gave every thing I picked to her. I still
was not sure, 100%. Recently a lady like her picked
some mushrooms and ate it and got really sick ending up
losing her liver... She was sure she was eating edible
good mushroom.

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 7:45:36 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2015 7:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:



Why would they have to re-populate? YOU claimed the numbers
that show the severe decline in lions over the last 50 years are
just statistics, they don't show right, wrong or anything else.
And you said that if an endangered species is meant to survive,
it will, without regard to what we do. And if it goes extinct,
no big deal, it will just be replaced by another species.

THAT is your remarkable and totally ignorant position. Don't
try to wiggle away on us now.


Enough of this. Let's change the subject to something we can all relate
to. Dinner.

I'm going to have one of my grandfather's favorite meals. Roasted
Passenger Pigeon. I don't have to worry about eating them since he said
there are billions of them and therefore, won't be endangered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

I don't worry about endangered species, I eat small children. The toes are the crunchy part. (¬€¿Â¬)

[8~{} Uncle Hungry Monster

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 9:33:17 AM UTC-5, Tony Hwang wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2015 7:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:



Why would they have to re-populate? YOU claimed the numbers
that show the severe decline in lions over the last 50 years are
just statistics, they don't show right, wrong or anything else.
And you said that if an endangered species is meant to survive,
it will, without regard to what we do. And if it goes extinct,
no big deal, it will just be replaced by another species.

THAT is your remarkable and totally ignorant position. Don't
try to wiggle away on us now.


Enough of this. Let's change the subject to something we can all relate
to. Dinner.

I'm going to have one of my grandfather's favorite meals. Roasted
Passenger Pigeon. I don't have to worry about eating them since he said
there are billions of them and therefore, won't be endangered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

Sounds alright.
If granny ate it, we can eat it too, LOL!
I was following around a mushroom picker
over the week end. She kept telling me all
the mushrooms we're picking were edible, safe to eat.
At the end I gave every thing I picked to her. I still
was not sure, 100%. Recently a lady like her picked
some mushrooms and ate it and got really sick ending up
losing her liver... She was sure she was eating edible
good mushroom.

Every fracking city in the world except perhaps those near the Arctic Circle are covered with pigeons! Harvest the damn thing and wipe out world hunger!
á•™(‡€€¸†¼€¶)á•—

[8~{} Uncle Pigeon Monster

On 8/4/2015 6:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:58:39 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/3/2015 11:51 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:43:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

He is facing years in an African Prison... need I say more?

Read an article the other day. Since the Treaty with Zimbabwe (1998)
no one has been extradited from the U.S., the crime has to be at least
a penalty of one year in prison. Extradition also has to be approved
in federal court here. The court may question the credibility of
justice, evidence, etc. The dentist, if extradited, could face a
$20,000 fine and / or 10 years in prison. The Zimbabwe government
most likely would take the fine over a prison term.


IF it was a true mistake on his part he shouldn't have any issues with
paying restitution and even investing in some sort of assistance in
helping repopulate the endangered lion prides there.



Why would they have to re-populate?

Do you think about what you say before you post it, or even think about
what you've read before you jump that chasm where the wrong conclusion
is waiting to be immortalized?

No one has to re-populate anything. IF a person feels regret for
killing an animal they may want to invest time and money into a program
that will help raise new baby animals. That's how regret works. A
person feels they made a mistake, and they try to overcome that mistake
by doing something good after they've made the mistake.

YOU claimed the numbers
that show the severe decline in lions over the last 50 years are
just statistics, they don't show right, wrong or anything else.

One more time, statistics only show gathered data. Think about that
before you jump. Statistics aren't emotional, therefore, they can't
produce an emotional result - they are just numbers. OTOH, a "right vs
wrong" determination is an emotional conclusion based on personal
interpretation.

The ONLY way to come to a right vs wrong conclusion is to take data
(which is just numbers) and insert emotions ONTO that data.

Statistics and right vs wrong are separate entities. You've been
referring to statistics as if they proved right vs wrong. Numbers can't
do that - only emotions can.

That's why some of use aren't THAT irritated or upset about the numbers
and other people ARE upset about the numbers. The amount of emotions a
person invests in the interpretation of the numbers directly influences
their response to the numbers.

I look at the numbers and see multiple causes for the decline in the
lion population and I respond with referencing the multiple causes and
I'm not surprised or outraged that man are included in the causes.

You respond by looking at the numbers and shouting "ISN'T IT OBVIOUS
THAT MAN CAUSED THE DECLINE IN THE LION POPULATION!!!! YOU'RE AN IDIOT
IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT!!" That kind of outrage is disproportional to
what the statistics actually represent.

The next time you want to use statistics as a reason to be outraged you
should stop, imo, don't mention statistics, and just mention how
outraged you are because an emotional response makes you right, doesn't
it?? sheeeeeeeeesh


And you said that if an endangered species is meant to survive,
it will, without regard to what we do. And if it goes extinct,
no big deal, it will just be replaced by another species.

Yes, I said that, and I believe that to be true based on how many
species have already gone extinct and how many are still teetering on
the edge of extinction despite our efforts to preserve those species.
We might be successful saving some species, but I don't think our
efforts will help all of them and some will still go extinct despite our
efforts to help.

THAT is your remarkable and totally ignorant position. Don't
try to wiggle away on us now.


Who is "us"?? I only see you arguing that stats prove right vs wrong.

--
Maggie

On 8/4/2015 7:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2015 7:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:



Why would they have to re-populate? YOU claimed the numbers
that show the severe decline in lions over the last 50 years are
just statistics, they don't show right, wrong or anything else.
And you said that if an endangered species is meant to survive,
it will, without regard to what we do. And if it goes extinct,
no big deal, it will just be replaced by another species.

THAT is your remarkable and totally ignorant position. Don't
try to wiggle away on us now.


Enough of this. Let's change the subject to something we can all relate
to. Dinner.

I'm going to have one of my grandfather's favorite meals. Roasted
Passenger Pigeon. I don't have to worry about eating them since he said
there are billions of them and therefore, won't be endangered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

What are the side dishes going to be? They make the meal, you know!

--
Maggie

Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 6:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:58:39 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/3/2015 11:51 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:43:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

He is facing years in an African Prison... need I say more?

Read an article the other day. Since the Treaty with Zimbabwe (1998)
no one has been extradited from the U.S., the crime has to be at least
a penalty of one year in prison. Extradition also has to be approved
in federal court here. The court may question the credibility of
justice, evidence, etc. The dentist, if extradited, could face a
$20,000 fine and / or 10 years in prison. The Zimbabwe government
most likely would take the fine over a prison term.


IF it was a true mistake on his part he shouldn't have any issues with
paying restitution and even investing in some sort of assistance in
helping repopulate the endangered lion prides there.



Why would they have to re-populate?

Do you think about what you say before you post it, or even think about
what you've read before you jump that chasm where the wrong conclusion
is waiting to be immortalized?

No one has to re-populate anything. IF a person feels regret for
killing an animal they may want to invest time and money into a program
that will help raise new baby animals. That's how regret works. A
person feels they made a mistake, and they try to overcome that mistake
by doing something good after they've made the mistake.

YOU claimed the numbers
that show the severe decline in lions over the last 50 years are
just statistics, they don't show right, wrong or anything else.

One more time, statistics only show gathered data. Think about that
before you jump. Statistics aren't emotional, therefore, they can't
produce an emotional result - they are just numbers. OTOH, a "right vs
wrong" determination is an emotional conclusion based on personal
interpretation.

The ONLY way to come to a right vs wrong conclusion is to take data
(which is just numbers) and insert emotions ONTO that data.

Statistics and right vs wrong are separate entities. You've been
referring to statistics as if they proved right vs wrong. Numbers can't
do that - only emotions can.

That's why some of use aren't THAT irritated or upset about the numbers
and other people ARE upset about the numbers. The amount of emotions a
person invests in the interpretation of the numbers directly influences
their response to the numbers.

I look at the numbers and see multiple causes for the decline in the
lion population and I respond with referencing the multiple causes and
I'm not surprised or outraged that man are included in the causes.

You respond by looking at the numbers and shouting "ISN'T IT OBVIOUS
THAT MAN CAUSED THE DECLINE IN THE LION POPULATION!!!! YOU'RE AN IDIOT
IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT!!" That kind of outrage is disproportional to
what the statistics actually represent.

The next time you want to use statistics as a reason to be outraged you
should stop, imo, don't mention statistics, and just mention how
outraged you are because an emotional response makes you right, doesn't
it?? sheeeeeeeeesh


And you said that if an endangered species is meant to survive,
it will, without regard to what we do. And if it goes extinct,
no big deal, it will just be replaced by another species.

Yes, I said that, and I believe that to be true based on how many
species have already gone extinct and how many are still teetering on
the edge of extinction despite our efforts to preserve those species.
We might be successful saving some species, but I don't think our
efforts will help all of them and some will still go extinct despite our
efforts to help.

THAT is your remarkable and totally ignorant position. Don't
try to wiggle away on us now.


Who is "us"?? I only see you arguing that stats prove right vs wrong.

Every thing is based on stats(history). economics, politics, scientific
research, is there any thing not based on stats.? Stats is not right and
wrong. The drawn conclusion from stats can be wrong or right.

We had really bad flooding in our city few years ago. many things got
damaged(like washed away bridges, etc.) Those bridges were designed
based on past 100 years rain fall stats. in summer. But climate has
changed over time, now any thing based on past 100 year's stats. are
proven wrong(can't depend on it).

On 8/4/2015 11:31 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 6:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:58:39 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/3/2015 11:51 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:43:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

He is facing years in an African Prison... need I say more?

Read an article the other day. Since the Treaty with Zimbabwe (1998)
no one has been extradited from the U.S., the crime has to be at least
a penalty of one year in prison. Extradition also has to be approved
in federal court here. The court may question the credibility of
justice, evidence, etc. The dentist, if extradited, could face a
$20,000 fine and / or 10 years in prison. The Zimbabwe government
most likely would take the fine over a prison term.


IF it was a true mistake on his part he shouldn't have any issues with
paying restitution and even investing in some sort of assistance in
helping repopulate the endangered lion prides there.



Why would they have to re-populate?

Do you think about what you say before you post it, or even think about
what you've read before you jump that chasm where the wrong conclusion
is waiting to be immortalized?

No one has to re-populate anything. IF a person feels regret for
killing an animal they may want to invest time and money into a program
that will help raise new baby animals. That's how regret works. A
person feels they made a mistake, and they try to overcome that mistake
by doing something good after they've made the mistake.

YOU claimed the numbers
that show the severe decline in lions over the last 50 years are
just statistics, they don't show right, wrong or anything else.

One more time, statistics only show gathered data. Think about that
before you jump. Statistics aren't emotional, therefore, they can't
produce an emotional result - they are just numbers. OTOH, a "right vs
wrong" determination is an emotional conclusion based on personal
interpretation.

The ONLY way to come to a right vs wrong conclusion is to take data
(which is just numbers) and insert emotions ONTO that data.

Statistics and right vs wrong are separate entities. You've been
referring to statistics as if they proved right vs wrong. Numbers can't
do that - only emotions can.

That's why some of use aren't THAT irritated or upset about the numbers
and other people ARE upset about the numbers. The amount of emotions a
person invests in the interpretation of the numbers directly influences
their response to the numbers.

I look at the numbers and see multiple causes for the decline in the
lion population and I respond with referencing the multiple causes and
I'm not surprised or outraged that man are included in the causes.

You respond by looking at the numbers and shouting "ISN'T IT OBVIOUS
THAT MAN CAUSED THE DECLINE IN THE LION POPULATION!!!! YOU'RE AN IDIOT
IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT!!" That kind of outrage is disproportional to
what the statistics actually represent.

The next time you want to use statistics as a reason to be outraged you
should stop, imo, don't mention statistics, and just mention how
outraged you are because an emotional response makes you right, doesn't
it?? sheeeeeeeeesh


And you said that if an endangered species is meant to survive,
it will, without regard to what we do. And if it goes extinct,
no big deal, it will just be replaced by another species.

Yes, I said that, and I believe that to be true based on how many
species have already gone extinct and how many are still teetering on
the edge of extinction despite our efforts to preserve those species.
We might be successful saving some species, but I don't think our
efforts will help all of them and some will still go extinct despite our
efforts to help.

THAT is your remarkable and totally ignorant position. Don't
try to wiggle away on us now.


Who is "us"?? I only see you arguing that stats prove right vs wrong.

Every thing is based on stats(history). economics, politics, scientific
research, is there any thing not based on stats.? Stats is not right and
wrong. The drawn conclusion from stats can be wrong or right.

Yes!

We had really bad flooding in our city few years ago. many things got
damaged(like washed away bridges, etc.) Those bridges were designed
based on past 100 years rain fall stats. in summer. But climate has
changed over time, now any thing based on past 100 year's stats. are
proven wrong(can't depend on it).

I totally agree with you. (¬€¿Â¬)

--
Maggie

On 8/4/2015 12:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 11:31 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 6:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 1:58:39 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/3/2015 11:51 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:43:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

He is facing years in an African Prison... need I say more?

Read an article the other day. Since the Treaty with Zimbabwe (1998)
no one has been extradited from the U.S., the crime has to be at least
a penalty of one year in prison. Extradition also has to be approved
in federal court here. The court may question the credibility of
justice, evidence, etc. The dentist, if extradited, could face a
$20,000 fine and / or 10 years in prison. The Zimbabwe government
most likely would take the fine over a prison term.


IF it was a true mistake on his part he shouldn't have any issues with
paying restitution and even investing in some sort of assistance in
helping repopulate the endangered lion prides there.



Why would they have to re-populate?

Do you think about what you say before you post it, or even think about
what you've read before you jump that chasm where the wrong conclusion
is waiting to be immortalized?

No one has to re-populate anything. IF a person feels regret for
killing an animal they may want to invest time and money into a program
that will help raise new baby animals. That's how regret works. A
person feels they made a mistake, and they try to overcome that mistake
by doing something good after they've made the mistake.

YOU claimed the numbers
that show the severe decline in lions over the last 50 years are
just statistics, they don't show right, wrong or anything else.

One more time, statistics only show gathered data. Think about that
before you jump. Statistics aren't emotional, therefore, they can't
produce an emotional result - they are just numbers. OTOH, a "right vs
wrong" determination is an emotional conclusion based on personal
interpretation.

The ONLY way to come to a right vs wrong conclusion is to take data
(which is just numbers) and insert emotions ONTO that data.

Statistics and right vs wrong are separate entities. You've been
referring to statistics as if they proved right vs wrong. Numbers can't
do that - only emotions can.

That's why some of use aren't THAT irritated or upset about the numbers
and other people ARE upset about the numbers. The amount of emotions a
person invests in the interpretation of the numbers directly influences
their response to the numbers.

I look at the numbers and see multiple causes for the decline in the
lion population and I respond with referencing the multiple causes and
I'm not surprised or outraged that man are included in the causes.

You respond by looking at the numbers and shouting "ISN'T IT OBVIOUS
THAT MAN CAUSED THE DECLINE IN THE LION POPULATION!!!! YOU'RE AN IDIOT
IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT!!" That kind of outrage is disproportional to
what the statistics actually represent.

The next time you want to use statistics as a reason to be outraged you
should stop, imo, don't mention statistics, and just mention how
outraged you are because an emotional response makes you right, doesn't
it?? sheeeeeeeeesh


And you said that if an endangered species is meant to survive,
it will, without regard to what we do. And if it goes extinct,
no big deal, it will just be replaced by another species.

Yes, I said that, and I believe that to be true based on how many
species have already gone extinct and how many are still teetering on
the edge of extinction despite our efforts to preserve those species.
We might be successful saving some species, but I don't think our
efforts will help all of them and some will still go extinct despite our
efforts to help.

THAT is your remarkable and totally ignorant position. Don't
try to wiggle away on us now.


Who is "us"?? I only see you arguing that stats prove right vs wrong.

Every thing is based on stats(history). economics, politics, scientific
research, is there any thing not based on stats.? Stats is not right and
wrong. The drawn conclusion from stats can be wrong or right.

Yes!

We had really bad flooding in our city few years ago. many things got
damaged(like washed away bridges, etc.) Those bridges were designed
based on past 100 years rain fall stats. in summer. But climate has
changed over time, now any thing based on past 100 year's stats. are
proven wrong(can't depend on it).

I totally agree with you. (¬€¿Â¬)

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

--
Froz...

Quando omni flunkus, moritati

On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:43:16 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

LOL. I saw it but let is go

On 8/4/2015 1:01 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:43:16 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

LOL. I saw it but let is go


You don't think things like El Nino or La Nina can change local
climates? Maybe "climate" isn't the right word to use, but it
definitely causes local changes in weather patterns.

--
Maggie

On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:46:30 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/4/2015 1:01 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:43:16 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

LOL. I saw it but let is go


You don't think things like El Nino or La Nina can change local
climates? Maybe "climate" isn't the right word to use, but it
definitely causes local changes in weather patterns.

Climate around here changes all the time. Keep in mind that the
liberals moved from global warming to climate change. Before, way
back machine is was called nuclear winter. Or some such nonsense.

On 8/4/2015 2:46 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 1:01 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:43:16 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

LOL. I saw it but let is go


You don't think things like El Nino or La Nina can change local
climates? Maybe "climate" isn't the right word to use, but it
definitely causes local changes in weather patterns.

What do you call local, I am nowhere near the Pacific Ocean, yet the
El/La things definitely seem to affect the weather/climate here.

--
Froz...

Quando omni flunkus, moritati

On 8/4/2015 1:50 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:46:30 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/4/2015 1:01 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:43:16 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

LOL. I saw it but let is go


You don't think things like El Nino or La Nina can change local
climates? Maybe "climate" isn't the right word to use, but it
definitely causes local changes in weather patterns.

Climate around here changes all the time. Keep in mind that the
liberals moved from global warming to climate change. Before, way
back machine is was called nuclear winter. Or some such nonsense.


Right. Well, what Tony Hwang said below is what I was agreeing with
mostly because I've heard of similar things happening with 100 year rain
falls, and flooding type events. Something has to change in the climate
for those things to happen. I don't know if I'd call it "global climate
change" or even "global warming". I think it's just cyclical and
eventually evens out to the normal average. Twenty years ago I remember
winters where it was warm weather like spring time, but now we have
harsher wetter and colder winters. I'm guessing that eventually we'll
go back to warm winters and then back to cold winters, again.

"We had really bad flooding in our city few years ago. many things got
damaged(like washed away bridges, etc.) Those bridges were designed
based on past 100 years rain fall stats. in summer. But climate has
changed over time, now any thing based on past 100 year's stats. are
proven wrong(can't depend on it)."-Tony Hwang

--
Maggie

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 12:31:50 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:


Every thing is based on stats(history). economics, politics, scientific
research, is there any thing not based on stats.? Stats is not right and
wrong. The drawn conclusion from stats can be wrong or right.

Don't fall for the village idiot's nonsense. The numbers show that
the population of lions has declined from 400,000 fifty years ago,
to just 16,000 today. There is no right or wrong about it. She
wants to segue into what exactly is behind it, etc. From the standpoint
of whether killing more of them makes sense, it matters not a wit.

And of course you, I and almost everyone else knows that the
reason for the decline in almost all the endangered species
around the world is in fact because of man. Just the facts.

So, don't fall for the nonsense about statistics. It's just
a classic denier strategy. It's what the holocaust deniers do
too. Show them the facts, the evidence and they raise one red
herring after another.

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 1:51:00 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:46:30 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/4/2015 1:01 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:43:16 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

LOL. I saw it but let is go


You don't think things like El Nino or La Nina can change local
climates? Maybe "climate" isn't the right word to use, but it
definitely causes local changes in weather patterns.

Climate around here changes all the time. Keep in mind that the
liberals moved from global warming to climate change. Before, way
back machine is was called nuclear winter. Or some such nonsense.

The Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Freaks who've infested the educational system for decades in order to pollute the minds of children with flagrant codswallop, are responsible for "The Dumbassification of America". I see it everywhere and every day. I'm glad in a way that I won't be around to see the country completely implode. I probably won't be around to witness a recovery if the P.L.L.C.F. are finally run out of Washington D.C. á•™(‡€€¸†¼€¶)á•—

[8~{} Uncle Change Monster

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 2:06:36 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 1:50 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:46:30 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/4/2015 1:01 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:43:16 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

LOL. I saw it but let is go


You don't think things like El Nino or La Nina can change local
climates? Maybe "climate" isn't the right word to use, but it
definitely causes local changes in weather patterns.

Climate around here changes all the time. Keep in mind that the
liberals moved from global warming to climate change. Before, way
back machine is was called nuclear winter. Or some such nonsense.


Right. Well, what Tony Hwang said below is what I was agreeing with
mostly because I've heard of similar things happening with 100 year rain
falls, and flooding type events. Something has to change in the climate
for those things to happen. I don't know if I'd call it "global climate
change" or even "global warming". I think it's just cyclical and
eventually evens out to the normal average. Twenty years ago I remember
winters where it was warm weather like spring time, but now we have
harsher wetter and colder winters. I'm guessing that eventually we'll
go back to warm winters and then back to cold winters, again.

"We had really bad flooding in our city few years ago. many things got
damaged(like washed away bridges, etc.) Those bridges were designed
based on past 100 years rain fall stats. in summer. But climate has
changed over time, now any thing based on past 100 year's stats. are
proven wrong(can't depend on it)."-Tony Hwang

--
Maggie

For some reason the believers in "man made climate change" can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the climate is always changing in cycles that can be thousands of years long. I read about one scientist who's knowledgeable about the cycles of the Sun who's postulated that there is a spike in the Sun's output before it drops to a level that will cause a period of global cooling. I wish the frak people would research a subject before falling for a manufactured crisis and hysterically demand that the government take action against something that it has absolutely no ability or power to control. �̯͡�﴿

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...space-science/

https://tinyurl.com/3p9ujbt

[8~{} Uncle Hysterical Monster

On 8/4/2015 3:36 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 2:06:36 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 1:50 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:46:30 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/4/2015 1:01 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:43:16 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

LOL. I saw it but let is go


You don't think things like El Nino or La Nina can change local
climates? Maybe "climate" isn't the right word to use, but it
definitely causes local changes in weather patterns.

Climate around here changes all the time. Keep in mind that the
liberals moved from global warming to climate change. Before, way
back machine is was called nuclear winter. Or some such nonsense.


Right. Well, what Tony Hwang said below is what I was agreeing with
mostly because I've heard of similar things happening with 100 year rain
falls, and flooding type events. Something has to change in the climate
for those things to happen. I don't know if I'd call it "global climate
change" or even "global warming". I think it's just cyclical and
eventually evens out to the normal average. Twenty years ago I remember
winters where it was warm weather like spring time, but now we have
harsher wetter and colder winters. I'm guessing that eventually we'll
go back to warm winters and then back to cold winters, again.

"We had really bad flooding in our city few years ago. many things got
damaged(like washed away bridges, etc.) Those bridges were designed
based on past 100 years rain fall stats. in summer. But climate has
changed over time, now any thing based on past 100 year's stats. are
proven wrong(can't depend on it)."-Tony Hwang

--
Maggie

For some reason the believers in "man made climate change" can't seem
to wrap their heads around the fact that the climate is always changing
in cycles that can be thousands of years long. I read about one scientist
who's knowledgeable about the cycles of the Sun who's postulated that there
is a spike in the Sun's output before it drops to a level that will cause
a period of global cooling. I wish the frak people would research a subject
before falling for a manufactured crisis and hysterically demand that the
government take action against something that it has absolutely no ability
or power to control. �̯͡�﴿

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...space-science/

https://tinyurl.com/3p9ujbt

[8~{} Uncle Hysterical Monster


I agree with you. Every time I see someone going nuts over the weather
being caused by humans I want to put them in a spaceship and send them
to outer space so they can see just how little we are in relation to the
Earth. The planet might get a little bit dirty because of us, but it
has it's own way of cleaning up after the dirt and trash that makes us
look so insignificant.

--
Maggie

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 4:25:55 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 3:36 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

For some reason the believers in "man made climate change" can't seem
to wrap their heads around the fact that the climate is always changing
in cycles that can be thousands of years long. I read about one scientist
who's knowledgeable about the cycles of the Sun who's postulated that there
is a spike in the Sun's output before it drops to a level that will cause
a period of global cooling. I wish the frak people would research a subject
before falling for a manufactured crisis and hysterically demand that the
government take action against something that it has absolutely no ability
or power to control. �̯͡�﴿

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...space-science/

https://tinyurl.com/3p9ujbt

[8~{} Uncle Hysterical Monster


I agree with you. Every time I see someone going nuts over the weather
being caused by humans I want to put them in a spaceship and send them
to outer space so they can see just how little we are in relation to the
Earth. The planet might get a little bit dirty because of us, but it
has it's own way of cleaning up after the dirt and trash that makes us
look so insignificant.

--
Maggie

You're living in a dream world then...and maybe you have kf'd me? ¯\_(Š™ï¸¿Š™)_/¯

On 8/4/2015 4:41 PM, bob_villa wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 4:25:55 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 3:36 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

For some reason the believers in "man made climate change" can't seem
to wrap their heads around the fact that the climate is always changing
in cycles that can be thousands of years long. I read about one scientist
who's knowledgeable about the cycles of the Sun who's postulated that there
is a spike in the Sun's output before it drops to a level that will cause
a period of global cooling. I wish the frak people would research a subject
before falling for a manufactured crisis and hysterically demand that the
government take action against something that it has absolutely no ability
or power to control. �̯͡�﴿

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...space-science/

https://tinyurl.com/3p9ujbt

[8~{} Uncle Hysterical Monster


I agree with you. Every time I see someone going nuts over the weather
being caused by humans I want to put them in a spaceship and send them
to outer space so they can see just how little we are in relation to the
Earth. The planet might get a little bit dirty because of us, but it
has it's own way of cleaning up after the dirt and trash that makes us
look so insignificant.

--
Maggie

You're living in a dream world then...and maybe you have kf'd me? ¯\_(Š™ï¸¿Š™)_/¯


I haven't kill filed you. Why would I? You're nice.

--
Maggie

On 8/4/2015 12:23 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 7:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Enough of this. Let's change the subject to something we can all relate
to. Dinner.

I'm going to have one of my grandfather's favorite meals. Roasted
Passenger Pigeon. I don't have to worry about eating them since he said
there are billions of them and therefore, won't be endangered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

What are the side dishes going to be? They make the meal, you know!


I think the Klingons are bringing baked tribble.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 8/4/2015 12:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 11:31 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
We had really bad flooding in our city few years ago. many things got
damaged(like washed away bridges, etc.) Those bridges were designed
based on past 100 years rain fall stats. in summer. But climate has
changed over time, now any thing based on past 100 year's stats. are
proven wrong(can't depend on it).

I totally agree with you. (¬€¿Â¬)


Climate goes in cycles. Some years warm, some cold.

Please delete at least some of the old, trailing
text as I just did. Thank you.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 8/4/2015 2:01 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:43:16 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

LOL. I saw it but let is go


Few years are the same as the last. And there
are whoppers and humdingers of extremes. But that
doesn't prove that carbon emissions or freon
caused it. Any more than blind people in the
mental ward prove that masturbation causes
blindness.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 8/4/2015 2:50 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:46:30 -0500, Muggles wrote:

You don't think things like El Nino or La Nina can change local
climates? Maybe "climate" isn't the right word to use, but it
definitely causes local changes in weather patterns.

Climate around here changes all the time. Keep in mind that the
liberals moved from global warming to climate change. Before, way
back machine is was called nuclear winter. Or some such nonsense.


Of course, everyone remembers spray cans in
the 1970s that caused global cooling, and
the ice age. I remember Archie Bunker spraying
a can all around the living room while Meathead
and Gloria whined about global cooling.

Nuclear winter was if we had another nuke war,
and the bombs blew a lot of dirt into the air.
Kinda like Mt. St. Helens did, and darkened
the sky for a couple days. We didn't all freeze.


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 7:31:10 PM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Of course, everyone remembers spray cans in
the 1970s that caused global cooling, and
the ice age. I remember Archie Bunker spraying
a can all around the living room while Meathead
and Gloria whined about global cooling.

Nuclear winter was if we had another nuke war,
and the bombs blew a lot of dirt into the air.
Kinda like Mt. St. Helens did, and darkened
the sky for a couple days. We didn't all freeze.


....and if frogs had wings, they won't bump their ass when they jumped. Making as much sense as your analogies...

ps "All in the Family" was a huge liberal-based show...and showed conservatives as morons.

On 8/4/2015 7:21 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/4/2015 12:23 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 7:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Enough of this. Let's change the subject to something we can all relate
to. Dinner.

I'm going to have one of my grandfather's favorite meals. Roasted
Passenger Pigeon. I don't have to worry about eating them since he said
there are billions of them and therefore, won't be endangered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

What are the side dishes going to be? They make the meal, you know!


I think the Klingons are bringing baked tribble.


Is that a veggie? I've got to have a veggie or it isn't a meal.

--
Maggie

On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 5:25:55 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 3:36 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 2:06:36 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 1:50 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:46:30 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/4/2015 1:01 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:43:16 -0400, FrozenNorth
wrote:

OMG, a Republican agreeing that climate change is real.

LOL. I saw it but let is go


You don't think things like El Nino or La Nina can change local
climates? Maybe "climate" isn't the right word to use, but it
definitely causes local changes in weather patterns.

Climate around here changes all the time. Keep in mind that the
liberals moved from global warming to climate change. Before, way
back machine is was called nuclear winter. Or some such nonsense.


Right. Well, what Tony Hwang said below is what I was agreeing with
mostly because I've heard of similar things happening with 100 year rain
falls, and flooding type events. Something has to change in the climate
for those things to happen. I don't know if I'd call it "global climate
change" or even "global warming". I think it's just cyclical and
eventually evens out to the normal average. Twenty years ago I remember
winters where it was warm weather like spring time, but now we have
harsher wetter and colder winters. I'm guessing that eventually we'll
go back to warm winters and then back to cold winters, again.

"We had really bad flooding in our city few years ago. many things got
damaged(like washed away bridges, etc.) Those bridges were designed
based on past 100 years rain fall stats. in summer. But climate has
changed over time, now any thing based on past 100 year's stats. are
proven wrong(can't depend on it)."-Tony Hwang

--
Maggie

For some reason the believers in "man made climate change" can't seem
to wrap their heads around the fact that the climate is always changing
in cycles that can be thousands of years long. I read about one scientist
who's knowledgeable about the cycles of the Sun who's postulated that there
is a spike in the Sun's output before it drops to a level that will cause
a period of global cooling. I wish the frak people would research a subject
before falling for a manufactured crisis and hysterically demand that the
government take action against something that it has absolutely no ability
or power to control. �̯͡�﴿

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...space-science/

https://tinyurl.com/3p9ujbt

[8~{} Uncle Hysterical Monster


I agree with you. Every time I see someone going nuts over the weather
being caused by humans I want to put them in a spaceship and send them
to outer space so they can see just how little we are in relation to the
Earth. The planet might get a little bit dirty because of us, but it
has it's own way of cleaning up after the dirt and trash that makes us
look so insignificant.

--
Maggie

Maggie, it's so obvious by now that it's really you who's in outer space.
Like I said, you could be a caricature for how commies and socialists
like to portray capitalists. A big fat buffoon, smoking a cigar, polluting
the air and water with waste from your factories, $100 bills bulging from
your greedy pockets, all the while proclaiming:

The earth can clean itself! Man's impact is insignificant! If a
species is meant to survive it will! Where's one of those remaining
endangered species so I can kill it?

Village idiot, again.

On 8/4/2015 8:43 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 7:21 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

What are the side dishes going to be? They make the meal, you know!


I think the Klingons are bringing baked tribble.


Is that a veggie? I've got to have a veggie or it isn't a meal.


If you have access to old Star Trek, the
episode in question was called "the trouble
with tribbles".

Tribbles are simple animal.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 8/5/2015 8:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 5:25:55 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
I agree with you. Every time I see someone going nuts over the weather
being caused by humans I want to put them in a spaceship and send them
to outer space so they can see just how little we are in relation to the
Earth. The planet might get a little bit dirty because of us, but it
has it's own way of cleaning up after the dirt and trash that makes us
look so insignificant.

--
Maggie

Maggie, it's so obvious by now that it's really you who's in outer space.
Like I said, you could be a caricature for how commies and socialists
like to portray capitalists. A big fat buffoon, smoking a cigar, polluting
the air and water with waste from your factories, $100 bills bulging from
your greedy pockets, all the while proclaiming:

The earth can clean itself! Man's impact is insignificant! If a
species is meant to survive it will! Where's one of those remaining
endangered species so I can kill it?

Village idiot, again.


You know, Trader, that seems a bit harsh. I'm
more agreeing with Maggie on this one.

========================
Hang on while I pick up some $100 bills that
fell out of my pockets, and reload my lion
rifle. Next, I'll straighten out my KKK robes,
and get my baby seal club polished again.
Rubbing my baby seal club excites me. And I
hate people like you.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 9:53:35 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/5/2015 8:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 5:25:55 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
I agree with you. Every time I see someone going nuts over the weather
being caused by humans I want to put them in a spaceship and send them
to outer space so they can see just how little we are in relation to the
Earth. The planet might get a little bit dirty because of us, but it
has it's own way of cleaning up after the dirt and trash that makes us
look so insignificant.

--
Maggie

Maggie, it's so obvious by now that it's really you who's in outer space.
Like I said, you could be a caricature for how commies and socialists
like to portray capitalists. A big fat buffoon, smoking a cigar, polluting
the air and water with waste from your factories, $100 bills bulging from
your greedy pockets, all the while proclaiming:

The earth can clean itself! Man's impact is insignificant! If a
species is meant to survive it will! Where's one of those remaining
endangered species so I can kill it?

Village idiot, again.


You know, Trader, that seems a bit harsh. I'm
more agreeing with Maggie on this one.

========================
Hang on while I pick up some $100 bills that
fell out of my pockets, and reload my lion
rifle. Next, I'll straighten out my KKK robes,
and get my baby seal club polished again.
Rubbing my baby seal club excites me. And I
hate people like you.


Feel free to disagree all you want. The ideas that man can
do anything, that the planet may get a little bit dirty
because of us, but can clean itself, that endangered
species will continue to exist if they are meant to exist...
I think those ideas have been widely discredited both by
sound science and what most of us personally observe.

On 8/5/2015 10:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:

You know, Trader, that seems a bit harsh. I'm
more agreeing with Maggie on this one.


Feel free to disagree all you want. The ideas that man can
do anything, that the planet may get a little bit dirty
because of us, but can clean itself, that endangered
species will continue to exist if they are meant to exist...
I think those ideas have been widely discredited both by
sound science and what most of us personally observe.


It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
I maintain that you were a bit harsh on Maggie.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 10:16:57 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/5/2015 10:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:

You know, Trader, that seems a bit harsh. I'm
more agreeing with Maggie on this one.


Feel free to disagree all you want. The ideas that man can
do anything, that the planet may get a little bit dirty
because of us, but can clean itself, that endangered
species will continue to exist if they are meant to exist...
I think those ideas have been widely discredited both by
sound science and what most of us personally observe.


It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
I maintain that you were a bit harsh on Maggie.


Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion. To me
what she's said is more than enough proof that she's the
village idiot. And she's not just disagreeing, she's
ignoring and sidestepping the most basic facts, eg
that the number of lions has gone from 400,000 to 16,000,
that they are endangered.
Instead of accepting the numbers, or just flat out saying
she thinks the numbers are bogus, she's off into trying
to divert into interpreting statistics, right vs wrong,
etc. It's like saying the earth is flat, or the sun
rises in the west, and then when someone points out the
numbers that show it's not so, trying to change the goal
posts. And then to top it off, instead of recognizing
that they are endangered, she says if a species is meant
to survive they will? Sorry, but anyone that says that
in the context of this discussion is indeed the village
idiot.

On 8/5/2015 7:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 5:25:55 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 3:36 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

is a spike in the Sun's output before it drops to a level that will cause
a period of global cooling. I wish the frak people would research a subject
before falling for a manufactured crisis and hysterically demand that the
government take action against something that it has absolutely no ability
or power to control. �̯͡�﴿

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...space-science/

https://tinyurl.com/3p9ujbt

[8~{} Uncle Hysterical Monster


I agree with you. Every time I see someone going nuts over the weather
being caused by humans I want to put them in a spaceship and send them
to outer space so they can see just how little we are in relation to the
Earth. The planet might get a little bit dirty because of us, but it
has it's own way of cleaning up after the dirt and trash that makes us
look so insignificant.



Maggie, it's so obvious by now that it's really you who's in outer space.
Like I said, you could be a caricature for how commies and socialists
like to portray capitalists. A big fat buffoon, smoking a cigar, polluting
the air and water with waste from your factories, $100 bills bulging from
your greedy pockets, all the while proclaiming:

The earth can clean itself!

Why isn't the earth decimated from former volcano eruptions? Those
volcano's did a lot of damage, yet, the Earth recovered. I don't think
man has done nearly the damage combined that some of those volcano's
have done. We tend to look at the Earth (clean or dirty) based on a
human lifespan, but when the Earth responds to cleaning itself, it does
so over thousands of years, not a human lifespan.

Man's impact is insignificant!

What do you consider to be a significant impact, then?


If a species is meant to survive it will! Where's one of those remaining
endangered species so I can kill it?

You're overreacting quite a bit.

Village idiot, again.


I suppose I should go back to hunching my back and limping while I walk
and drool at the same time all the while mumbling under my breath "the
gov't is after me"?

--
Maggie

On 8/5/2015 7:18 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/4/2015 8:43 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 7:21 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

What are the side dishes going to be? They make the meal, you know!


I think the Klingons are bringing baked tribble.


Is that a veggie? I've got to have a veggie or it isn't a meal.


If you have access to old Star Trek, the
episode in question was called "the trouble
with tribbles".

Tribbles are simple animal.


It's been some years since I've watched old Star Treks.

--
Maggie

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:33:17 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 7:06 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 5:25:55 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 3:36 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

is a spike in the Sun's output before it drops to a level that will cause
a period of global cooling. I wish the frak people would research a subject
before falling for a manufactured crisis and hysterically demand that the
government take action against something that it has absolutely no ability
or power to control. �̯͡�﴿

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...space-science/

https://tinyurl.com/3p9ujbt

[8~{} Uncle Hysterical Monster


I agree with you. Every time I see someone going nuts over the weather
being caused by humans I want to put them in a spaceship and send them
to outer space so they can see just how little we are in relation to the
Earth. The planet might get a little bit dirty because of us, but it
has it's own way of cleaning up after the dirt and trash that makes us
look so insignificant.



Maggie, it's so obvious by now that it's really you who's in outer space.
Like I said, you could be a caricature for how commies and socialists
like to portray capitalists. A big fat buffoon, smoking a cigar, polluting
the air and water with waste from your factories, $100 bills bulging from
your greedy pockets, all the while proclaiming:

The earth can clean itself!

Why isn't the earth decimated from former volcano eruptions? Those
volcano's did a lot of damage, yet, the Earth recovered.

That volcanic damage included wiping out half the species on earth, including
severely reducing the population of our ancestors. And you think
this is a good thing to use as a comparison?


I don't think
man has done nearly the damage combined that some of those volcano's
have done.

So far, no man hasn't. Does that mean that we should just ignore
pollution, that the earth will recover, that we're not having a
major negative impact on endangered species, that "if a species is
meant to survive, it will", that's it's OK to be shooting endangered
species? Of course not.


We tend to look at the Earth (clean or dirty) based on a
human lifespan, but when the Earth responds to cleaning itself, it does
so over thousands of years, not a human lifespan.


You would think that the earth getting dirty in just the last
century, seeing how rapidly man has impacted it and like you say,
it takes a very long time to recover, would be the argument against
your positions.



Man's impact is insignificant!

What do you consider to be a significant impact, then?


The loss of huge amounts of rainforest, the species hunted to
extinction, the loss of huge amounts of space where wildlife
once flourished, the pollution of vast amounts of water, the
decline of so many species to the point that they are endangered
today, and as I and Ed have cited for you before, the reduction
in lions from 400,000 just fifty years ago, to 16,000 today.
What does that tell you? What is wrong with you that you even
have to ask this question?

And maybe you can add climate change caused by burning fossil
fuels to that list too. I'm not totally convinced yet, but unlike
you and some others here, I don't just immediately reject what
most scientists are saying, the data, etc. Just the fact that
CO2 has gone up exponentially in just a hundred years to the
point that it's higher now than it's been in hundreds of thousands
of years is just one data point that shows man is having an impact
on the planet. But I'm sure you'll deny that direct evidence too.




If a species is meant to survive it will! Where's one of those remaining
endangered species so I can kill it?

You're overreacting quite a bit.

Village idiot, again.


I suppose I should go back to hunching my back and limping while I walk
and drool at the same time all the while mumbling under my breath "the
gov't is after me"?

--
Maggie

Sounds like you already do that.

On 8/5/2015 11:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:33:17 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

I agree with you. Every time I see someone going nuts over the weather
being caused by humans I want to put them in a spaceship and send them
to outer space so they can see just how little we are in relation to the
Earth. The planet might get a little bit dirty because of us, but it
has it's own way of cleaning up after the dirt and trash that makes us
look so insignificant.



Maggie, it's so obvious by now that it's really you who's in outer space.
Like I said, you could be a caricature for how commies and socialists
like to portray capitalists. A big fat buffoon, smoking a cigar, polluting
the air and water with waste from your factories, $100 bills bulging from
your greedy pockets, all the while proclaiming:

The earth can clean itself!

Why isn't the earth decimated from former volcano eruptions? Those
volcano's did a lot of damage, yet, the Earth recovered.

That volcanic damage included wiping out half the species on earth, including
severely reducing the population of our ancestors. And you think
this is a good thing to use as a comparison?

It's just a fact that volcano's make a big mess, yet, the Earth manages
to go on and clean itself up.

I don't think
man has done nearly the damage combined that some of those volcano's
have done.

So far, no man hasn't. Does that mean that we should just ignore
pollution, that the earth will recover, that we're not having a
major negative impact on endangered species, that "if a species is
meant to survive, it will", that's it's OK to be shooting endangered
species? Of course not.

I never said we should ignore pollution, or that we have no effect on
the Earth or endangered species. I just stated what I believe to be
facts concerning the Earth and how species go extinct.

Being a realist just allows me to accept things that happen that I have
no control over, and to move on to things that I can have some control
or even influence with the outcome.

I'm not a proponent of big game hunting, let alone a hunter of any sort.
Big game hunting never made sense to me, but I do realize some people
consider it to be a sport. I'm not them, so I try to go the more
realist and logical route when it comes to judging other people I don't
really agree with or understand, which means, I have to put aside my own
personal feelings and try to be objective.

When I'm being objective about the whole endangered species thing, then
yeah, I'm going to say "if a species is meant to survive, it will
survive - if it doesn't survive then that's how it's meant to be". If
someone kills an endangered animal, I'm going to have a similar response
because there's nothing I can do about it and having outrage over it
seems like a waste of time compared to if I hear someone is aborting
babies and selling the body parts for profit. The latter is more worth
my time to be outraged over.

We tend to look at the Earth (clean or dirty) based on a
human lifespan, but when the Earth responds to cleaning itself, it does
so over thousands of years, not a human lifespan.


You would think that the earth getting dirty in just the last
century, seeing how rapidly man has impacted it and like you say,
it takes a very long time to recover, would be the argument against
your positions.

What am I going to do about it except try to recycle when I can or go
organic when I can? The news is full of issues I could get all torqued
up about how other people are doing things that I think are wrong or
even evil. I'm not so worried about the Earth as I am individuals or
circumstances that I can actually have some influence with. Seeing that
I'm only one person I think it's wiser to invest my energy into those
things and not get all riled up about a lion being killed in Africa.


Man's impact is insignificant!

What do you consider to be a significant impact, then?


The loss of huge amounts of rainforest, the species hunted to
extinction, the loss of huge amounts of space where wildlife
once flourished, the pollution of vast amounts of water, the
decline of so many species to the point that they are endangered
today, and as I and Ed have cited for you before, the reduction
in lions from 400,000 just fifty years ago, to 16,000 today.
What does that tell you? What is wrong with you that you even
have to ask this question?

Nothing is wrong with me at all. I only have a different perspective and
respond differently to the same things you listed.

What can you do personally about any of those things you listed? Or do
you think that if you berate people who don't march in lockstep with
everything you say that will do anything to make a difference in your
"significant" list?

How would you change things if you could and had the influence to do so?
I'm against doing bad things to the Earth and people, but I've no
influence to change anything, and just because I can't it doesn't mean
I'm going to try to make an example of one man and try to destroy him
because he made the mistake of killing one lion. He can learn to do
better, but if people try to destroy him all that's going to do is turn
him into a rebellious hater. TEACH him to do better - don't destroy him
for making a mistake. He didn't murder a human being, cut up the body
parts, and sell them for profit. He's one man who can be saved.


And maybe you can add climate change caused by burning fossil
fuels to that list too. I'm not totally convinced yet, but unlike
you and some others here, I don't just immediately reject what
most scientists are saying, the data, etc. Just the fact that
CO2 has gone up exponentially in just a hundred years to the
point that it's higher now than it's been in hundreds of thousands
of years is just one data point that shows man is having an impact
on the planet. But I'm sure you'll deny that direct evidence too.

If CO2 increases, we should plant more trees, and bushes, and other CO2
consuming plants.



If a species is meant to survive it will! Where's one of those remaining
endangered species so I can kill it?

You're overreacting quite a bit.

Village idiot, again.


I suppose I should go back to hunching my back and limping while I walk
and drool at the same time all the while mumbling under my breath "the
gov't is after me"?

Sounds like you already do that.


You're starting to calm down a bit and actually discuss the topic vs
attacking me so much because you don't agree with what I'm saying. It
would be nice to disagree w/o being disagreeable, I think.

--
Maggie

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 1:35:49 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 11:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:33:17 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

I agree with you. Every time I see someone going nuts over the weather
being caused by humans I want to put them in a spaceship and send them
to outer space so they can see just how little we are in relation to the
Earth. The planet might get a little bit dirty because of us, but it
has it's own way of cleaning up after the dirt and trash that makes us
look so insignificant.



Maggie, it's so obvious by now that it's really you who's in outer space.
Like I said, you could be a caricature for how commies and socialists
like to portray capitalists. A big fat buffoon, smoking a cigar, polluting
the air and water with waste from your factories, $100 bills bulging from
your greedy pockets, all the while proclaiming:

The earth can clean itself!

Why isn't the earth decimated from former volcano eruptions? Those
volcano's did a lot of damage, yet, the Earth recovered.

That volcanic damage included wiping out half the species on earth, including
severely reducing the population of our ancestors. And you think
this is a good thing to use as a comparison?

It's just a fact that volcano's make a big mess, yet, the Earth manages
to go on and clean itself up.


Sigh, half the species gone is quite a big mess.


I don't think
man has done nearly the damage combined that some of those volcano's
have done.

So far, no man hasn't. Does that mean that we should just ignore
pollution, that the earth will recover, that we're not having a
major negative impact on endangered species, that "if a species is
meant to survive, it will", that's it's OK to be shooting endangered
species? Of course not.

I never said we should ignore pollution, or that we have no effect on
the Earth or endangered species. I just stated what I believe to be
facts concerning the Earth and how species go extinct.


You said it in the context of an endangered species where a
hunter just lured a well known lion off a preserve and shot it so he
can put it's head on a wall. What do you think not only
making every BS excuse possible for Palmer, but then saying
"if a species is meant to survive it will", means? And what
do you think, when confronted with the numbers that show
lions have gone from 400,000 to 16,000 in just fifty years,
lying and trying to say that I used it to show that man is
responsible for the decline means?

And note that while I never used those numbers to show that
man is responsible, everyone else, including I think everyone
in this thread, knows that man is indeed responsible for almost
all the species that are endangered. Simple question, do you
deny that? Yes or no?




Being a realist just allows me to accept things that happen that I have
no control over,

But we do have control over it and the expression of outrage that
has occurred over the scum Palmer, who you defend, is one way
that we can change it. It's already lead to a halt in similar
hunts in Zimbabwe. Yet, here you are, ****ing all over the outrage
and defending Palmer.



When I'm being objective about the whole endangered species thing, then
yeah, I'm going to say "if a species is meant to survive, it will
survive - if it doesn't survive then that's how it's meant to be".
If
someone kills an endangered animal, I'm going to have a similar response
because there's nothing I can do about it and having outrage over it
seems like a waste of time compared to if I hear someone is aborting
babies and selling the body parts for profit. The latter is more worth
my time to be outraged over.

Again with the fatalistic nonsense. If we all just said, the bald eagle
is going extinct, nothing I can do about it, if it's meant to survive
it will, where do you think the eagle would be today? And you're not
being objective. If you were, you'd have accepted the 400,000 to 16,000
numbers, not segue into some irrelevant BS and then lie about it.




We tend to look at the Earth (clean or dirty) based on a
human lifespan, but when the Earth responds to cleaning itself, it does
so over thousands of years, not a human lifespan.


You would think that the earth getting dirty in just the last
century, seeing how rapidly man has impacted it and like you say,
it takes a very long time to recover, would be the argument against
your positions.

What am I going to do about it except try to recycle when I can or go
organic when I can?

You can support sound policies that protect the environment.
Elect candidates that will protect the environment. Express outrage
when something bad happens. Or you can just stick your head in
the sand, your choice. But at least don't come in here defending
Palmer.


The news is full of issues I could get all torqued
up about how other people are doing things that I think are wrong or
even evil. I'm not so worried about the Earth as I am individuals or
circumstances that I can actually have some influence with. Seeing that
I'm only one person I think it's wiser to invest my energy into those
things and not get all riled up about a lion being killed in Africa.


Not getting riled up is fine. But that isn't what you did.
You're still actively defending Palmer. Multiple people have
pointed out how what he did wasn't sport hunting, it was like
shooting your neighbors dog or paying to shoot a lion at the
Bronx Zoo. Yet you made up every excuse
for him. And when I and Ed too presented you with the shocking
decline in lion numbers, you lied about what I said and went
on to defend killing lions some more.





Man's impact is insignificant!

What do you consider to be a significant impact, then?


The loss of huge amounts of rainforest, the species hunted to
extinction, the loss of huge amounts of space where wildlife
once flourished, the pollution of vast amounts of water, the
decline of so many species to the point that they are endangered
today, and as I and Ed have cited for you before, the reduction
in lions from 400,000 just fifty years ago, to 16,000 today.
What does that tell you? What is wrong with you that you even
have to ask this question?

Nothing is wrong with me at all. I only have a different perspective and
respond differently to the same things you listed.

What can you do personally about any of those things you listed?

See the previous response. And at least I don't have to ask for
the list, as if to imply that there isn't a real and huge list.
What was the point to asking for the list?

Or do
you think that if you berate people who don't march in lockstep with
everything you say that will do anything to make a difference in your
"significant" list?


I only berate people who have truly proven that they are liars and
total idiots. Again, look at what you just did. You asked for some
examples. I gave them to you. Your reaction? Basically, I don't
care, doesn't matter, nothing I can personally do about it. What could
you personally do about civil rights? About jews getting shoved into
ovens? About commies killing millions of people? About almost all
the issues of any time?



How would you change things if you could and had the influence to do so?
I'm against doing bad things to the Earth and people, but I've no
influence to change anything, and just because I can't it doesn't mean
I'm going to try to make an example of one man and try to destroy him
because he made the mistake of killing one lion.

He's been killing lots of stuff. He's done illegal hunts and
admitted to it before. That hasn't stopped him, so I think losing
all his customers and facing jail time is a good thing.
Again, here you are, defending, minimizing for him.


He can learn to do
better,

Really? Provide us with a cite where he's said he's sorry or anything
else that shows he's learned anything at all. Being in prison
in Africa might teach him, it's a good start.


but if people try to destroy him all that's going to do is turn
him into a rebellious hater.

He's already a hater of magnificent endangered species. Actually,
he'd probably make the convoluted BS argument that he's killing
them to protect them, that he "loves animals".

And once again, people didn't destroy him, he destroyed himself.
If I were one of his patients, I'd be right out the door, because
I don't want to help fund his next African hunt. Capiche?


And maybe you can add climate change caused by burning fossil
fuels to that list too. I'm not totally convinced yet, but unlike
you and some others here, I don't just immediately reject what
most scientists are saying, the data, etc. Just the fact that
CO2 has gone up exponentially in just a hundred years to the
point that it's higher now than it's been in hundreds of thousands
of years is just one data point that shows man is having an impact
on the planet. But I'm sure you'll deny that direct evidence too.

If CO2 increases, we should plant more trees, and bushes, and other CO2
consuming plants.


Another fine example of total ignorance of science and the actual
real situation.

On 8/5/2015 2:01 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 1:35:49 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 11:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:

That volcanic damage included wiping out half the species on earth, including
severely reducing the population of our ancestors. And you think
this is a good thing to use as a comparison?

It's just a fact that volcano's make a big mess, yet, the Earth manages
to go on and clean itself up.


Sigh, half the species gone is quite a big mess.

That's life on Earth. A volcano coughs and things die. I realize that's
just something I can't do anything about.

[...]

I never said we should ignore pollution, or that we have no effect on
the Earth or endangered species. I just stated what I believe to be
facts concerning the Earth and how species go extinct.


You said it in the context of an endangered species where a
hunter just lured a well known lion off a preserve and shot it so he
can put it's head on a wall. What do you think not only
making every BS excuse possible for Palmer, but then saying
"if a species is meant to survive it will", means? And what
do you think, when confronted with the numbers that show
lions have gone from 400,000 to 16,000 in just fifty years,
lying and trying to say that I used it to show that man is
responsible for the decline means?

You tried to use statistics to somehow bolster you overreaction. And
yes, I believe you've gone way past overreacting to Palmer killing that
lion. It's a cat, and cats can reproduce by the litter, so I'm not
worried about one lion being killed. If the big cat population isn't
strong enough to sustain itself even with our help, and even with the
ultimate predator going after it, then it'll go extinct. That's just
how things work. It doesn't mean I like it, approve of it, or promote
it. It's just life.

And note that while I never used those numbers to show that
man is responsible, everyone else, including I think everyone
in this thread, knows that man is indeed responsible for almost
all the species that are endangered. Simple question, do you
deny that? Yes or no?

So, now, you speak for everyone else??


Being a realist just allows me to accept things that happen that I have
no control over,

But we do have control over it

No we don't. We think we can control nature, but we can't.


and the expression of outrage that
has occurred over the scum Palmer, who you defend,

I prefer to reserve the use of "scum" and personal outrage to murderers,
abortionists, and other such people of equal criminal prowess.

is one way
that we can change it. It's already lead to a halt in similar
hunts in Zimbabwe. Yet, here you are, ****ing all over the outrage
and defending Palmer.

It's a cat. Don't get me wrong, I like cats, but I'm not worried about
the population of them, either. There are things I'd get outraged about
that you'd probably not think twice about, so there you have it. We're
different people. Go figure.

[...]

The news is full of issues I could get all torqued
up about how other people are doing things that I think are wrong or
even evil. I'm not so worried about the Earth as I am individuals or
circumstances that I can actually have some influence with. Seeing that
I'm only one person I think it's wiser to invest my energy into those
things and not get all riled up about a lion being killed in Africa.


Not getting riled up is fine. But that isn't what you did.
You're still actively defending Palmer.

No, I'm disagreeing with you on various points you've brought up and
your approach on this particular topic.


[...]
Or do
you think that if you berate people who don't march in lockstep with
everything you say that will do anything to make a difference in your
"significant" list?


I only berate people who have truly proven that they are liars and
total idiots. Again, look at what you just did.

I try to not berate people in general, and only go there when I've been
pushed into a corner and I've no choice but to respond in kind.

You seem to prefer going there first.

You asked for some
examples. I gave them to you. Your reaction? Basically, I don't
care, doesn't matter, nothing I can personally do about it. What could
you personally do about civil rights? About jews getting shoved into
ovens? About commies killing millions of people? About almost all
the issues of any time?

You could just see that we come from different perspectives, and even if
you don't understand mine, you could just agree to disagree cordially.

[...]

--
Maggie

trader_4 wrote on 8/5/2015 :
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 1:35:49 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

[...]

It's just a fact that volcano's make a big mess, yet, the Earth manages
to go on and clean itself up.


Sigh, half the species gone is quite a big mess.

Muggles has a point though regarding the self-regulating nature of
things. Pretending to care about the Earth's feelings doesn't help that
scenario much though. Kill the carnivores, and the herbivores over
populate and eat all of the veggies causing the soil to blow away and
then they all die leaving even the omnivores to starve to death hence
curing the AGW "problem" - the Earth just doesn't care about any of
that though, and continues to cool as it has since the Late Heavy
Bombardment.

It will all be sorted out, I'm guessing, when the Oort Cloud condenses
to the Next Heavy Bombardment and resets the clock. Will the Earth
then be happier *because* we humans are finally gone?

SAVE THE LIONS!!

--
....
For long you live and high you fly
But only if you ride the tide
And balanced on the biggest wave
You race towards an early grave.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 11:34:45 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 8/5/2015 7:18 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/4/2015 8:43 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/4/2015 7:21 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon

What are the side dishes going to be? They make the meal, you know!


I think the Klingons are bringing baked tribble.


Is that a veggie? I've got to have a veggie or it isn't a meal.


If you have access to old Star Trek, the
episode in question was called "the trouble
with tribbles".

Tribbles are simple animal.


It's been some years since I've watched old Star Treks.

--
Maggie

Check out YouTube, you can find all the originals from the 60's and TNG. There are a lot of movies from small production companies and fan films. Some of them are really very good. I watched one last night. ʘ€¿Ê˜

[8~{} Uncle Space Monster

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:40:25 PM UTC-5, FromTheRafters wrote:
trader_4 wrote on 8/5/2015 :
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 1:35:49 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

[...]

It's just a fact that volcano's make a big mess, yet, the Earth manages
to go on and clean itself up.


Sigh, half the species gone is quite a big mess.

Muggles has a point though regarding the self-regulating nature of
things. Pretending to care about the Earth's feelings doesn't help that
scenario much though. Kill the carnivores, and the herbivores over
populate and eat all of the veggies causing the soil to blow away and
then they all die leaving even the omnivores to starve to death hence
curing the AGW "problem" - the Earth just doesn't care about any of
that though, and continues to cool as it has since the Late Heavy
Bombardment.

It will all be sorted out, I'm guessing, when the Oort Cloud condenses
to the Next Heavy Bombardment and resets the clock. Will the Earth
then be happier *because* we humans are finally gone?

SAVE THE LIONS!!
--
...

The Earth is like a vagina, it's self cleaning. Why do you think the planet is called Mother Earth? ᕕ( � )ᕗ

[8~{} Uncle Dirty Monster