Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

! The Amazon Enviro-Lie Exposed

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Pithy

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
Many environmentalists claim that tens of thousands of species
are being driven to extinction every year because of the
destruction of tropical forests like the Amazon:

A video called "Amazonia Celebration" states in dire
tones: "We alone will have to bear the blame for the greatest
mass extinction since the disappearing of the dinosaur some
60 million years ago."

"An average of 35 species becomes extinct every day" as a
result of deforestation, says Rainforest Action
Network.

"30,000 species per year," or 83 per day, says the "Hall
of Biodiversity" website.

Al Gore in "Earth in the Balance" writes of "100 extinctions
each day."

Rainforest Relief's Keating weighs in with a hefty "450 species
lost per day."

Most of these estimates are rooted in the research of
Harvard's Edward O. Wilson, featured by Time magazine as an
environmental "hero" in its special Earth Day 2000 edition.
In the accompanying article, Wilson argues passionately to
stem the tide of extinctions "now 100 to 1,000 times as great
as it was before the coming of humanity" -- neglecting to
mention that his estimates of 50,000 extinctions per year
are based on his own computer models.

"There is no scientific basis for saying that 50,000 species
are going extinct," says Greenspirit's Moore. "I want a list of
Latin species."

Moore maintains no one can name these species that are said
to be going extinct.

"The only place you can find them is in Edward O. Wilson's
computer at Harvard University. They're actually electrons
on a hard drive," Moore states.

When asked if he can name a single species of the 50,000
that are said to go extinct, Keating admits: "No we cannot,
because we don't know what those species are."

Shaky science behind save-rainforest effort

New TV documentary finds skeptics among researchers

Patrick Moore became an instant celebrity in 1977 when a
photograph showing him cradling a baby seal in defiance of
arrest by Canadian authorities was broadcast around the world.

As the front man for the environmental activist group
Greenpeace, he helped turn public opinion around on the
high-profile issues of whaling, seal hunting, nuclear power
and chemical pollution.

Today the environmental scientist and leader of a group
called Greenspirit has a new cause -- alerting the public to what
he calls the "myth" that the Amazon rainforest is endangered
by development and deforestation.

"The Amazon is actually the least endangered forest in the
world," states Moore in American Investigator's television
newsmagazine documentary, "Clear-cutting the myths," hosted
by former CBS and CNN newsman Reid Collins. Moore explains
that, in the 20 years of warnings about deforestation,
"only 10 percent of the Amazon has been converted to
date from what was original forest to agriculture and
settlement."

The finding that the Amazon rainforest threat is a myth
based on bad science and political agendas -- especially by
unlikely critics such as Moore, other scientists and
inhabitants of the region -- is not expected to sit well
with a movement that has enlisted schoolchildren throughout
the United States and celebrities ranging from Sting to
Alex Baldwin to Chevy Chase to Tom Jones and Tony Bennett.
And which has also raised tens of millions of dollars
for environmental activist groups.

"This is where I really have a problem with modern-day
environmentalism," says Moore. "It confuses opinion with what
we know to be true, and disguises what are really political
agendas with environmental rhetoric. The fact of the matter is:
There is a larger percentage of the Amazon rain forest
intact than there are most other forests in this world."

Moore left Greenpeace, the organization he helped found,
in 1986, after finding himself at odds with other leaders of the
group.

"We had already helped the world turn the corner on the
environmental issues," he said. "Once a majority agrees with
you, its time to stop beating them over the head and sit
down with them and try to figure out some solutions."

Yet, the notion that the Amazon jungles are threatened
remains embedded in the popular culture:

The 1993 animated feature, "Ferngully: The Last Rainforest,"
takes the Amazon's mystical charm literally, showing
magical rainforest fairies fighting for their lives against
industrialist's chainsaws and bulldozers.

National Geographic's "Rainforest: Heroes of the High Frontier"
warns that "despite efforts to save it, the rainforest is
being consumed at an unprecedented rate."

"Amazonia: A Celebration of Life" shows playful jungle
animals being rudely awakened to the sound of chainsaws.

The 1992 Sean Connery feature "Medicine Man" shows Connery
discovering the cure for cancer at his makeshift
lab in the heart of a burning Amazon rainforest. He loses
the cure when developers raze his facility in order to
build a road.

Environmental groups from Greenpeace to the Sierra Club
to the World Wilderness Foundation to the Environmental
Defense Fund to the Smithsonian Institution conduct outreach
efforts in the name of the rainforest. Dozens of other
groups with names like Rainforest Relief, Rainforest Action
Network and Rainforest Foundation were created for the
sole purpose of exploiting the issue.

A tourist to Brazil who picks up a "Lonely Planet" travel
book will read numerous pleas for help: "Unless things change ...
Indians will die with their forests," it pleads. "Invaluable,
irreplaceable Amazon may be lost forever."

"Lonely Planet" has company on the bookshelf: "At the
current rate of deforestation," Vice President Gore writes in
"Earth in the Balance," "Virtually all of the world's tropical
rainforests will be gone partway though the next century."

The scientific evidence paints a much brighter picture
of deforestation in the Amazon. Looking at the NASA Landsat
satellite images of the deforestation rates in the Amazon
rainforest, about 12.5 percent has been cleared. Of the 12.5
percent, one half to one third of that is fallow, or in
the process of regeneration, meaning that at any given
moment up to 94 percent of the Amazon is left to nature.
Even the Environmental Defense Fund and Sting's Rainforest
Foundation concede, among the fine print, that the forest
is nearly 90 percent intact.

Philip Stott of the University of London and author of
the new book, "Tropical Rainforests: Political and Hegemonic
Myth-making," maintains that the environmental campaigns
have lost perspective.

"One of the simple, but very important, facts is that
the rainforests have only been around for between 12,000 and
16,000 years," he says. "That sounds like a very long
time, but in terms of the history of the earth, it's hardly
a pinprick.
The simple point is that there are now still -- despite
what humans have done -- more rainforests today than there were
12,000 years ago."

Moore maintains that "the rainforests of the Amazon, the
Congo, Malaysia, Indonesia and a few other parts of the world
are the least endangered forests" because "they are the
least suitable for human habitation."

Despite the Amazon being at least 87.5 percent intact, many
claims abound as to how fast the forest is being cleared.

In "Amazonia," the narrator intones that "in the brief
amount of time it takes to watch this film, roughly
400,000 acres of forest will have been cleared." Ruy de Goes
of Greenpeace Brazil says in the last four years "an area the
size of France was destroyed."

Actor William Shatner in a National Geographic documentary
claims that worldwide, "Rainforest is being cleared at a
rate of 20 football fields a minute." Rainforest Action
Network says the Amazon is being deforested at a rate of eight
football fields a minute. Tim Keating of Rainforest Relief
says that the deforestation can be measured in seconds. "It may
be closer to two to three football fields a second," says Keating.

When de Goes of Greenpeace Brazil is confronted with the
disparity in numbers regarding these football fields, he
replies, "The numbers are not important, what is important
is that there is huge destruction going on."

However, Moore says that the only way such huge numbers
are generated is by using double accounting. "You would
have cleared 50 times the size of the Amazon already if
accurate."

Luis Almir, of the state of Amazonas in Brazil calculated
using five football fields a minute and concludes sarcastically
that if the numbers were correct, "we would have a desert
bigger than the Sahara."

Another familiar claim of the environmentalist community is
that the Amazon constitutes the "lungs of the earth," supplying
one-fifth of the world's oxygen. But, according to Antonio
Donato Nobre of INPE, and other eco-scientists, the Amazon
consumes as much oxygen as it produces, and Stott says it may
actually be a net user of oxygen.

"In fact, because the trees fall down and decay, rainforests
actually take in slightly more oxygen than they give out," says
Stott. "The idea of them soaking up carbon dioxide and giving
out oxygen is a myth. It's only fast-growing young trees
that actually take up carbon dioxide."

Stott maintains that the tropical forests of the world
are "basically irrelevant" when it comes to regulating or
influencing global weather. He explains that the oceans have
a much greater impact.

"Most things that happen on land are mere blips to the system,
basically insignificant," he says.

For the complete article, go to:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20000626_xex_shaky_scienc.shtml
____________________________________________

Another liberal "the sky is falling" lie bites the dust.

BTW--the first Earth Day was held amid environmentalist's
concerns over global cooling!!!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clinton is a liar's moon in full illuminated disk.
Finding the proverbial grain of truth in this White
House is a drilling operation that would daunt Exxon.
--Norman Liebmann
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Loren Petrich

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to

Warning of disasters is a good way to keep them from happening.

Imagine that Mr. Pithy is driving toward a washed-out bridge. His
wife warns him, "Stop! Stop!". But Mr. Pithy sees nothing but solid road
where he is driving -- until it's too late.

--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html

Pithy

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
In article <8j8hi1$1p5$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, pet...@netcom.com says...

>
>
> Warning of disasters is a good way to keep them from happening.
>
> Imagine that Mr. Pithy is driving toward a washed-out bridge. His
>wife warns him, "Stop! Stop!". But Mr. Pithy sees nothing but solid road
>where he is driving -- until it's too late.

But there *is* solid road, and a sturdy bridge ahead.

And if you stop, Gary Graham will shoot you.

Lorin, of course, would prefer that you stop!


--
"In fact, almost every poll shows Americans decisively
rejecting higher taxes on fossil fuels, even though
that proposal is one of the logical first steps in
changing our policies in a manner consistent with a
more responsible approach to the environment."

--Albert Albert Slumlord

Pithy

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
In article <dpetersen4-26...@cx854631-b.pwy1.sdca.home.com>, dpete...@yahoo.com says...
>
>In article <oEP55.845$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net>,

>paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:
>
>
>> Stott maintains that the tropical forests of the world
>> are "basically irrelevant" when it comes to regulating or
>> influencing global weather. He explains that the oceans have
>> a much greater impact.
>>
>> "Most things that happen on land are mere blips to the system,
>> basically insignificant," he says.
>>
>> For the complete article, go to:
>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20000626_xex_shaky_scienc.shtml
>> ____________________________________________
>>
>
>1. Take an elementary geology course
>2. Take an elementary biology course
>3. Get your news somewhere other than worldNUTdaily
>
>Get a clue.

HEE--Heee!

Try taking a climatology course, FOOL!

Take a soil science course or two in order to better understand the
carbon cycle, dummy!

Read the whole article and then critique it point-by point.

That's a challenge you will never meet!

Question: What covers 3/5th's of the earth's surface?

HAWHAAWWW.HEEHEEEE....Heeeeee.................!

Kurt Nicklas

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
Loren Petrich wrote in message <8j8hi1$1p5$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...

>
> Warning of disasters is a good way to keep them from happening.

Loren, tomorrow (June 26, 2000) a giant hole is going to open under your
place
of residence and swallow it whole - UNLESS the proper steps are taken.

Get back to us if the disaster is averted, okay?

--
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com

Tarver Engineering

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to

Pithy <paulw...@mailexcite.com> wrote in message
news:oLS55.870$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net...> >In article <YOQ55.859$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net>,

> >paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <dpetersen4-26...@cx854631-b.pwy1.sdca.home.com>,
> >dpete...@yahoo.com says...
> >> >
> >> >In article <oEP55.845$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net>,
> >> >paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Stott maintains that the tropical forests of the world
> >> >> are "basically irrelevant" when it comes to regulating or
> >> >> influencing global weather. He explains that the oceans have
> >> >> a much greater impact.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Most things that happen on land are mere blips to the system,
> >> >> basically insignificant," he says.
> >> >>
> >> >> For the complete article, go to:
> >> >>
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20000626_xex_shaky_scienc.shtml
> >> >> ____________________________________________
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >1. Take an elementary geology course
> >> >2. Take an elementary biology course
> >> >3. Get your news somewhere other than worldNUTdaily
> >> >
> >> >Get a clue.
> >>
> >> HEE--Heee!
> >>
> >> Try taking a climatology course, FOOL!
> >>
> >> Take a soil science course or two in order to better understand the
> >> carbon cycle, dummy!
> >>
> >> Read the whole article and then critique it point-by point.
> >>
> >> That's a challenge you will never meet!
> >>
> >> Question: What covers 3/5th's of the earth's surface?
> >>
> >
> >Well, Since I only have a doctoral degree, I'm sure you would like to
tell
> >me how it doesn't matter if the largest rain forest on earth is
decimated.
>
> 87-96% intact means "decimated"?
>
> My-oh-my---you are one stupid phd!
>
> >Do you really think building roads up the middle of it and logging will
> >make it better? The point is that I don't believe your worldNUTdaily
stats
> >any more than I believe Rush when he says we have more forests than ever
> >before in the United States. Back when I was an undergraduate I studied
> >oceanography, geology, ecology and the like. I never heard any of your
> >exciting new revisionist bullshit, so I guess that means that I think
it's
> >a pile of crap. Unfortunately I don't have infrared flyover photos of
> >Brazil, but I don't think worldNUTdaily does either. Patrick Moore does
> >not a consensus make, anymore than John Lott Jr is the last word on guns.
> >Care to comment, Pissy?
>
> Yep--you just trotted out a very ignorant rant.
>
> Care to refute the Moore's statements on the carbon cycle?
>
> No--you can't!
>
> Can you refute any of his points?
>
> No--you can't!
>
> Hey--you lose--too bad!
>
> HAAAWW..HEEEE....heeeee.......................!
>
> BTW--What is your field of study?

I would guess skatology.

John

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Iconoclast

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
In article <YOQ55.859$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net> paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) writes:
>Subject: Re: ! The Amazon Enviro-Lie Exposed
>From: paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
>Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:29:12 GMT

>>> Stott maintains that the tropical forests of the world
>>> are "basically irrelevant" when it comes to regulating or
>>> influencing global weather. He explains that the oceans have
>>> a much greater impact.
>>>
>>> "Most things that happen on land are mere blips to the system,
>>> basically insignificant," he says.
>>>
>>> For the complete article, go to:
>>> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20000626_xex_shaky_scienc.shtml
>>> ____________________________________________
>>>
>>

>>1. Take an elementary geology course
>>2. Take an elementary biology course
>>3. Get your news somewhere other than worldNUTdaily
>>
>>Get a clue.

>HEE--Heee!

>Try taking a climatology course, FOOL!

>Take a soil science course or two in order to better understand the
>carbon cycle, dummy!

>Read the whole article and then critique it point-by point.

>That's a challenge you will never meet!

>Question: What covers 3/5th's of the earth's surface?

>HAWHAAWWW.HEEHEEEE....Heeeeee.................!

My God, Pithy=Athed is back from his vacation.
Only problem is he sould be posting under alt.humour.
IC


Iconoclast

unread,
Jun 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/26/00
to
In article <oLS55.870$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net> paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) writes:
>Subject: Re: ! The Amazon Enviro-Lie Exposed
>From: paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
>Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:41:56 GMT

>>In article <YOQ55.859$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net>,
>>paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:
>>

>>> In article <dpetersen4-26...@cx854631-b.pwy1.sdca.home.com>,
>>dpete...@yahoo.com says...
>>> >
>>> >In article <oEP55.845$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net>,
>>> >paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >

>>> >> Stott maintains that the tropical forests of the world
>>> >> are "basically irrelevant" when it comes to regulating or
>>> >> influencing global weather. He explains that the oceans have
>>> >> a much greater impact.
>>> >>
>>> >> "Most things that happen on land are mere blips to the system,
>>> >> basically insignificant," he says.
>>> >>
>>> >> For the complete article, go to:
>>> >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20000626_xex_shaky_scienc.shtml
>>> >> ____________________________________________
>>> >>
>>> >

>>> >1. Take an elementary geology course
>>> >2. Take an elementary biology course
>>> >3. Get your news somewhere other than worldNUTdaily
>>> >
>>> >Get a clue.
>>>
>>> HEE--Heee!
>>>
>>> Try taking a climatology course, FOOL!
>>>
>>> Take a soil science course or two in order to better understand the
>>> carbon cycle, dummy!
>>>
>>> Read the whole article and then critique it point-by point.
>>>
>>> That's a challenge you will never meet!
>>>
>>> Question: What covers 3/5th's of the earth's surface?
>>>
>>

>>Well, Since I only have a doctoral degree, I'm sure you would like to tell
>>me how it doesn't matter if the largest rain forest on earth is decimated.

>87-96% intact means "decimated"?

>My-oh-my---you are one stupid phd!

>>Do you really think building roads up the middle of it and logging will
>>make it better? The point is that I don't believe your worldNUTdaily stats
>>any more than I believe Rush when he says we have more forests than ever
>>before in the United States. Back when I was an undergraduate I studied
>>oceanography, geology, ecology and the like. I never heard any of your
>>exciting new revisionist bullshit, so I guess that means that I think it's
>>a pile of crap. Unfortunately I don't have infrared flyover photos of
>>Brazil, but I don't think worldNUTdaily does either. Patrick Moore does
>>not a consensus make, anymore than John Lott Jr is the last word on guns.
>>Care to comment, Pissy?

>Yep--you just trotted out a very ignorant rant.

>Care to refute the Moore's statements on the carbon cycle?

>No--you can't!

>Can you refute any of his points?

>No--you can't!

>Hey--you lose--too bad!

>HAAAWW..HEEEE....heeeee.......................!

>BTW--What is your field of study?


And yours is???? IC


Pithy

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
In article <dpetersen4-26...@cx854631-b.pwy1.sdca.home.com>, dpete...@yahoo.com says...
>
>In article <YOQ55.859$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net>,
>paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:
>
>> In article <dpetersen4-26...@cx854631-b.pwy1.sdca.home.com>,
>dpete...@yahoo.com says...
>> >
>> >In article <oEP55.845$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net>,
>> >paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Stott maintains that the tropical forests of the world
>> >> are "basically irrelevant" when it comes to regulating or
>> >> influencing global weather. He explains that the oceans have
>> >> a much greater impact.
>> >>
>> >> "Most things that happen on land are mere blips to the system,
>> >> basically insignificant," he says.
>> >>
>> >> For the complete article, go to:
>> >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20000626_xex_shaky_scienc.shtml
>> >> ____________________________________________
>> >>
>> >

No--you can't!

No--you can't!

Hey--you lose--too bad!

HAAAWW..HEEEE....heeeee.......................!

Frank Potter

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
In article <oLS55.870$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net>,
paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:


> Care to refute the Moore's statements on the carbon cycle?


Your post:


"In fact, because the trees fall down and decay, rainforests
actually take in slightly more oxygen than they give out," says
Stott. "The idea of them soaking up carbon dioxide and giving
out oxygen is a myth. It's only fast-growing young trees
that actually take up carbon dioxide."


There are more than trees in a rainforest. There is an interrelated
community of plants basically fighting over the light and the nutrients
(rainforests actually have very mineral-poor soil because of all the
rain). Older trees may fix less carbon than younger trees, but there are
plenty of other types of plants. Does this analysis consider these?

Your post:


Stott maintains that the tropical forests of the world
are "basically irrelevant" when it comes to regulating or
influencing global weather. He explains that the oceans have
a much greater impact.

Yes, but we live on the land, don't we, so it matters how the land turns out.

Basically I don't care whether 15% or 50% of the rainforest is gone. I'd
rather see it stay here instead of a bunch of parking lots.

Your cornucopiast view that there will always be plenty and that
consumption is the key to prosperity is why I question you folks calling
yourselves conservative.


> BTW--What is your field of study?

Biomedical Sciences, whatever the hell that is.

***Dubya is a moron, baying at the moon***

-Norma Klieberman

silverback

unread,
Jun 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/27/00
to
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:41:56 GMT, paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy)
wrote:

>In article <dpetersen4-26...@cx854631-b.pwy1.sdca.home.com>, dpete...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>In article <YOQ55.859$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net>,
>>paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <dpetersen4-26...@cx854631-b.pwy1.sdca.home.com>,
>>dpete...@yahoo.com says...
>>> >
>>> >In article <oEP55.845$VS2.1...@news1.epix.net>,
>>> >paulw...@mailexcite.com (Pithy) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >

>>> >> Stott maintains that the tropical forests of the world
>>> >> are "basically irrelevant" when it comes to regulating or
>>> >> influencing global weather. He explains that the oceans have
>>> >> a much greater impact.
>>> >>
>>> >> "Most things that happen on land are mere blips to the system,
>>> >> basically insignificant," he says.
>>> >>
>>> >> For the complete article, go to:
>>> >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/20000626_xex_shaky_scienc.shtml
>>> >> ____________________________________________
>>> >>
>>> >

>>> >1. Take an elementary geology course
>>> >2. Take an elementary biology course
>>> >3. Get your news somewhere other than worldNUTdaily
>>> >
>>> >Get a clue.
>>>
>>> HEE--Heee!
>>>
>>> Try taking a climatology course, FOOL!
>>>
>>> Take a soil science course or two in order to better understand the
>>> carbon cycle, dummy!
>>>
>>> Read the whole article and then critique it point-by point.
>>>
>>> That's a challenge you will never meet!
>>>
>>> Question: What covers 3/5th's of the earth's surface?
>>>
>>
>>Well, Since I only have a doctoral degree, I'm sure you would like to tell
>>me how it doesn't matter if the largest rain forest on earth is decimated.
>
>87-96% intact means "decimated"?

and that is a damn lie you lying sack of shit.

>
>My-oh-my---you are one stupid phd!
>
>>Do you really think building roads up the middle of it and logging will
>>make it better? The point is that I don't believe your worldNUTdaily stats
>>any more than I believe Rush when he says we have more forests than ever
>>before in the United States. Back when I was an undergraduate I studied
>>oceanography, geology, ecology and the like. I never heard any of your
>>exciting new revisionist bullshit, so I guess that means that I think it's
>>a pile of crap. Unfortunately I don't have infrared flyover photos of
>>Brazil, but I don't think worldNUTdaily does either. Patrick Moore does
>>not a consensus make, anymore than John Lott Jr is the last word on guns.
>>Care to comment, Pissy?
>
>Yep--you just trotted out a very ignorant rant.
>

>Care to refute the Moore's statements on the carbon cycle?

yup hes full of shit just like you

>
>No--you can't!
>
>Can you refute any of his points?

he doesn't have any point other than the one between his ears.

>
>No--you can't!
>
>Hey--you lose--too bad!
>
>HAAAWW..HEEEE....heeeee.......................!
>

>BTW--What is your field of study?

>--
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Clinton is a liar's moon in full illuminated disk.
>Finding the proverbial grain of truth in this White
>House is a drilling operation that would daunt Exxon.
> --Norman Liebmann
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

***********************************************

GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster

For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm

*********************************************

0 new messages