On 9/24/2011 2:52 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 9/24/2011 2:13 PM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 9/24/2011 9:24 AM, dave wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:09:26 -0700, John Smith wrote:


“Earth was just fine in those times,” Happer added. :The oceans were
fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that
we�re
so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started,” Happer
explained. Happer also noted that “the number of [skeptical
scientists]
with the courage to speak out is growing” and he warned “children
should
not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science.”

Our agriculture is tweaked for a twentieth century climate. Crops are
failing globally. People are dying. More CO2 doesn't mean more
crops, it
means more fires and smoke and less vegetation.

Yeah, but Co2 and "global warming" has nothing to do with it, slash
and burn on rainforests, over farming of the land without replenishing
the necessary nutrients, lack of genetic diversity in the plantings,
over use of pesticides with the accompanying increase in tolerance by
"the bugs", over use of herbicides, lack of clean and ample water
supplies, etc. are what we are looking at ... truth is, with ample
water and nutrients, the sands of the desert would be abundant
producers of food ...

Sure....for awhile.....then you're going to have problems.

Already in the central valley of California, over farming and lack of
care to the land has found the ground becoming unsuitable to crops, so
then trees are planted, the ground further degrades and finally ends
up in the production of grapes ... Co2 and global warming have simply
played no part what-so-ever in this grim tale of rape of the land ...
greed, corruption, ignorance, laziness, etc. ... your standard
culprits ...

So in the end, the desert will once again be desert....so what's your
point?

See, trying to create an artificial ecosystem isn't likely to produce a
long term viable ecosystem. If for no other reason than because it lacks
the necessary natural cycles to deal with the accumulation of
undesirable products. Such as salt, which exists in the water you're
dumping there. Without enough water to pick up that salt and flush it
into the rivers and streams and then out to sea.....eventually you will
have excessive salt in your soil and it's going to impact your
ecosystem.

Welcome to reality.

We created an artificial growing environment, but because it lacks the
full depth of a natural system....it can exist only temporarily.



You definition of natural is "chance",

Maybe, but it WORKS, and it has for a long time.

Where as what we create by artificial means hasn't stood the test of time.


and simply a spin on probability and statistics, I see nothing sacred
about terra-forming other planets, other than it would break your
definition of "natural."

yawn

Is there a point in here somewhere?

Today is simply a "screwing-up" of the "natural world" which existed
millions, hundreds of thousands, or even just thousands of years ago
-- such as when the nile valley was tropical in nature with serious
rainfall (proof in the water-weathering of the sphinx.

Still waiting for you to make a point.

You sweat insignificant detail and attempt to set scale on your own
personal definitions of "natural" or other imagined benchmarks of
yours -- indeed, you are the perfect example of what is wrong with
letting delusional "green people" a voice in human activities.

IOW, no point, nor can refute the point I've made.




Yeah, you are just another imbecile that likes to mouth off, no facts,
no research, can't back up their mutterings with real sites, etc.

But then, we already knew that ... perhaps you didn't ... roflol

Regards,
JS