On Mar 15, 2:06 pm, "oobnz" wrote:
"Roger Coppock" wrote in message

...
On Mar 14, 1:21 am, qqq wrote: oobnz wrote:
[ . . . ]
Hans might not witness that disaster, many of us won't witness a climate
disaster. But what about yours children's children?

Do you know that Bonzo has children, qqq?
I don't know that he does. Many of the big
name anti-environmental spin doctors don't.
************************************************** ***********

CORRECTION: I am not "anti-environmental"

Of course you are. I'm yet to see a single actionable proposal that
would underpin a healthy biosphere in any text you have copied to or
composed for usenet. Not one. Exactly 100% of the posts from you that
I have seen and that mention the environment bracket environmental
concern with insanity and/or malice.


but I am
"anti-whacko-environmentists" !!

The key problem with this claim is that since your posts don't
indicate any specific interest in or concern for the environment, (or
anything else for that matter) there's simply no way of knowing what
would be "non-whacko" environmentalism in your opinion, or whether
this would be an empty dataset. In this case, your claim would be
moot, because in your opinion, all concern for the environment would
in practice be 'whacko'.

Fran