On Mar 15, 3:14*pm, "oobnz" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
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 of course ...
I'm too busy responding to the huge avalanche of outright lies, half-truths
and junk science
coming from agenda-driven, socialist AGW whackos like yourself komrade!!!

Which, stripped of the boilerplate, is a candid admission that you
have no interest at all in protecting the environment, and like all
the wailing banshees from the naysayer community only pay lip service
to the environment in a cynical attempt to narrow the discussion to
grounds you think you can win on, such as lifestyle, "socialism" or
"Algore". The truth is you can't propose anything positive about
anything because that would immediately divide your coalition, which
is united in one thing only -- fear that their right to use the
world's biosphere as a cheap publicly subsidised outfall will vanish.

You and your ilk truly are merchants of filth.

Fran