The Environment

[unriggable]

You would be, cawck mongler. You're refuting pretty solid evidence with some bullshit graphs and some outdated points. The earth is warming and there is nothing you can do to stop it other than stop leaving your car on in the morning when you aren't in it so you can get the AC to work.

[cawck mongler]

You would be, cawck mongler. You're refuting pretty solid evidence with some bullshit graphs and some outdated points. The earth is warming and there is nothing you can do to stop it other than stop leaving your car on in the morning when you aren't in it so you can get the AC to work.

Yeah to bad the fucking environment kills people, don't believe me? Just look at all the tropical deseases that kill hundreds of millions every year. We'd really be better off as a race if we just completely wiped out the environment and created our own. It wouldn't be so hard, we can keep all the animals we need alive on our own, we could have kelp farms supply all our oxygen and we could probably balance everything else out through science. A perfect man made world.

Prove me wrong.

[Iliad]

You would be, cawck mongler. You're refuting pretty solid evidence with some bullshit graphs and some outdated points. The earth is warming and there is nothing you can do to stop it other than stop leaving your car on in the morning when you aren't in it so you can get the AC to work.

Yeah to bad the fucking environment kills people, don't believe me? Just look at all the tropical deseases that kill hundreds of millions every year. We'd really be better off as a race if we just completely wiped out the environment and created our own. It wouldn't be so hard, we can keep all the animals we need alive on our own, we could have kelp farms supply all our oxygen and we could probably balance everything else out through science. A perfect man made world.

Prove me wrong.

Have you just posted what I think you posted?

That just proves how you don't know anything about the environment. Do you realize how many actions there are happening? Even dead things are a part of the environment. If you think that you should get out of your basement walk in a forest and then realize how wrong you are.

[unriggable]

To be honest, such a world would be possible yet unbelievably unlikely. Right now the government is too busy spending money on soldiers for it to be in the realm of possibility, but it is doable. I'm not doubting that. However it would take dedication and planning beyond imagining.

[cawck mongler]

You would be, cawck mongler. You're refuting pretty solid evidence with some bullshit graphs and some outdated points. The earth is warming and there is nothing you can do to stop it other than stop leaving your car on in the morning when you aren't in it so you can get the AC to work.

Yeah to bad the fucking environment kills people, don't believe me? Just look at all the tropical deseases that kill hundreds of millions every year. We'd really be better off as a race if we just completely wiped out the environment and created our own. It wouldn't be so hard, we can keep all the animals we need alive on our own, we could have kelp farms supply all our oxygen and we could probably balance everything else out through science. A perfect man made world.

Prove me wrong.

Have you just posted what I think you posted?

That just proves how you don't know anything about the environment. Do you realize how many actions there are happening? Even dead things are a part of the environment. If you think that you should get out of your basement walk in a forest and then realize how wrong you are.

What exactly would go wrong? We can re-fertilise our own soil without having animals shit all over it, forests don't actually do anything for us except supply lumber and oxygen (we'd still have tree farms set aside in order to get us lumber obviously). What are the negative effects? We simply wipe out everything not helping us, then plant our kelp and forests and whatever else we need to keep functioning and go on from there, it wouldn't be costly at all, considering how much more efficient things would be and how much more land would be available without faggy jungles.

But of course you have all these unbacked notions of preserving the environment at all costs...

[The Weird One]

You would be, cawck mongler. You're refuting pretty solid evidence with some bullshit graphs and some outdated points. The earth is warming and there is nothing you can do to stop it other than stop leaving your car on in the morning when you aren't in it so you can get the AC to work.

Yeah to bad the fucking environment kills people, don't believe me? Just look at all the tropical deseases that kill hundreds of millions every year. We'd really be better off as a race if we just completely wiped out the environment and created our own. It wouldn't be so hard, we can keep all the animals we need alive on our own, we could have kelp farms supply all our oxygen and we could probably balance everything else out through science. A perfect man made world.

Prove me wrong.

Have you just posted what I think you posted?

That just proves how you don't know anything about the environment. Do you realize how many actions there are happening? Even dead things are a part of the environment. If you think that you should get out of your basement walk in a forest and then realize how wrong you are.

I don't think he's going to. . . he'll just stick to his idea and ignore all arguments put in front of him.

[Iliad]

You would be, cawck mongler. You're refuting pretty solid evidence with some bullshit graphs and some outdated points. The earth is warming and there is nothing you can do to stop it other than stop leaving your car on in the morning when you aren't in it so you can get the AC to work.

Yeah to bad the fucking environment kills people, don't believe me? Just look at all the tropical deseases that kill hundreds of millions every year. We'd really be better off as a race if we just completely wiped out the environment and created our own. It wouldn't be so hard, we can keep all the animals we need alive on our own, we could have kelp farms supply all our oxygen and we could probably balance everything else out through science. A perfect man made world.

Prove me wrong.

Have you just posted what I think you posted?

That just proves how you don't know anything about the environment. Do you realize how many actions there are happening? Even dead things are a part of the environment. If you think that you should get out of your basement walk in a forest and then realize how wrong you are.

What exactly would go wrong? We can re-fertilise our own soil without having animals shit all over it, forests don't actually do anything for us except supply lumber and oxygen (we'd still have tree farms set aside in order to get us lumber obviously). What are the negative effects? We simply wipe out everything not helping us, then plant our kelp and forests and whatever else we need to keep functioning and go on from there, it wouldn't be costly at all, considering how much more efficient things would be and how much more land would be available without faggy jungles.

But of course you have all these unbacked notions of preserving the environment at all costs...

Dude don't you know how many chains there are in an environment! You can't just take out one of the links and think it will be fine by itself!

You can't just say: we don't need the environment we have technology. Even if we could have "oxygen farms" we would still need the enviroment.


Let's take your example of food. You will need to eat so you will have farms. So you will have cows and sheep, whatever. They will have to eat something. So you will have grass and water. However animals die so you will need decomposers. So these won't grow too much you will need some animals who eat decomposers, etc.

You can't just have a man-made world!!

[The Weird One]

[cawck mongler]

You would be, cawck mongler. You're refuting pretty solid evidence with some bullshit graphs and some outdated points. The earth is warming and there is nothing you can do to stop it other than stop leaving your car on in the morning when you aren't in it so you can get the AC to work.

Yeah to bad the fucking environment kills people, don't believe me? Just look at all the tropical deseases that kill hundreds of millions every year. We'd really be better off as a race if we just completely wiped out the environment and created our own. It wouldn't be so hard, we can keep all the animals we need alive on our own, we could have kelp farms supply all our oxygen and we could probably balance everything else out through science. A perfect man made world.

Prove me wrong.

Have you just posted what I think you posted?

That just proves how you don't know anything about the environment. Do you realize how many actions there are happening? Even dead things are a part of the environment. If you think that you should get out of your basement walk in a forest and then realize how wrong you are.

I don't think he's going to. . . he'll just stick to his idea and ignore all arguments put in front of him.

Arguments= telling me to walk in a forest. Holy shit, how can I ever counter argue a suggestion of what I should do?!

[Iliad]

You would be, cawck mongler. You're refuting pretty solid evidence with some bullshit graphs and some outdated points. The earth is warming and there is nothing you can do to stop it other than stop leaving your car on in the morning when you aren't in it so you can get the AC to work.

Yeah to bad the fucking environment kills people, don't believe me? Just look at all the tropical deseases that kill hundreds of millions every year. We'd really be better off as a race if we just completely wiped out the environment and created our own. It wouldn't be so hard, we can keep all the animals we need alive on our own, we could have kelp farms supply all our oxygen and we could probably balance everything else out through science. A perfect man made world.

Prove me wrong.

Have you just posted what I think you posted?

That just proves how you don't know anything about the environment. Do you realize how many actions there are happening? Even dead things are a part of the environment. If you think that you should get out of your basement walk in a forest and then realize how wrong you are.

I don't think he's going to. . . he'll just stick to his idea and ignore all arguments put in front of him.

Arguments= telling me to walk in a forest. Holy shit, how can I ever counter argue a suggestion of what I should do?!

Dude read my above post.

[cawck mongler]

You would be, cawck mongler. You're refuting pretty solid evidence with some bullshit graphs and some outdated points. The earth is warming and there is nothing you can do to stop it other than stop leaving your car on in the morning when you aren't in it so you can get the AC to work.

Yeah to bad the fucking environment kills people, don't believe me? Just look at all the tropical deseases that kill hundreds of millions every year. We'd really be better off as a race if we just completely wiped out the environment and created our own. It wouldn't be so hard, we can keep all the animals we need alive on our own, we could have kelp farms supply all our oxygen and we could probably balance everything else out through science. A perfect man made world.

Prove me wrong.

Have you just posted what I think you posted?

That just proves how you don't know anything about the environment. Do you realize how many actions there are happening? Even dead things are a part of the environment. If you think that you should get out of your basement walk in a forest and then realize how wrong you are.

What exactly would go wrong? We can re-fertilise our own soil without having animals shit all over it, forests don't actually do anything for us except supply lumber and oxygen (we'd still have tree farms set aside in order to get us lumber obviously). What are the negative effects? We simply wipe out everything not helping us, then plant our kelp and forests and whatever else we need to keep functioning and go on from there, it wouldn't be costly at all, considering how much more efficient things would be and how much more land would be available without faggy jungles.

But of course you have all these unbacked notions of preserving the environment at all costs...

Dude don't you know how many chains there are in an environment! You can't jsut take out one of tteh links and think it will be fine by iteself!

You cna't jsut say: we don't need the enviroment we havetechnologgy. Even if we could have "oxyfgen farms" we owould still tneed the enviroment.


Let's take your example of food. You will need to eat so you will ahve farms. So you will have cows and sheep, whatever. They will ahve to eat something. So you will have grass and water. However animals die so you will need decomposers. So these won't grow too much you will need some animals who eat decomposers, etc.

You can't just have a man-made world!!

Umm, okay, we keep decomposers around to, PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.

I like how your arguments arn't even based on truth, the environment isn't in perfect harmony as you seem to think, its constantly changing and species are added and removed from the environment all the time. Once we encounter a problem like your decomposer example, its easy enough to fix simply by introducing what we need into the system.

In short, you fail.

[The Weird One]

so yes, KILL EVERYTHING then, what, Make the missing links????

[Iliad]

You would be, cawck mongler. You're refuting pretty solid evidence with some bullshit graphs and some outdated points. The earth is warming and there is nothing you can do to stop it other than stop leaving your car on in the morning when you aren't in it so you can get the AC to work.

Yeah to bad the fucking environment kills people, don't believe me? Just look at all the tropical deseases that kill hundreds of millions every year. We'd really be better off as a race if we just completely wiped out the environment and created our own. It wouldn't be so hard, we can keep all the animals we need alive on our own, we could have kelp farms supply all our oxygen and we could probably balance everything else out through science. A perfect man made world.

Prove me wrong.

Have you just posted what I think you posted?

That just proves how you don't know anything about the environment. Do you realize how many actions there are happening? Even dead things are a part of the environment. If you think that you should get out of your basement walk in a forest and then realize how wrong you are.

What exactly would go wrong? We can re-fertilise our own soil without having animals shit all over it, forests don't actually do anything for us except supply lumber and oxygen (we'd still have tree farms set aside in order to get us lumber obviously). What are the negative effects? We simply wipe out everything not helping us, then plant our kelp and forests and whatever else we need to keep functioning and go on from there, it wouldn't be costly at all, considering how much more efficient things would be and how much more land would be available without faggy jungles.

But of course you have all these unbacked notions of preserving the environment at all costs...

Dude don't you know how many chains there are in an environment! You can't jsut take out one of tteh links and think it will be fine by iteself!

You cna't jsut say: we don't need the enviroment we havetechnologgy. Even if we could have "oxyfgen farms" we owould still tneed the enviroment.


Let's take your example of food. You will need to eat so you will ahve farms. So you will have cows and sheep, whatever. They will ahve to eat something. So you will have grass and water. However animals die so you will need decomposers. So these won't grow too much you will need some animals who eat decomposers, etc.

You can't just have a man-made world!!

Umm, okay, we keep decomposers around to, PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.

I like how your arguments arn't even based on truth, the environment isn't in perfect harmony as you seem to think, its constantly changing and species are added and removed from the environment all the time. Once we encounter a problem like your decomposer problem, its easy enough to fix simply by introducing what we need into the system.

In short, you fail.

Okay you agree we need to add decomppsers. But without predators which hunt them down they would become too many and so we would need to keep the animals who eat them . And the animals who eat the animals who eat the decomposers. Did you even read my entire post? Cause I don't think so!

This is just proving that you jackshit about what you are arguing about.

[cawck mongler]

Yeah to bad the fucking environment kills people, don't believe me? Just look at all the tropical deseases that kill hundreds of millions every year. We'd really be better off as a race if we just completely wiped out the environment and created our own. It wouldn't be so hard, we can keep all the animals we need alive on our own, we could have kelp farms supply all our oxygen and we could probably balance everything else out through science. A perfect man made world.

Prove me wrong.

Have you just posted what I think you posted?

That just proves how you don't know anything about the environment. Do you realize how many actions there are happening? Even dead things are a part of the environment. If you think that you should get out of your basement walk in a forest and then realize how wrong you are.

What exactly would go wrong? We can re-fertilise our own soil without having animals shit all over it, forests don't actually do anything for us except supply lumber and oxygen (we'd still have tree farms set aside in order to get us lumber obviously). What are the negative effects? We simply wipe out everything not helping us, then plant our kelp and forests and whatever else we need to keep functioning and go on from there, it wouldn't be costly at all, considering how much more efficient things would be and how much more land would be available without faggy jungles.

But of course you have all these unbacked notions of preserving the environment at all costs...

Dude don't you know how many chains there are in an environment! You can't jsut take out one of tteh links and think it will be fine by iteself!

You cna't jsut say: we don't need the enviroment we havetechnologgy. Even if we could have "oxyfgen farms" we owould still tneed the enviroment.


Let's take your example of food. You will need to eat so you will ahve farms. So you will have cows and sheep, whatever. They will ahve to eat something. So you will have grass and water. However animals die so you will need decomposers. So these won't grow too much you will need some animals who eat decomposers, etc.

You can't just have a man-made world!!

Umm, okay, we keep decomposers around to, PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.

I like how your arguments arn't even based on truth, the environment isn't in perfect harmony as you seem to think, its constantly changing and species are added and removed from the environment all the time. Once we encounter a problem like your decomposer problem, its easy enough to fix simply by introducing what we need into the system.

In short, you fail.

Okay you agree we need to add decomppsers. But without predators which hunt them down they would become too many and so we would need to keep the animals who eat them . And the animals who eat the animals who eat the decomposers. Did you even read my entire post? Cause I don't think so!

This is just proving that you jackshit about what you are arguing about.

Why do we need to keep the animals that eat decomposers?

YOU FAIL AGAIN MOTHERFUCKER, GETTING TIRED YET?

[Iliad]

Have you just posted what I think you posted?

That just proves how you don't know anything about the environment. Do you realize how many actions there are happening? Even dead things are a part of the environment. If you think that you should get out of your basement walk in a forest and then realize how wrong you are.

What exactly would go wrong? We can re-fertilise our own soil without having animals shit all over it, forests don't actually do anything for us except supply lumber and oxygen (we'd still have tree farms set aside in order to get us lumber obviously). What are the negative effects? We simply wipe out everything not helping us, then plant our kelp and forests and whatever else we need to keep functioning and go on from there, it wouldn't be costly at all, considering how much more efficient things would be and how much more land would be available without faggy jungles.

But of course you have all these unbacked notions of preserving the environment at all costs...

Dude don't you know how many chains there are in an environment! You can't jsut take out one of tteh links and think it will be fine by iteself!

You cna't jsut say: we don't need the enviroment we havetechnologgy. Even if we could have "oxyfgen farms" we owould still tneed the enviroment.


Let's take your example of food. You will need to eat so you will ahve farms. So you will have cows and sheep, whatever. They will ahve to eat something. So you will have grass and water. However animals die so you will need decomposers. So these won't grow too much you will need some animals who eat decomposers, etc.

You can't just have a man-made world!!

Umm, okay, we keep decomposers around to, PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.

I like how your arguments arn't even based on truth, the environment isn't in perfect harmony as you seem to think, its constantly changing and species are added and removed from the environment all the time. Once we encounter a problem like your decomposer problem, its easy enough to fix simply by introducing what we need into the system.

In short, you fail.

Okay you agree we need to add decomppsers. But without predators which hunt them down they would become too many and so we would need to keep the animals who eat them . And the animals who eat the animals who eat the decomposers. Did you even read my entire post? Cause I don't think so!

This is just proving that you jackshit about what you are arguing about.

Why do we need to keep the animals that eat decomposers?

YOU FAIL AGAIN MOTHERFUCKER, GETTING TIRED YET?

Dude do you know anything about ecology? If there is an animal with no predators it will grow nubers and there would be way too much.


I have disproven your point so don't say:

"Teh jungles are faggy!!! LOLZZLOLZ! Technology is better !! Because I play on all day!!I'm not going to accept that global warming is happening so I can watch my pornography all day long without any guilt!


Environments are important. Did you learn ANY of this in school?

[The Weird One]

why wouldn't we?????

[cawck mongler]

What exactly would go wrong? We can re-fertilise our own soil without having animals shit all over it, forests don't actually do anything for us except supply lumber and oxygen (we'd still have tree farms set aside in order to get us lumber obviously). What are the negative effects? We simply wipe out everything not helping us, then plant our kelp and forests and whatever else we need to keep functioning and go on from there, it wouldn't be costly at all, considering how much more efficient things would be and how much more land would be available without faggy jungles.

But of course you have all these unbacked notions of preserving the environment at all costs...

Dude don't you know how many chains there are in an environment! You can't jsut take out one of tteh links and think it will be fine by iteself!

You cna't jsut say: we don't need the enviroment we havetechnologgy. Even if we could have "oxyfgen farms" we owould still tneed the enviroment.


Let's take your example of food. You will need to eat so you will ahve farms. So you will have cows and sheep, whatever. They will ahve to eat something. So you will have grass and water. However animals die so you will need decomposers. So these won't grow too much you will need some animals who eat decomposers, etc.

You can't just have a man-made world!!

Umm, okay, we keep decomposers around to, PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.

I like how your arguments arn't even based on truth, the environment isn't in perfect harmony as you seem to think, its constantly changing and species are added and removed from the environment all the time. Once we encounter a problem like your decomposer problem, its easy enough to fix simply by introducing what we need into the system.

In short, you fail.

Okay you agree we need to add decomppsers. But without predators which hunt them down they would become too many and so we would need to keep the animals who eat them . And the animals who eat the animals who eat the decomposers. Did you even read my entire post? Cause I don't think so!

This is just proving that you jackshit about what you are arguing about.

Why do we need to keep the animals that eat decomposers?

YOU FAIL AGAIN MOTHERFUCKER, GETTING TIRED YET?

Dude do you know anything about ecology? If there is an animal with no predators it will grow nubers and there would be way too much.


I have disproven your point so don't say:

"Teh jungles are faggy!!! LOLZZLOLZ! Technology is better !! Because I play on all day!!I'm not going to accept that global warming is happening so I can watch my pornography all day long without any guilt!


Environments are important. Did you learn ANY of this in school?

Disproving my point= THEY GROW IN NUBERS

Uh, okay, then what? Oh right, some of them starve off because there isn't enough food supplied by us, but thats just the thing, its supplied by us, therefore they can't hunt their 'prey' to extinction.

You lose again dumbass, your whole argument is based around retarded ideas that not only don't even apply to what you're talking about, but wouldn't even matter if they did apply, as it would be easy enough to manage with a little human intervention.

[The Weird One]

you say a little human intervention as if it would take all of five minutes to do

[Iliad]

Dude don't you know how many chains there are in an environment! You can't jsut take out one of tteh links and think it will be fine by iteself!

You cna't jsut say: we don't need the enviroment we havetechnologgy. Even if we could have "oxyfgen farms" we owould still tneed the enviroment.


Let's take your example of food. You will need to eat so you will ahve farms. So you will have cows and sheep, whatever. They will ahve to eat something. So you will have grass and water. However animals die so you will need decomposers. So these won't grow too much you will need some animals who eat decomposers, etc.

You can't just have a man-made world!!

Umm, okay, we keep decomposers around to, PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.

I like how your arguments arn't even based on truth, the environment isn't in perfect harmony as you seem to think, its constantly changing and species are added and removed from the environment all the time. Once we encounter a problem like your decomposer problem, its easy enough to fix simply by introducing what we need into the system.

In short, you fail.

Okay you agree we need to add decomppsers. But without predators which hunt them down they would become too many and so we would need to keep the animals who eat them . And the animals who eat the animals who eat the decomposers. Did you even read my entire post? Cause I don't think so!

This is just proving that you jackshit about what you are arguing about.

Why do we need to keep the animals that eat decomposers?

YOU FAIL AGAIN MOTHERFUCKER, GETTING TIRED YET?

Dude do you know anything about ecology? If there is an animal with no predators it will grow nubers and there would be way too much.


I have disproven your point so don't say:

"Teh jungles are faggy!!! LOLZZLOLZ! Technology is better !! Because I play on all day!!I'm not going to accept that global warming is happening so I can watch my pornography all day long without any guilt!


Environments are important. Did you learn ANY of this in school?

Disproving my point= THEY GROW IN NUBERS

Uh, okay, then what? Oh right, some of them starve off because there isn't enough food supplied by us, but thats just the thing, its supplied by us, therefore they can't hunt their 'prey' to extinction.

You lose again dumbass, your whole argument is based around retarded ideas that not only don't even apply to what you're talking about, but wouldn't even matter if they did apply, as it would be easy enough to manage with a little human intervention.

Dude if tehre would be no predators to hunt them they would become too numerous!! IF they starve and die then the others eat them! Dude this is just a small part of what happens in an environment and frankly I see no point arguing with you because you know nothing about this and you won't even try to adapt your ideas.

[Neutrino]

With our current level of technology, a managed biosphere is a technical impossibility.
Even if we decide what animals we still need and keep them alive to serve as environmental support, there are so many feedback loops we don't understand that the enterprise is doomed to failure.

If we can barely keep a space station of a few people and a couple of very simple feedback loops going, how are we going to manage a planet of billions that needs hundreds if not thousands of feedback loops to keep us healthy?

[Nobunaga]

... The environment...

... That hole in the ozone layer over the south pole, has been shrinking.

... Cool.

http://www.hemscott.com/news/latest-new ... 8830329514

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYL ... EgJpQKIWDQ

... not big news in the U.S. Much too positive.

[cawck mongler]

With our current level of technology, a managed biosphere is a technical impossibility.
Even if we decide what animals we still need and keep them alive to serve as environmental support, there are so many feedback loops we don't understand that the enterprise is doomed to failure.

If we can barely keep a space station of a few people and a couple of very simple feedback loops going, how are we going to manage a planet of billions that needs hundreds if not thousands of feedback loops to keep us healthy?

I AGREE WITH YOU.

You're right, there's to much we don't know about the environment, so trying to alter it purposefully in any way is doomed to failure. That's why hippy environmentalists are so stupid, they try to alter the environment in a way that is harmful or inconvenient to humans, and they don't even know if it will help the environment. Cutting back fuel emissions is fine, but frankly, we've cut back enough already (western nations anyways, China and India have a long ways to go), spewing nonsense about global warming is just plain stupid, as like you said, there are to many factors to determine if we're causing it or if it will be harmful.

But the people I'm arguing about are so stupid, they can't even prove that a completely human made environment is impossible. Instead they just ignore what I have to say and say I'm the one ignoring them, when I've already addressed all their points, providing some sources and just using plain logic.

[Iliad]

With our current level of technology, a managed biosphere is a technical impossibility.
Even if we decide what animals we still need and keep them alive to serve as environmental support, there are so many feedback loops we don't understand that the enterprise is doomed to failure.

If we can barely keep a space station of a few people and a couple of very simple feedback loops going, how are we going to manage a planet of billions that needs hundreds if not thousands of feedback loops to keep us healthy?

I AGREE WITH YOU.

You're right, there's to much we don't know about the environment, so trying to alter it purposefully in any way is doomed to failure. That's why hippy environmentalists are so stupid, they try to alter the environment in a way that is harmful or inconvenient to humans, and they don't even know if it will help the environment. Cutting back fuel emissions is fine, but frankly, we've cut back enough already (western nations anyways, China and India have a long ways to go), spewing nonsense about global warming is just plain stupid, as like you said, there are to many factors to determine if we're causing it or if it will be harmful.

But the people I'm arguing about are so stupid, they can't even prove that a completely human made environment is impossible. Instead they just ignore what I have to say and say I'm the one ignoring them, when I've already addressed all their points, providing some sources and just using plain logic.

No you haven't and are you serious? As if we have cut back enough emissions!! US is still the highest emitter of emissions!

[The Weird One]

damn straight.

[Neutrino]

I AGREE WITH YOU.

Then why were you espoucing something I said would be incredibly difficult if not impossible?

You're right, there's to much we don't know about the environment, so trying to alter it purposefully in any way is doomed to failure. That's why hippy environmentalists are so stupid, they try to alter the environment in a way that is harmful or inconvenient to humans, and they don't even know if it will help the environment. Cutting back fuel emissions is fine, but frankly, we've cut back enough already (western nations anyways, China and India have a long ways to go), spewing nonsense about global warming is just plain stupid, as like you said, there are to many factors to determine if we're causing it or if it will be harmful.

... huh? The vast majority of efforts are dedicated to returning the environment o what it was, not transforming it into some percieved ideal form. The simplest way to do this is simply to stop polluting, as this will allow the environment to heal itself, without extensive human intervention.

The massive amounts of pollutants we started pumping into the atmosphere can be termed "extensive human intervention". However, the cessation of it cannot.