GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

17-01-2003, 11:25 AM

(Scott Murphy) wrote in message . com...

Where is the reliable "evidence" of a threat of depletion, rather than
evidence of ongoing environmental practices "you" are uncomfortable
with?

Buddy, you need to stay away from the coffee pot after 4 o'clock in
the afternoon. I made no statements with regard to deforestation; I
was simply answering your "simple questions" in a Canadian context. I
merely provided you with nine numbers you were interested in. I gave
no interpretation of them. Simple questions. Simple answers. Relax.

I'm one of the most rational people you'll ever meet, believe it or
not, and i don't consume junk food.
Your response further enforces my tentative belief that there is no
depletion crises, or at least none that can be scientifically
evaluated, and this fundamentally means that some appalling ecological
practices are occuring, but as grotesque as it may sound, these
practices are sustainable, they are sustained by conservation and
aforestation.
You would agree that anyone who was offering a depletion crises must
produce figures similar to yours, but covering the entire globe. Those
figures don't exist.

Do you understand the difference between the threat of depletion and
widespread usage?, until you provide evidence as to the difference,
you've been played like a puppet by your enviromasters.

Stop putting words in peoples mouths. You seem to be the only one
that is pushing this global depletion crisis theory around this NG.

I've enlisted the help of experts, "YOU", and your answers certainly
don't back any crises.

You sound as if you are as extreme in your thoughts as the greenies
you disagree with. People like you make it difficult for groups to
sit down and have meaningful debates and conversations. You say that
with proof of this crisis, you would become a believer. I don't think
that's the case. When one's values and viewpoints are something they
believe strongly in, there is no room for compromise; there is no room
for re-evaluating the conclusions they have come to hold.

LOL, perhaps you should have supplemented your 5yr foliage course with
some basic psychology, the term you're looking for is "projection",
its a bad habit, i hope you're not an addict.

I don't believe you came here looking for proof of a crisis; you came
here hoping to find no proof of a crisis.

Of course i came here hoping there was no crises, i may be demanding,
but i'm not insane.

If you really wanted proof,
you'd go find it (or not find it) yourself,
like any normal

Normality and i have little in common, and as a independent thinker
who understands the difference between original thinking and accurate
recounting, i anticipated endless amounts of recounting, and that's
what i've been given, which is ok, but there is no crises relating to
deforestation.

scientifically-minded person motivated by such a question would. Not
wanting a hypothesis to be true is no reason to avoid proving it true.

I don't reproduce experiments and statistical analysis, i review the
conclusions of experiments and statistical analysis, and my reviewing
has led me to the conclusion that deforestation as a threat of
depletion is a hoax.

Keep on planting Sir, there's profit waiting.