Where do I start? 50 years ago, a high school teacher told you global warming is good. Therefore, here in the 21st century, you are unconcerned with it, and are also superior to those who are. Now that's logic! Pat yourself on the back, you have earned it.

BTW, congrats on your ability to run a spell check. Impressive.

Your right, change is inevetible.

The grammatical and spelling errors are pretty obvious. I'm sure the author intended: "You're right, change is inevitable." What saddens me most, however, is the mental sloppiness.

I was talking about climate change, but Anjin-San runs off talking about a toxic swamp as if what I said about the one thing applies equally to the other. It's mental sloppiness like that which makes me think of them as environuts. Many of them can't logically think their way out of a brown paper bag, yet they expect us to take their word for how to run the planet. Get real!

Your right, change is inevetible. So if your neighborhood became a toxic swamp because the government or some corporation could not be bothered to dispose of toxics properly (something that has happended many, many, many times in this country), you would just take it in stride. Embrace it even. You can hang with change.

And hey, if you became ill as a result, you would not whine about it like some darned envoirnut, no sir. You would have some ancient schoolboy lesson to fall back on for comfort.

No one in the enviornmental movement is concerned about the changes that nature itself causes. But any fool can see how man has had a negative impact on the enviornment. People like William think that because the sky is still blue (sort of) and they still have a tree in the yard that all is well, and they can continue to go forth and consume a disproportinate percentage of the worlds resources with no consequence.

Well actually there do seem to be fools that can't see it...

Basically, the difference between me and the environuts is the meaning of change. They fear it; I embrace it. It seems that what they fear is change itself (as opposed to the results of change). To them, change has to be bad by definition, and they push the alarmist panic button over any and every inconsequential, improbable possibility. To me, change is largely a wash -- some good, some bad, the one cancelling out the other.

Change is unavoidable. It is better to prepare to adapt rather than waste effort on something that can't be stopped.

Environmentalists have been thinking that way for a long time.

This type of article always makes me laugh. The very people who deny the problem the longest and hardest, then turn around (when resistance becomes beyond absurd) and start lecturing everyone on how to solve the problem.

I'm not saying that being wrong at first means you must have no voice in the solution, but if such a person does want to be taken seriously, a little humility might be in order. And a little serious research into what others have actually been proposing for a long time.

We had movies about it in our assembly halls. Everyone was enamored of, and protective of, the envoirnment.