Arguing with Greenies

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151694358178300&set=a.165558403299.117727.7297163299&type=1&relevant_count=1

Had an interesting thought whilst arguing with some Greenpeace supporters on the Greenpeace International Facebook page today.

"even the worst predictions of global warming won't lead to conditions that remove life from Earth. Life, on Earth, is amazingly resilient. We've found bacteria that grow in boiling sulphur pools. We've found bacteria that can survive temperatures over 120 degrees Celsius. We've found bacteria that can survive exposure to the vacuum of space, bacteria that can feed off radiation in the cooling towers of nuclear plants, bacteria that can process basic elements no other lifeform on Earth can, and survive. Even if humans manage to kill ourselves and any other large vertebrate animal, life will find a way to survive. On a genetic level, does it really matter what form that life takes? Does it change, in one iota, if it's humans that inherit the Earth, or Escherichia coli? I mean, humans aren't the most populous species on the planet, either in terms of mass or number. And, if we're apparently the cause of all of the world's problems, wouldn't it make more sense to just do away with humankind completely, and leave Nature free to propagate without our influence? In your imagination, does your ideal Earth have humans on it?"