Global warming Morons

[iceman95]

Originally Posted by davemo

P.S. She was at my campus a couple weeks ago and some of my friends had a Global Warming pool party to protest her stupidity. The way I look at it is, global warming is melting ice, polar bears live on ice, polar bears eat baby seals, ergo, by melting the ice and killing the polar bears, I'm doing my part to save baby seals! Hippies should love that, yeah?

That's right... should be a bumper sticker. "I drive my big block V8 Belchfire SUV to save the baby seals. Won't you help, too?"

[ky toker]

Its obvious that Sheryl Crow has never had Hooter's 3-Mile Island Chicken Wings.

[pistol]

Originally Posted by ky toker

Its obvious that Sheryl Crow has never had Hooter's 3-Mile Island Chicken Wings.

yeah, a one paper towel limit per order of wings would go over like a pregnant pole vaulter!

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by IHT

because IT'S NOT a generally accepted FACT, because IT'S NOT A FACT!!!

i do not disagree with taken any measures possible in slowing down humans consumption of natures byproducts though - whether or not is has anything to do with "warming" of the earth or not.

wish i had time to search and dig up all kinds of links, but i'm waiting for some info from work in regards to my business trip tomorrow...

I'm thinking of this IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

The 2007 report (as with previous reports) is a conservative document -- far short of the claims made by the most alarmist folks. Even with that, however, it reports a 90% probability of a direct causal link between humans and global warming. It also reports a strong likelihood of some pretty bad things happening.

If I had more time, I'd dig up more links, too. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one....

As far as ass-wiping goes, I just gotta use more than a square. I'm gonna do everything I can to keep dookie off my hand.

Originally Posted by ky toker

Its obvious that Sheryl Crow has never had Hooter's 3-Mile Island Chicken Wings.

[Islesfan]

Aren't there better ways to help the enviroment. I gotta use what I gotta use.

[kvm]

Wow. It may not be the stupidist thing I've ever heard, but it ranks right up there.

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Islesfan

Aren't there better ways to help the enviroment. I gotta use what I gotta use.

just don't use tree bark. ouch!

[Seanohue]

Originally Posted by The Professor

I'm thinking of this IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

The 2007 report (as with previous reports) is a conservative document -- far short of the claims made by the most alarmist folks. Even with that, however, it reports a 90% probability of a direct causal link between humans and global warming. It also reports a strong likelihood of some pretty bad things happening.

If I had more time, I'd dig up more links, too. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one....

From what I've gathered, yes there is a link, but the CO2 emissions from humans is less than 1% of the contributing force. The largest 2 being the ocean and the environment as the #1 and #2 causes of global warming. I support the reversal of the poles theory because that seems to have the most hard evidence behind it (meaning fossilized remains versus computer models and statistics (and like my calculus teacher says "you cant PROVE a damn thing with statistics, you can only show a trend)) and we are overdue for a flip....

[The Professor]

Perhaps my choice of the word "prove" was a bit strong. There seems to be overwhelming evidence, however, in support of anthropogenic climate change. While I normally dislike Wikipedia, a couple of entries there seem to collect some of this data (from different sides) pretty well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

One distinction the entries makes clear is the difference between scientific discussion of the issue and popular/political discussion. The debate is much more heated in, say, major newspapers than amongst scientists belonging to professional (science/research) organizations.

[txdyna65]

Ok we all agree using 1 square of TP is

But read down toward the bottom where she came up with her own clothing line with sleeves you can wipe with while dining and then put a new one on....now this makes some sense for those 3 mile island hooters chicken wings

[TTgirl]

Originally Posted by IHT

as little as she probably eats, and as narrow as her ass is, she could get by with 1 or 2 sheets "per sitting".

I'd be surprised to hear she shits at all. She's a celebrity, right? None of them do anything like that.

Neither do women in general, for that matter.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Seanohue

From what I've gathered, yes there is a link, but the CO2 emissions from humans is less than 1% of the contributing force. The largest 2 being the ocean and the environment as the #1 and #2 causes of global warming. I support the reversal of the poles theory because that seems to have the most hard evidence behind it (meaning fossilized remains versus computer models and statistics (and like my calculus teacher says "you cant PROVE a damn thing with statistics, you can only show a trend)) and we are overdue for a flip....

YOU are talking ....POLE SWAP!! Could be the Mayan Calender is SPOT ON??

The earth does a wobble and ....well, we go with the Dinosaurs...!!

NEVER TO RETURN!! Unless we Reincarnate as BORGS??

[Mr. White]

Originally Posted by taltos

Have to check if the domain skidmarksfortheenvironment.org is available. Next move, ration cards for toilet paper and kleenex. Professor-with all due respect, it appears that there is substantial debate about whether this is just the cycle continuing or if it is truly man-made. Why not ban vegetables, they cause farts.

You know, there are other reasons besides global warming to want to reduce emissions. If you can't get on board with global warming then how about the diseases like Asthma that are aggravated by heavy pollutants in the air.

Either way you look at it, there is a reason to want to reduce the emissions produced by fuel burning vehicles. If the emissions produced by fuel burning vehicles were harmless to us and the environment, then it wouldn't be such a favorite way for people to commit suicide eh?

You don't have to be a liberal or a conservative to want to protect the air you breathe and the water you drink, All you have to be is Human with the ability to think outside one's self.

P.S. Whether she really meant it as a joke or not I have no idea, but she released a statement shortly afterward saying she was kidding. I find it hard to believe, especially with the likes of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton running around, but there ya go.

[ghostrider]

While I agree that cleaning things up would not be a bad idea in general, I fail to see the validity of the global warming crowd stating we're doomed to extinction in X amount of years. Seems to me they've been saying that so long now, we're actually past the original Dooms Day that was predicted.

I can't stand all the celebs that have decided to take up the cry for this cause, simply because it's the 'in' thing to do. Not many want to take the time and do any research on anything. Then again, the research on this particular topic is all over the place depending on where you look or who you talk to.

Personally I think it's all a bunch of that has simply gotten way out of hand. Every yahoo wants his 5 minutes of air time to warn the world about something they really don't have any information on.

If the media is really so concerned about presenting the story properly, they should ensure THEY have the facts, and present opposing viewpoints. Hard to effectively prove a point when you don't have any hard evidence, or consenting opinions.

Anyway, I guess part of the point I'm trying to make is that all these celebs seem to think their opinion matters to anyone. The only thing they are good at is playing a role. Who's to say they aren't playing one on this subject? Quite frankly there's only a couple of them that actually have a clue what they are talking about, and for the most part, they aren't talking about it!

[j6ppc]

I hate to pee on the parade all but here's the deal - we spend a little time and money on reducing greenhouse emissions and overall environmental impact on the chance that the consensus of peer reviewed scientists is not wrong. If they are wrong we lose nothing and have improved things all around. If the global warming thingie turns out to be right then perhaps we have saved our sorry asses. Win/win eh?