dmarc117 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 As in the balding? who knew cfc's were good for the scalp!!! move over sy sperling!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 who knew cfc's were good for the scalp!!! move over sy sperling!! He didn't use them for his hair, he sprayed them on the Vette to get the swirl marks out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Yer all wrong. I used Xtra Hold Clairol on my chest hair. Used to part it right down the middle and feather it back. Da Ladies would go nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 He didn't use them for his hair, he sprayed them on the Vette to get the swirl marks out... friggin swirls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 There are actually more trees today than there was 100 years ago. The logging industry plants 3 for every one they cut down. Also younger growing trees scrub more CO2 than older ones. You might also look at the BBC report that stated the warmer temperatures are allowing forest expand in regions that haven't seen trees since the last interglacial period. Are you kidding me? Does the US Forestry service plant trees around the world? I am way too tired now . . but you should look up some maps that chart the growth of the Sudan desert and deforestation in rain forests. Just sayin your tree assertion is full of bunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Are you kidding me? Does the US Forestry service plant trees around the world? I am way too tired now . . but you should look up some maps that chart the growth of the Sudan desert and deforestation in rain forests. Just sayin your tree assertion is full of bunk i had somfin similar typed out a bout 2pm. then said to myself "why" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Are you kidding me? Does the US Forestry service plant trees around the world? I am way too tired now . . but you should look up some maps that chart the growth of the Sudan desert and deforestation in rain forests. Just sayin your tree assertion is full of bunk Well, whether Perch's tree assertion is full of bunk or not, the cause and effect and insinuation that anthropogenic caused warming is good based on the claim is retarded on many levels. Even if you break it down on the single simplistic factor Perch is shooting for, it's somewhat akin to redeveloping an area formally consisting of historical Victorian mansions and putting trailer parks in their place; then claiming how good things are going in your community because you have more structures than in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Well, whether Perch's tree assertion is full of bunk or not, the cause and effect and insinuation that anthropogenic caused warming is good based on the claim is retarded on many levels. Even if you break it down on the single simplistic factor Perch is shooting for, it's somewhat akin to redeveloping an area formally consisting of historical Victorian mansions and putting trailer parks in their place; then claiming how good things are going in your community because you have more structures than in the past. If you can somehow relate this to this thread, I will buy you a beer at next WCOFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 If you can somehow relate this to this thread, I will buy you a beer at next WCOFF. As long as you promise we don't play Drew Brees and Chris Johnson in the playoffs next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 ... Global warming (or, more correctly, climate change) continues on it's merry way regardless. As it has for hundreds of millions of years before the eeeeevil humons were here! I said it before, I'll say it again... All of it was BAD SCIENCE to begin with! When you violate the scientific method by trying to prove a position or opinion rather than a hypothesis, the findings are jaded from the start. If this was not such a big deal, why have these Bozos gone US Embassy on us and destroy correspondence and research? What are they hiding? Destroying any of this that is funded by the public (which has been a HUGH reason to continue the charade) is a crime in itself. Oh and by the way to the house of cards falling..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 oh now the real authority has chimed in. I now think humans have no effect on their environment. Ever thing is exactly the same as when the good lord plopped us down on the 3rd rock from the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Really? You don't know? Google hole in the ozone layer. Its over the south pole and bigger than Antarctica. CFCs were the direct cause. I think i am being misunderstood ...i know they are banned , i know they led to hole to ozone layer , what i asked was when where they officially banned ? and yes i can find out but my pt of all of it was that people had been using aerosols for quite some time before they were banned ... That the speed of global warming appears something noticed the last few years in particular ...what happened all the prior years ? did no one notice changes or were there not significant changes to notice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) Well, whether Perch's tree assertion is full of bunk or not, the cause and effect and insinuation that anthropogenic caused warming is good based on the claim is retarded on many levels. Even if you break it down on the single simplistic factor Perch is shooting for, it's somewhat akin to redeveloping an area formally consisting of historical Victorian mansions and putting trailer parks in their place; then claiming how good things are going in your community because you have more structures than in the past. First I'm not sure how much anthropogenic climate change there is and how much is just natural cyclical climate change cause by volcanic and solar activity as well as our orbit of the sun shifting. We know we had no impact on the previous glacial and interglacial periods, so assuming that we are the cause of climate change or a significant contributor to the cause is the height of arrogance. The thought that we can stop the rising sea levels is ridiculous when we see how high they have been in the past, we can no more do this than we can turn the tide. Nobody as of yet has specified what the ideal temperature is for the earth and where that temperature is to be measured, and at what time of year it is to be measured. Climate change will obviously be good and bad depending on where you are and which direction it is changing. What is good for some will be bad ofr others and vice-versa. That is pretty elementary so I want spend any time expounding upon that. With regard to Victorian mansions and trailer parks there are a couple of things that you need to consider. Most of the Victorian mansion were done away with in the 1800s. Logging of old growth is extremely rare today. Also the old growth is pretty carbon neutral, where as smaller trees still in active growth stages convert more CO2 into oxygen. Edited December 3, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 We know we had no impact on the previous glacial and interglacial periods, so assuming that we are the cause of climate change or a significant contributor to the cause is the height of arrogance. The thought that we can stop the rising sea levels is ridiculous when we see how high they have been in the past, we can no more do this than we can turn the tide. You don't or won't grasp how significantly more active the earth was in the past before it evolved into a suitable habitat for humans. Transgressions and regressions in the past were generally contributed to events that happened at a much larger rate of change. Furthermore, many of these episodes are attributed to stuff like sea floor spreading and continental tectonic plate movements. Directly comparing sea level changes attributable to GW to those in earth's past is a complete fallacy and highlight your inability to synthesize the situation from a scientific perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I think i am being misunderstood ...i know they are banned , i know they led to hole to ozone layer , what i asked was when where they officially banned ? and yes i can find out but my pt of all of it was that people had been using aerosols for quite some time before they were banned ... That the speed of global warming appears something noticed the last few years in particular ...what happened all the prior years ? did no one notice changes or were there not significant changes to notice Well GW has been discussed at least since the 1990s that I remember. Of course back then, the counter arguments were that there is no change in the climate. Now that the warming planet can't really be disputed, the counter argument is that humans aren't causing the change or at least are not a significant part of the change - that its a natural cycle, the sun is hotter, etc. Perhaps you just weren't very aware of the issue until lately when there has been a great deal more press on the subject with the international conferences, Al Gore, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 On Dec. 3, 1984, more than 4,000 people died after a cloud of gas escaped from a pesticide plant operated by a Union Carbide subsidiary in Bhopal, India Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Well GW has been discussed at least since the 1990s that I remember. Of course back then, the counter arguments were that there is no change in the climate. Now that the warming planet can't really be disputed, .... It can, has and will. Bad science, corrupt scientists, political and financial motivation. Be green. But be green rationally and responsibly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Houston only sees snow, on average, about every four years. And never this early in the season: Friday's, if it comes, would be the earliest snowfall ever in Houston, beating the record tied last year by six days. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 This gets funnier each and every time I watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Link DUDE! Dontcha know that unnaturally cold weather is a side effect of Global Warming, er, Climal Warnging, er, I mean CLIMATE CHANGE? You see, a liberal calling themselves a "progressive" is the same thing as them re-framing the debate and re-naming it to "Climate Change". They don't want you to know exactly what they stand for and can claim that they were right, err correct, no matter what happens. Because, you see, everybody KNOWS that the climate will change over time, with or without us. Houston gets some snow (usually flakes in the air) every four years or so. We are expecting 1 to 4 inches depending on the part of town today, the second year IN A ROW! Screw it, I'm going out for a tattoo and a piercing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 ... and to add. The most frustrating thing about this whole sect, is that it has taken away our appreciation for the very pleasant and longer that average Inter-Glacial period we have been experiencing. No matter what we do, it will end, maybe not in our lifetime or even a few generations, and that is when the real misery will occur. Advancing glaciers will push populations south into areas that will not be able to support the people they already have because the cooler temps will make growing food harder and more scarce. If history remembers this little tizzy-fit that some are currently throwing, they will be laughed at in hind sight and long for the belief that we could actually warm this big ball up so that half of the humon population doesn't vanish! OUCH! I said the right nipple you doof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
policyvote Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Well, whether Perch's tree assertion is full of bunk or not, the cause and effect and insinuation that anthropogenic caused warming is good based on the claim is retarded on many levels. Even if you break it down on the single simplistic factor Perch is shooting for, it's somewhat akin to redeveloping an area formally consisting of historical Victorian mansions and putting trailer parks in their place; then claiming how good things are going in your community because you have more structures than in the past. There was some economist on here a couple years ago that started a thread ranting about the "tree hugging dogma" in our public schools. At one point, he claimed that consuming paper products at a higher rate was good for the environment, because if demand for trees is high, then supply of trees will rise to meet it. Peace policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 There was some economist on here a couple years ago ... Peace policy Dang weigie has a doppelganger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Anyone that denies the bais in the mainstream media is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Anyone that denies the bais in the mainstream media is an idiot. Pot, Kettle, Black? About the MRC The mission of the Media Research Center, "America's Media Watchdog," is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts