she may be on to something
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
According to Sheryl Crow, you should only use one piece of toilet paper after taking a dump.
[/quote]
One square of a Rolling Stone no. 747, November 1996 issue will do.
[quote]kroby wrote:
CELTIC DEVIL, here’s another straw…
…
Do your part and stop breathing.[/quote]
That’s too much to hope for. I’d be satisfied if he’d just stop typing.
How can anybody read that and think she’s serious?
When presenting this idea to my younger brother, who’s judgement I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out.
[quote]BrwnbellyYankee wrote:
she may be on to something
You don’t poke your finger through, you first tear a hole in the center, and save the little piece that you’ve torn off.
This brings us to your missing number 7:
This is the U.S. Army approved method. MRE packs contain more than just one square of toilet paper, but it ain’t a whole lot more.
[quote]orion wrote:
CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
George BUsh supported the findings of the IPCC report.
That would make him a communist, correct?
No, that make him another voice that does not matter.
Though he does have socialist tendencies.
Do you have any other appeal to authority up your sleeve or are you going to explain to us yet how more C02 leads to global warming and where how and when it was tested that this is actually happening.
You also have the tendency to combine the issue of global warming and of man-made global warming and to claim that the scientific consensus is strong for man- made global warming is a stretch, at best.[/quote]
I’ve already told you that I’m not gonna sit here and explain the entire process becuase:
a) it would take hours for me to write an essay on it - the accepted explanation is easy for you to simply look up on many websites. I shouldnt have to regurgitate it here
and
b) I am not an expert on the issue (admittedly) so it is better explained by referral to better sources ie. studies etc etc.
My entire point/Argument, from the beginning, was that the vast and overwhelming body of scientific data, evidence, opinion, governemntal views, reports etc etc etc (I have explained all this before), falls in favour of serious and MAN MADE GW…and that people seem to be ignoring this and choosing, instead, to believe the views of an EXTREMELY small proportion of the worlds scientists who have
from what I can see, NO peer reviewed studies to support their theory that the warming of the planet is some kind of natural cycle.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that I have a tendency to combine the issue of global warming and of man-made global warming…when I was referring to GW throughout, I was referring to man-made GW…this is what all the reports, scientific opinion etc relate to. THey all fall in favour of man-made GW.
[quote]CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
orion wrote:
CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
George BUsh supported the findings of the IPCC report.
That would make him a communist, correct?
No, that make him another voice that does not matter.
Though he does have socialist tendencies.
Do you have any other appeal to authority up your sleeve or are you going to explain to us yet how more C02 leads to global warming and where how and when it was tested that this is actually happening.
You also have the tendency to combine the issue of global warming and of man-made global warming and to claim that the scientific consensus is strong for man- made global warming is a stretch, at best.
I’ve already told you that I’m not gonna sit here and explain the entire process becuase:
a) it would take hours for me to write an essay on it - the accepted explanation is easy for you to simply look up on many websites. I shouldnt have to regurgitate it here
and
b) I am not an expert on the issue (admittedly) so it is better explained by referral to better sources ie. studies etc etc.
[/quote]
My whole point is that you can`t, because nobody can.
The whole CO2 idea is not even a theory yet, in scientific terms it is a hypothesis.
An interesting one, maybe an alarming one, but still coming from a bunch of people who cannot predict the weather beyond three days and thought we were heading for an ice age 30 years ago.
Tropical conditions in Europe are also not new, that happened several times and I doubt that that will lead to our extinction, though the some ice age probably nearly finished us off.
Your computer predictions are only as good as the assumptions that went into the programming. If they can`t tell you without a computer, they can?t tell you with one. Garbage in => garbage out.
I think the Chinese got it right:
Let us build our economy to a point where we can deal with anything the climate throws at us, possibly man-made or not.
It is no use throwing money on a problem that is ending, the oil age will probably not last for very long anyway.
i prefer to use alot of the thickest kind.
be kind to assholes; wipe.
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
Dude, it’s blown out of proportion. The earth has shifted climates for the last 6 billion years. We just so happen to be on a cusp of another one, and everone thinks it’s armegeddon. The earth cycles, always has, always will wheather or not we are here.
Oh, and yes, there are scientists that back up what I have said. Those are not my words.[/quote]
BigRagoo, You are simply wrong in stating that the current changes in climate are just part of natural earth cycles. The 3 ‘milankovitch cycles’ (I’ll assume you are refering to these), relate to the distance and orientation of the earth from the sun, and were the causes of these ‘natural’ changes you refered to. These cannot explain and are not responsible for the current rapid changes being witnessed. If they were things would be getting colder.
Are you just generalising with your statement? If you are, that’s fine,it’s a thread on T-Nation afterall, but if you weren’t and could expand on what you’ve written then I’d be interested to hear more details/specifics(sincerely).
The funding of scientists that actively try to obfuscate the issues with global warming can usually be traced to ‘oil’ money. I don’t have specifics to hand, but am just recalling many articles that I’ve read that have given precise details.
The sad fact is that the evidence points to an under reporting of how drastic the changes are/will be…the very opposite of ‘blown out of proportion’.
As reported in ‘new scientist’ and on the bbc website, the recent IPCC report was heavily edited by politicians in order to make it more palatable. The final draft bears no resemblance to the original which was based on evidence and hard data. The scientific community signed off the final report because they felt something was better than nothing.
The original report factored in ‘positive feedback’ mechanisms, which rapidly escalate global warming.
The sad fact is that the current climate changes being recorded were not MEANT to be apparent for another 100 years. We’ve exceeded ALL the worse case scenarios already that were made in the 80’s and 90’s. Predictions that were rubbished at the time as ‘pure science fiction’.
As for bio fuels, well, they just encourage equatorial nations that have rainforest, to clear more of it to grow these crops to sell to the industrial nations.
And Sheryl Crow?..well I can only surmise that the smell that eminates from her ass crack must be unholy.
Something to think about
[quote]orinoco wrote:
… We’ve exceeded ALL the worse case scenarios already that were made in the 80’s and 90’s. Predictions that were rubbished at the time as ‘pure science fiction’.
…[/quote]
I don’t believe this is true. The warming has been consistently less than computer projections. That is why the computer models have been revised and downgraded so many times.
I blame the government.
Now about the three sea shells, how do we know they were controls for the water stream Miserere?
Because if it true thats really a load off my mind, for days after I seeing that shitfest (Demolition Man) the only thing going through my mind was how the hell does a sea shell wipe your arse.
And why three!!!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t believe this is true. The warming has been consistently less than computer projections. That is why the computer models have been revised and downgraded so many times.
[/quote]
Ok, a bit of hyperbole slipped in there (got a bit carried away with the ‘ALL’ bit)!!!. But SOME of the worse case scenarios that were made in the 80’s and 90’s (that were described at the time as sci fi)have been exceeded. I’ll dig them out when I get time and post them.
And again, not being petty or going for one-upmanship, but if you have the time to post specifics about which computer projections have been less than current trends then i’d be keen to read about them. I’ve infered from your statement that there have been numerous occasions as you said ‘consistantly’.
(again, not being funny, this info would be useful to me.)
Thanks
[quote]Kiwigeezer wrote:
And why three!!![/quote]
Sheryl Crowe would insist that we only use one.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
DW wrote:
I’m glad that I live in a country where people wash their asses.
And what country is it that has such an enlightened asshole as you in it?
[/quote]
Get a sense of humor dick.
[quote]jwillow wrote:
TShaw wrote:
Except that she was joking from the start. C’mon, people!
It sure wasn’t reported that way.
So here’s what she actually said. Joke, or not? T-Nation members, you decide:
http://www.sherylcrow.com/news.aspx?nid=7786
[/quote]
She is 45 years old, with the mental functioning of a 13 year old.
I’ve noticed this happens to young recording stars quite a lot. They stop getting an education and stay fixed at a particular level. Look at Britney Spears: her mental development stopped in her early teens.
[quote]orinoco wrote:
Something to think about
[/quote]
Yes. Everything is linked to population.