Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    George_1950's Avatar
    George_1950 Posts: 3,099, Reputation: 236
    Ultra Member
     
    #41

    Jan 14, 2009, 12:45 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr D View Post
    ...
    Go AZ Cardinals - "The worst team to ever be in the playoffs." This Cinderella team, led by Kurt Warner, the patron saint of old, over the hill guys, could take it all. - A Zonie:)
    Actually led by Ken Whisenhunt, who should be coach of the year, with respect to the Falcons.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 343
    Ultra Member
     
    #42

    Jan 14, 2009, 01:12 PM

    I suspect that if AZ makes it to the Bowl ,by the time Warner finishes 60 minutes against either of the AFC defenses;they will be playing Taps in his honor .
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #43

    Jan 14, 2009, 01:41 PM
    Since my team obviously has an aversion to playing past November I'm pulling for the team from their home away from home (which might change if they keep winning). Go Cards!

    Q. What do you call 47 millionaires sitting around with their feet up, snacking and drinking beer while watching the Super Bowl on TV?

    A. The Dallas Cowboys

    Q. What do the Dallas Cowboys and Billy Graham have in common?

    A. They both can make 70,000 people stand up and yell, "Jesus Christ."

    Q. How do you keep a Dallas Cowboy out of your yard?

    A. Put up a goal post.

    Q. What do you call a Dallas Cowboy with a Super Bowl ring?

    A. A thief.

    Q. What's the difference between the Dallas Cowboys and a dollar bill?

    A. You can still get four quarters out of a dollar bill.

    Q. How many Dallas Cowboys does it take to win a Super Bowl?

    A. Nobody remembers and we will very likely never find out!

    Q. What do the Cowboys and a possums have in common?

    A. Both play dead at home and get killed on the road!
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #44

    Jan 14, 2009, 02:10 PM
    Here we go, Worldwatch says we must not only halt ALL carbon emissions by 2050, we must "go negative" after that.

    To avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, world carbon emissions will have to drop to near zero by 2050 and "go negative" after that, the Worldwatch Institute reported on Tuesday.

    This is a deeper cut than called for by most climate experts and policymakers, including President-elect Barack Obama, who favors an 80 percent drop in U.S. carbon emissions by mid-century.

    Limiting carbon emissions aims to keep global mean temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) over what it was before the Industrial Revolution -- but one Worldwatch author said even this is too dangerous.

    "Global warming needs to be reduced from peak levels to 1 degree (Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) as fast as possible," co-author William Hare said at a briefing on the "State of the World 2009" report. "At this level you can see some of the risks fade into the background."

    Global mean temperature has already risen 1.4 degrees F (0.8 C) since 1850, so drastic cuts in emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide are needed, according to Hare, now working at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
    Has anyone yet proven with even some meaningful precision that global temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees since 1850?
    TexasParent's Avatar
    TexasParent Posts: 378, Reputation: 73
    Full Member
     
    #45

    Jan 14, 2009, 02:11 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Since my team obviously has an aversion to playing past November I'm pulling for the team from their home away from home (which might change if they keep winning). Go Cards!

    Q. What do you call 47 millionaires sitting around with their feet up, snacking and drinking beer while watching the Super Bowl on TV?

    A. The Dallas Cowboys

    Q. What do the Dallas Cowboys and Billy Graham have in common?

    A. They both can make 70,000 people stand up and yell, "Jesus Christ."

    Q. How do you keep a Dallas Cowboy out of your yard?

    A. Put up a goal post.

    Q. What do you call a Dallas Cowboy with a Super Bowl ring?

    A. A thief.

    Q. What's the difference between the Dallas Cowboys and a dollar bill?

    A. You can still get four quarters out of a dollar bill.

    Q. How many Dallas Cowboys does it take to win a Super Bowl?

    A. Nobody remembers and we will very likely never find out!

    Q. What do the Cowboys and a possums have in common?

    A. Both play dead at home and get killed on the road!
    Funny... thanks for that.
    TexasParent's Avatar
    TexasParent Posts: 378, Reputation: 73
    Full Member
     
    #46

    Jan 14, 2009, 02:17 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Here we go, Worldwatch says we must not only halt ALL carbon emissions by 2050, we must "go negative" after that.



    Has anyone yet proven with even some meaningful precision that global temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees since 1850?
    I'm not sure, but I saw a program on National Geographic last night that had some pictures of glaciers from 1956 which have receded drastically or disappeared entirely since that time, due to warmer temps.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 343
    Ultra Member
     
    #47

    Jan 14, 2009, 03:12 PM

    Here is the bottom line. Obama has tabbed Carol Browner, a socialist flat -earth eviro-wacko ,to be his global warming czarina .Until last week,Browner was listed as one of the leaders of the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance." She demands that developed countries ,especially the U.S. accept draconian standards to reduce consumption and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

    But beyond her radical ideology is there a hidden agenda to her advocacy ? Of Course! Just like the Goracle ;she profits handsomly by taking extreme positions on carbon trading . She is on the board of directors of APX
    Carol Browner Joins APX's Board of Directors
    APX is the leading infrastructure provider for environmental markets in greenhouse gases including carbon commodities. These commodities include emissions allowances and carbon offsets, sometimes called Verified Emission Reductions (VERs), Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), Verified Carbon Units (VCUs), or Carbon Reduction Tons (CRTs).
    Carbon Greenhouse Gas Market Infrastructure

    So not only is there an ideological attempt at crippling the economy to pave the way for socialism, while granting unprecedented power to bureaucrats like Browner at play here . There's also money to be made .
    George_1950's Avatar
    George_1950 Posts: 3,099, Reputation: 236
    Ultra Member
     
    #48

    Jan 15, 2009, 09:28 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post

    Look, I'm not a scientist... The Goricle has studied the issue. He makes as much sense as anybody does.... I certainy don't think he's looney!

    The naysayers, however, make no sense at all. They just deny, deny, deny...

    excon
    Bw he he (I hate this for Chicagoans, but... ) "A new record was set Wednesday when Chicago had its ninth consecutive day of measurable snowfall, according to the National Weather Service.
    The previous record was eight consecutive days set from Dec. 13 to 20, 1973.
    Snowfall records in Chicago date back to 1884.
    A wind chill warning has been issued as temperatures as tsmperartures will not reach single digits until Friday.
    The forecast for Thursday is: Sunny and cold, with a high near -3. Wind chill values as low as -33. West northwest wind between 10 and 15 mph." Record snowfall, plunging temperatures hit the area - Indian Head Park, IL - Indian Head Park Suburban Life

    You may not be a scientist; neither am I. Common sense is not against the law, but Obama and the libs may yet 'change' that, too.
    TexasParent's Avatar
    TexasParent Posts: 378, Reputation: 73
    Full Member
     
    #49

    Jan 15, 2009, 09:33 AM

    Common sense says that one cold snap and record snowfalls in one year don't erase or reverse the trend for the last 15, 20 or 50 years.
    JSingle911's Avatar
    JSingle911 Posts: 35, Reputation: 8
    Junior Member
     
    #50

    Jan 15, 2009, 09:34 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by George_1950 View Post
    Bw he he (I hate this for Chicagoans, but...) "A new record was set Wednesday when Chicago had its ninth consecutive day of measurable snowfall, according to the National Weather Service.
    The previous record was eight consecutive days set from Dec. 13 to 20, 1973.
    Snowfall records in Chicago date back to 1884.
    A wind chill warning has been issued as temperatures as tsmperartures will not reach single digits until Friday.
    The forecast for Thursday is: Sunny and cold, with a high near -3. Wind chill values as low as -33. West northwest wind between 10 and 15 mph." Record snowfall, plunging temperatures hit the area - Indian Head Park, IL - Indian Head Park Suburban Life

    You may not be a scientist; neither am I. Common sense is not against the law, but Obama and the libs may yet 'change' that, too.
    I'm not a climate change alarmist, but I don't want people to disbelieve climate change for the wrong reasons. Local trends don't give you useful information about the entire planet.
    Dr D's Avatar
    Dr D Posts: 698, Reputation: 127
    Senior Member
     
    #51

    Jan 15, 2009, 10:19 AM
    Ex - I must take exception to your statement: The naysayers, however, make no sense at all. They just deny, deny, deny...
    I believe that several of us Rightys have offered valid proposals, facts, and reasoned arguments in support of our position. I would like you to point out errors of fact or logic that I and others have made. Merely stating that we all endorse pollution, are Exxon stockholders, have no entrepreneural spirit, offer no alternatives, and merely deny, just does not cut it. Please provide but one concrete rebuttal to a point made by me or another.

    However, both of us agree that Sheriff Joe of AZ is a loon.:)
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #52

    Jan 15, 2009, 10:49 AM
    Maybe none of this even matters because we just may be living in a giant hologoram. :rolleyes:
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #53

    Jan 15, 2009, 11:41 AM
    IFL: Inauguration Will Produce 575 MILLION Pounds of CO2!

    Everyone knows the new administration will be the greenest in modern times. But you might not know how un-green the Inauguration is going to be. The Institute For Liberty scratched together some rough figures for illustrative purposes, and our new analysis Carbon Bigfoot finds:

    Celebrities, politicians, and bigwigs using 600 private jets will produce 25,320,000 POUNDS of CO2

    Personal vehicles could account for 262,483,200 POUNDS of CO2

    In the parade, horses alone will produce more than 400 POUNDS of CO2

    The total carbon footprint for the Inauguration will likely exceed 575 million POUNDS of CO2

    It would take the average U.S. household 57,598 years to produce a carbon footprint equal to that of the new president's housewarming party
    TexasParent's Avatar
    TexasParent Posts: 378, Reputation: 73
    Full Member
     
    #54

    Jan 15, 2009, 12:09 PM
    If those private jets weren't going to Washington, they would likely have been flying to the Caribbean or some other exotic resort to escape the recent Global Cooling :D. I find it funny that they produce numbers like that but don't explain that almost all of what they quote would be producing a carbon footprint if they were at the Inauguration or not.

    I mean, how are the horses going to produce anymore carbon footprint in the parade than they would back in the stable? :rolleyes:
    TexasParent's Avatar
    TexasParent Posts: 378, Reputation: 73
    Full Member
     
    #55

    Jan 15, 2009, 12:10 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Maybe none of this even matters because we just may be living in a giant hologoram. :rolleyes:
    I've been trying to change my holographic program for years :D
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #56

    Jan 15, 2009, 01:30 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasParent View Post
    If those private jets weren't going to Washington, they would likely have been flying to the Caribbean or some other exotic resort to escape the recent Global Cooling :D. I find it funny that they produce numbers like that but don't explain that almost all of what they quote would be producing a carbon footprint if they were at the Inauguration or not.

    I mean, how are the horses going to produce anymore carbon footprint in the parade than they would back in the stable? :rolleyes:
    Maybe, but what about putting your money where your global warming mouth is? All that talk is that much harder for us sekptics to buy when they don't walk the walk. ;)
    TexasParent's Avatar
    TexasParent Posts: 378, Reputation: 73
    Full Member
     
    #57

    Jan 15, 2009, 07:25 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Maybe, but what about putting your money where your global warming mouth is? All that talk is that much harder for us sekptics to buy when they don't walk the walk. ;)
    Now if everyone rode their bike to the event, I would be impressed :)
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #58

    Jan 16, 2009, 07:31 AM
    Maybe they could at least offer us a good fake attempt…

    Early this morning, Congressman-Elect Eric Massa departed his hometown of Corning, New York to be sworn into the 111th Congress on Tuesday. Massa will arrive for his formal swearing-in on Tuesday morning, but the 282 mile journey in a GM Electric Fuel Cell Equinox went off without a hitch.
    Without a hitch except for one minor detail…

    A hydrogen fuel cell car driven by U.S. Rep. Eric Massa to Washington, D.C on Monday didn't actually get him all the way there.

    Massa had to be in the nation's capital Tuesday for his swearing in as the 29th Congressional District's new representative. He drove the General Motors Equinox prototype car to draw attention to the technology, some of which is being developed in the district.

    The problem is the car can go about 150 to 200 miles without a refill, and the trip from Corning to Washington, D.C. is 282 miles. And there are no hydrogen refilling stations along the way.

    As a result, Massa had to switch to another GM hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that was standing by in Harrisburg.

    After the trip, both cars were towed back to their original locations by two Chevrolet Tahoe hybrid SUVs.
    It would have cost me about $14.00 to drive my Corolla the 282 miles. I wonder what it took to drive 2 fuel cell vehicles there and tow them back behind two hybrid SUV's?
    George_1950's Avatar
    George_1950 Posts: 3,099, Reputation: 236
    Ultra Member
     
    #59

    Jan 16, 2009, 08:36 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Maybe they could at least offer us a good fake attempt…

    Without a hitch except for one minor detail…

    It would have cost me about $14.00 to drive my Corolla the 282 miles. I wonder what it took to drive 2 fuel cell vehicles there and tow them back behind two hybrid SUV’s?
    Judge libs by their intentions, not their results.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #60

    Jan 16, 2009, 08:42 AM
    Hello again, righty's:

    I'm just not sure you guys are using the right standards to measure people or to call them hypocrites...

    You can drive your SUV because you don't believe in global warming, so you can't be called a hypocrite... But, if any of those people who BELIEVE in global warming DON'T ride their bike to work, THEY'RE hypocrites... And, if they're RICH, you STILL expect 'em to walk.

    I don't know. As soon as the infrastructure becomes available for people to readily use, people who fly their own planes aren't hypocrites.

    excon

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Al Gore - the high priest of environmentalism - just a pop scientist? [ 93 Answers ]

Just curious: where did Gore study climatology, anyway? YouTube - Al Gore Debates Global Warming

Did I miss Clinton/Gore defanging the Saddam tiger? [ 8 Answers ]

Interesting video of Gore making the case for evidence of Saddam's terrorists acitivities. I don't recall Clinton/Gore being engaged in this issue. YouTube - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

Al Gore Set To Rake In Millions Off An IPO [ 11 Answers ]

Al Gore Set To Rake In Millions Off An IPO - America Talks Back, News It has been reported that former Vice President Al Gore stands to make approximately $50 million when the TV channel he founded, Current TV, goes public. The channel is very popular among tech-savvy 18-34 year olds, and it...

Al gore and pres. Bush [ 4 Answers ]

Urban Legends Reference Pages: A Tale of Two Houses How do you account for this discrepancy?

Global Warming again. Al Gore, SHAME on you! [ 20 Answers ]

Judge for yourselves: Urban Legends Reference Pages: A Tale of Two Houses To Al Gore, Richard Dreyfuss, Alec Baldwin and the rest of the likes of you: Move to another planet and quit your lying and fearmongering! ... rant over...


View more questions Search