Global Warming Conference Ends With Record Snow Storm
Subscribe
#54
Ridge Runner , 12-26-2009 11:04 AM
Now who in their right mind would want to reverse that trend?

#55
Quote:
Well, I've heard Roadhog had a 'thing' for them old bloomers..... but then.... he doesn't qualify as one "in his right mind." :lol2:Originally Posted by Ridge Runner
Now who in their right mind would want to reverse that trend?
#56
. . it's fun to pretend on the Internet.
Global warming in it's popular context is an obfuscation. We do have a problem with burning fossil fuels and we do have a p o t e n t i a l problem with the earth's relationship to the sun but it has nothing to do with cyclical climates. The problem is the diminishing mass of the planet due to the growing and alarming rate of consumption of coal and oil. Simply stated, the planet is losing so much weight it is entirely conceivable that, some day, the weight loss will interfere with the planet's relationship to the sun. One of these days, you'll be topping off your tanks at the local Flying Pilot and ZOOM! Now you've done it. The planet goes hurtling toward the sun at the speed of light and you won't be on time to deliver.
If Al or Barry were to come on TV tomorrow and lay out the details, there's a pretty good likelihood a lot of folks would buy it and some serious panic would ensue, the economy would fail and the energy companies would be very teed off. What would be the fun in that? And what good is a panic if you can't make money off it? So, the brights and elites have come up with a way to make money -cap and trade- off the fear that burning fossil fuels is the moral equivalent of cooking your grand kids without causing mass hysteria.
The diminishing mass theory has been around for a long time with a lot of debate swirling around the question of how much dead weight is actually lost to burning. Most of the stuff we consume has a waste by-product and therefor insignificant weight loss but not fuel. Questions like "How much dead weight is lost through the ozone holes?" and "Does the weight of the Earth's atmosphere count toward our gravitational weight?" have been the fodder of many an all night pot induced discussion. The rate of change in consumption has significantly changed and with it, the assumptions and equations. All current and former pot smokers have rejoined the debate.
Is it a legitimate debate? Am I going to drive 600 miles today, anyway? Am I going to Seattle or to fry on my way to a collision with the sun?
Global warming in it's popular context is an obfuscation. We do have a problem with burning fossil fuels and we do have a p o t e n t i a l problem with the earth's relationship to the sun but it has nothing to do with cyclical climates. The problem is the diminishing mass of the planet due to the growing and alarming rate of consumption of coal and oil. Simply stated, the planet is losing so much weight it is entirely conceivable that, some day, the weight loss will interfere with the planet's relationship to the sun. One of these days, you'll be topping off your tanks at the local Flying Pilot and ZOOM! Now you've done it. The planet goes hurtling toward the sun at the speed of light and you won't be on time to deliver.
If Al or Barry were to come on TV tomorrow and lay out the details, there's a pretty good likelihood a lot of folks would buy it and some serious panic would ensue, the economy would fail and the energy companies would be very teed off. What would be the fun in that? And what good is a panic if you can't make money off it? So, the brights and elites have come up with a way to make money -cap and trade- off the fear that burning fossil fuels is the moral equivalent of cooking your grand kids without causing mass hysteria.
The diminishing mass theory has been around for a long time with a lot of debate swirling around the question of how much dead weight is actually lost to burning. Most of the stuff we consume has a waste by-product and therefor insignificant weight loss but not fuel. Questions like "How much dead weight is lost through the ozone holes?" and "Does the weight of the Earth's atmosphere count toward our gravitational weight?" have been the fodder of many an all night pot induced discussion. The rate of change in consumption has significantly changed and with it, the assumptions and equations. All current and former pot smokers have rejoined the debate.
Is it a legitimate debate? Am I going to drive 600 miles today, anyway? Am I going to Seattle or to fry on my way to a collision with the sun?
#57
Must be some good stuff you're smokin' there, Swanny.... if you really think the Earth's "mass" or weight is diminished by the burning of fossil fuels. Any weight loss caused by burning of coal (or oil) is MORE than offset by the increased weight of the planet due to overpopulation. Think about it. Two people weighing an average of 140 pounds, give birth to 5 kids who eventually weigh the same. That's an extra 700 lbs for every existing 280 lbs. Close enough to call it a "tripling" of the world weight for every two "breeders."
I'm surprised the Earth hasn't fallen out of orbit already and spiralled into the SUN! :lol2:
Besides..... no offense..... but, your theory was wrong from the beginning. Any LOSS OF WEIGHT OR MASS by the Earth (as you suggested) would result in a LOSS of gravitational pull from the Sun.... and the end result would be the Earth "drifting" off into space.... AWAY from the gravitational pull of the Sun.... not spiralling into it in a fiery death.
However, having just re-read some of your finer points and questions..... again, any mass or weight escaping through the hole in the ozone layer would be more than offset by the weight of the increasing population.
The gravitational pull on the Earth by the Sun is only minimally affected by the weight of particulates in our atmosphere. It is not the WEIGHT of our planet (or any other) that affects gravitational pull.... but, the MASS! The atmosphere, no matter how dirty, has very little weight..... but, almost NO MASS!
Furthermore, consider this with your next "draw" on that doobie: Nearly ALL of the carbon based oil and coal that we have been burning for about a century and 1/2 now... came from the death and decay of carbon based creatures (dinosaurs) from ..... I forget, was it Millions or Billions of years ago? Anyway.... point is.... as WE are "carbon based" as well, we have surely replaced most of that with the FAT-ASSED people we have buried in the last few centuries. I mean, really..... HOW many dinosaurs could there have been?
IF you or any of your pot-smoking buddies would like more information on how global warming actually DOES affect the planet..... just let me know. The "Conservatives" here have it all wrong (as they've been taught by other stupid Conservatives who never passed science classes.) And they NEVER pass up a chance to blame the Obama administration for a policy based on something they DON'T UNDERSTAND! :hellno:
[Note to Twilight: I'm just having some FUN here. Something we used to do BEFORE you came back! Measure your "engagement" with some intelligence and maturity.... or realize that we weren't TALKING to YOU!]
I'm surprised the Earth hasn't fallen out of orbit already and spiralled into the SUN! :lol2:
Besides..... no offense..... but, your theory was wrong from the beginning. Any LOSS OF WEIGHT OR MASS by the Earth (as you suggested) would result in a LOSS of gravitational pull from the Sun.... and the end result would be the Earth "drifting" off into space.... AWAY from the gravitational pull of the Sun.... not spiralling into it in a fiery death.
However, having just re-read some of your finer points and questions..... again, any mass or weight escaping through the hole in the ozone layer would be more than offset by the weight of the increasing population.
The gravitational pull on the Earth by the Sun is only minimally affected by the weight of particulates in our atmosphere. It is not the WEIGHT of our planet (or any other) that affects gravitational pull.... but, the MASS! The atmosphere, no matter how dirty, has very little weight..... but, almost NO MASS!
Furthermore, consider this with your next "draw" on that doobie: Nearly ALL of the carbon based oil and coal that we have been burning for about a century and 1/2 now... came from the death and decay of carbon based creatures (dinosaurs) from ..... I forget, was it Millions or Billions of years ago? Anyway.... point is.... as WE are "carbon based" as well, we have surely replaced most of that with the FAT-ASSED people we have buried in the last few centuries. I mean, really..... HOW many dinosaurs could there have been?

IF you or any of your pot-smoking buddies would like more information on how global warming actually DOES affect the planet..... just let me know. The "Conservatives" here have it all wrong (as they've been taught by other stupid Conservatives who never passed science classes.) And they NEVER pass up a chance to blame the Obama administration for a policy based on something they DON'T UNDERSTAND! :hellno:
[Note to Twilight: I'm just having some FUN here. Something we used to do BEFORE you came back! Measure your "engagement" with some intelligence and maturity.... or realize that we weren't TALKING to YOU!]
#59
Quote:
[Note to Twilight: I'm just having some FUN here. Something we used to do BEFORE you came back! Measure your "engagement" with some intelligence and maturity.... or realize that we weren't TALKING to YOU!]
It isn't difficult to understand global warming. Let's see....we have record snowfalls, record low temperatures throughout the world. Yep, that sounds like the planet is getting warmer to me. :rofl:Originally Posted by golfhobo
IF you or any of your pot-smoking buddies would like more information on how global warming actually DOES affect the planet..... just let me know. The "Conservatives" here have it all wrong (as they've been taught by other stupid Conservatives who never passed science classes.) And they NEVER pass up a chance to blame the Obama administration for a policy based on something they DON'T UNDERSTAND! :hellno:[Note to Twilight: I'm just having some FUN here. Something we used to do BEFORE you came back! Measure your "engagement" with some intelligence and maturity.... or realize that we weren't TALKING to YOU!]
This global warming myth has never been about saving the planet. It is about power and control. It is a way for the government to gain control over our resources and ultimately our lives. It is a way to siphon off billions of dollars from the taxpayers and industry to support a non existent crisis. After all, who would argue against saving the planet?
#60
Quote:
Huh?Originally Posted by golfhobo
Must be some good stuff you're smokin' there, Swanny.... if you really think the Earth's "mass" or weight is diminished by the burning of fossil fuels. Any weight loss caused by burning of coal (or oil) is MORE than offset by the increased weight of the planet due to overpopulation. Think about it. Two people weighing an average of 140 pounds, give birth to 5 kids who eventually weigh the same. That's an extra 700 lbs for every existing 280 lbs. Close enough to call it a "tripling" of the world weight for every two "breeders."
Babies walk out of the womb at roughly 78% water weight. The water is typically from a source convenient to the parents. It's already here. Fresh turd squirters aren't adding any new weight. Conversely, if you take a gallon of diesel fuel and run it through my truck, a significant portion of it's weight is exhausted into the atmosphere and a portion of that exhaust is eventually lost through our atmospheric blow holes. I don't have the current figures because I haven't smoked pot since I've had my CDL.
The argument is that, for the longest time, the consumption of fossil fuels was somewhat insignificant compared to the estimated weight of the planet. Keep in mind that weight estimates can vary widely and still stand as good scientific estimates. Regardless, the modern trend of fossil fuel consumption far outpaces any conceivable means that the planet may have to regenerate it's lost weight . . it's gone and lost forever.
The natural tendency of the objects in our solar system (and all the universe, by the way) is to expand and move out. The combination of the weight of the planets and the gravitational pull of the sun keep everything in our solar system pretty much in place. An increase in weight would make it more likely Mother Earth would move away. A decrease would mean the opposite, as in move us closer to the sun and . . raising the temperature of the planet . . and GLOBAL WARMING! The fear is that a lower planet weight and a perfectly normal, cyclical swing toward the sun could result in anything from cataclysmic climate change to a quick trip to the eternal tanning salon. The more weight we lose, ie the more fossil fuels we consume, the greater the likelihood of exponentially dire consequences.
Now, if Al Gore were to hop out of his limo at the corner of Hollywood and Vine with a bullhorn and start preaching this gospel, he'd create a lot of fear and panic but he wouldn't make any money. I'm simply saying he has found a way to preach his gospel and make money. Nobody "knows" the weight of the planet, the significance of the weight of the atmosphere, the rate of loss through the blow holes, or what constitutes a "normal" cyclical, elliptical movement toward the sun. Al doesn't "know" any more than you, me or Steven Hawking. But Al knows fear and fear sells.
I ain't no fizzicest so you'll have to take my word for it or do your own research.

