U.N. climate panel says global warming man-made - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Lazonby · 02-02-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

socialist ... He is a fucking capitalist, just like me ...

Liar ? Manipulator ? please show proof or STFU ....

BTW, I see you complete Photoshop for Idiots 101.

Congrats

Go suck your manboobs asshole.

Webby · 02-02-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

socialist ... He is a fucking capitalist, just like me ...

Liar ? Manipulator ? please show proof or STFU ....

BTW, I see you complete Photoshop for Idiots 101.

Congrats

Socialist? Capitalist? Communist? Well... whatever we are, it's more than Lazonby ever will be - he's just totally useless with nothing to offer but delusions of having two cents to rub together

spanky part 2 · 02-02-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

SHHHH!! Scientists are never ever ever wrong.

You're right, there is no global warming. All those anomalies that are going on world wide, are nothing to worry about. You are a complete idiot.

stickyfingerz · 02-02-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

You're right, there is no global warming. All those anomalies that are going on world wide, are nothing to worry about. You are a complete idiot.

Bet alot of people who didnt believe there was an ice age coming in the 70's were idiots too huh? There was lots of "proof" then too.

Splum · 02-02-2007, 07:47 PM

========== CLUEPON REDEEMABLE IMMEDIATELY ==========
These scientists have an agenda... they need more money to study this new dilema. Dont you think that if the scientists REALLY thought this was bad they wouldnt have burnt up millions of gallons of jet fuel, billions of gallons of gasoline, flatulated, smoked and used equipment that increase the size of the ozone hole?
=================================================

spanky part 2 · 02-02-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

========== CLUEPON REDEEMABLE IMMEDIATELY ==========
These scientists have an agenda... they need more money to study this new dilema. Dont you think that if the scientists REALLY thought this was bad they wouldnt have burnt up millions of gallons of jet fuel, billions of gallons of gasoline, flatulated, smoked and used equipment that increase the size of the ozone hole?
=================================================

Once again you prove your brilliance.

Ozone has NOTHING to do with global warming. The ozone problem was fixed years ago. You republicans sure are a stupid lot, aren't you? If you can't make it past 6th grade, you are a lifetime member of the republican party.

spanky part 2 · 02-02-2007, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Bet alot of people who didnt believe there was an ice age coming in the 70's were idiots too huh? There was lots of "proof" then too.

Stick your head in the sand all you want, but we are all in for big trouble. Republicans , democrats, and independants. Even Bush (your hero) now agrees there is global warming.

Even the geico cavemen know there is global warming.

Splum · 02-02-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

Once again you prove your brilliance.

Ozone has NOTHING to do with global warming. The ozone problem was fixed years ago. You republicans sure are a stupid lot, aren't you? If you can't make it past 6th grade, you are a lifetime member of the republican party.

Its called being sarcastic you dumb fuck, years ago they were bitching about the ozone layer and how by 2020 the world would be exposed directly to space radiation. That doesnt look like its going to happen does it? Since when does a scientist use words like "90% chance" of man made global warming lol I thought SCIENCE was exact? They cant prove it, also how the fuck can your lame ass defend it when you CONTRIBUTE to the very problem you claim to fight. Talk about hypocrisy. You tree fuckers crack me up. I think I will let me SUV run all night in honor of your stupidity.

spanky part 2 · 02-02-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

Its called being sarcastic you dumb fuck, years ago they were bitching about the ozone layer and how by 2020 the world would be exposed directly to space radiation. That doesnt look like its going to happen does it? Since when does a scientist use words like "90% chance" of man made global warming lol I thought SCIENCE was exact? They cant prove it, also how the fuck can your lame ass defend it when you CONTRIBUTE to the very problem you claim to fight. Talk about hypocrisy. You tree fuckers crack me up. I think I will let me SUV run all night in honor of your stupidity.

The reason there isn't a problem anymore, is because we did something about it. Remember when they changed air conditioning systems and aerosol deoderants? The scientists weren't wrong,we fixed the problem.

I would love to meet you. I bet you're real winner. Fat as fuck, living in a shitty apartment and driving a 1976 gremlin.

Webby · 02-02-2007, 08:47 PM

There are around five lower forms of human species on GFY with very little clue of any subject known to man.

But... someone with a sense of humor blessed them with a mouth to speak and entertain others - which they do very well, while having not one clue when to shut up to avoid showing their ignorance....

Congrats to all

psili · 02-02-2007, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

I thought SCIENCE was exact?

Someone posted somewhere that science is theory, tests to prove / disprove that theory, rework the theory and rework the tests. It seems fact, or the exactness of science, only remains as fact as long as a certain theory isn't refuted by a better theory and tests, or some shit like that.

*shrug*

stickyfingerz · 02-02-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

The reason there isn't a problem anymore, is because we did something about it. Remember when they changed air conditioning systems and aerosol deoderants? The scientists weren't wrong,we fixed the problem.

I would love to meet you. I bet you're real winner. Fat as fuck, living in a shitty apartment and driving a 1976 gremlin.

Haha yup we fixed the Ozone layer... OR answer B it never ever changed size since it was first found. It shifts and changes with the season just as it always has.

spanky part 2 · 02-02-2007, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Haha yup we fixed the Ozone layer... OR answer B it never ever changed size since it was first found. It shifts and changes with the season just as it always has.

The world is flat, there is a bigfoot, and a lochness moster.

directfiesta · 02-02-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

The world is flat, there is a bigfoot, and a lochness moster.

... and the sun goes around the earth ....

blwurmnd · 02-02-2007, 10:08 PM

scary stuff... but what an interesting discussion :lol

notabook · 02-02-2007, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

... and the sun goes around the earth ....

True.

And the earth is being supported by a giant turtle!

stickyfingerz · 02-02-2007, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

The world is flat, there is a bigfoot, and a lochness moster.

Good chance there is bigfoot. We only found Gorillas what 50 years ago? Hell they just found a shark they thought was extinct. World isnt flat. And do you think any money was made with the ban on cfcs? R12 goes for 8 to 900.00 per 30lb canister now. Used to be 49.00 for a 30lb canister. Now prices of r134a are going up, and they are about to make it non consumer available also.

Webby · 02-02-2007, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanky part 2

The world is flat, there is a bigfoot, and a lochness moster.

You know this, I know this, but others don't seem to grasp it.

But... wait for a load of dribble or cut and pastes to prove something - it rarely fails

psili · 02-02-2007, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

World isnt flat. And do you think any money was made with the ban on cfcs? R12 goes for 8 to 900.00 per 30lb canister now. Used to be 49.00 for a 30lb canister. Now prices of r134a are going up, and they are about to make it non consumer available also.

I'm confused by your statement above. Yea, I'm grabbing from the tree-hugging Wikipedia, but I'm still confused by your statement above.

Quote:

1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane, also called simply tetrafluoroethane, R-134a or HFC-134a, is a refrigerant without an ozone depletion potential and thermodynamic properties similar to R-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane).

Quote:

Dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12), usually sold under the brand name Freon-12, is a chlorofluorocarbon halomethane used as a refrigerant and aerosol spray propellant until its manufacture was discontinued in 1995, due to concerns about damage to the ozone layer. The ozone depletion potential of R-12 is 0.82, which is relatively high.

stickyfingerz · 02-02-2007, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psili

I'm confused by your statement above. Yea, I'm grabbing from the tree-hugging Wikipedia, but I'm still confused by your statement above.

134a had legislation to also do away with it and have it replaced by another chemical. Which of course would leave all the current cars with r134a unable to do a charge on their own without having a license for it. Which in turn increases the cost of 134a just as they did for r12. Why are they doing that? I think the motives are pretty obvious.

spanky part 2 · 02-02-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

134a had legislation to also do away with it and have it replaced by another chemical. Which of course would leave all the current cars with r134a unable to do a charge on their own without having a license for it. Which in turn increases the cost of 134a just as they did for r12. Why are they doing that? I think the motives are pretty obvious.

Ok using your logic, why would the OIL companies and the Bush admin say that global warming isn't happening?

Why do I even try? My 6 yr and 2 yr old kids understand more than these 2.

psili · 02-02-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

134a had legislation to also do away with it and have it replaced by another chemical. Which of course would leave all the current cars with r134a unable to do a charge on their own without having a license for it. Which in turn increases the cost of 134a just as they did for r12. Why are they doing that? I think the motives are pretty obvious.

1. Well, obviously money. I'll say that's hands down to anything else. I'll ever concede this whole debate is over money and not lives.
2. 134a replacement - what was the chemical and was how was it cost comparative to 134a as a "friendly" refrigerant?
3. Yes, from the wikipedia article, it seems R12 is back in the market, albeit at a higher price from your findings. Is that a good thing?

stickyfingerz · 02-02-2007, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psili

1. Well, obviously money. I'll say that's hands down to anything else. I'll ever concede this whole debate is over money and not lives.
2. 134a replacement - what was the chemical and was how was it cost comparative to 134a as a "friendly" refrigerant?
3. Yes, from the wikipedia article, it seems R12 is back in the market, albeit at a higher price from your findings. Is that a good thing?

r12 was never "out of" the market. It was simply made unavailable for public use. You had to have a certification in order to buy it. I had my certification for r12 and for r22 for home refrigerants. This is something I have a pretty good insight to. R12 was not allowed on any of the cars from I believe 95 and up. While 134 was less of a "threat" than r12 it still is damaging according to what they say.

Here is an article

http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/

Quote:

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of HFC-134a, the preferred alternative to CFC-12 for refrigerant in the U.S., is estimated to be 3,200 times that of carbon dioxide (over a time span of 20 years). The global warming impact of the worldwide annual production of at least 200,000 tones of R134a equals roughly the CO2 emissions of an industrialized nation the size of France or the UK. In the longer term, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that HFC emissions, if unregulated, could reach over thirteen times this level or 2,764,000 tones per year in the next century. Consequently, HFC-134a is coming under increased international scrutiny, with pressures beginning to build up for their controls under the Climate Convention.

LiveDose · 02-02-2007, 11:53 PM

Every aspect of the U.N. is a fucking joke. Come on.

Nysus · 02-03-2007, 01:06 AM

There's going to be a war between nations wanting to use fossil fuels loosely and those countries concerned and affected with global-warming; mostly the only way for those countries' economies to grow cheaply is with cheap fossil fuel burning engines... and for other electricity, unless we provide them access to nuclear power (basically free) then they'll pollute for that source as well.

02-02-2007, 08:47 PM	#60
Webby Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Far far away - as possible Posts: 14,956	There are around five lower forms of human species on GFY with very little clue of any subject known to man. But... someone with a sense of humor blessed them with a mouth to speak and entertain others - which they do very well, while having not one clue when to shut up to avoid showing their ignorance.... Congrats to all __________________ XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat. Last edited by Webby; 02-02-2007 at 08:49 PM..

02-02-2007, 11:53 PM	#74
LiveDose Show Yer Tits! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Out there... Posts: 25,792	Every aspect of the U.N. is a fucking joke. Come on. __________________ Scammer Alert: acer19 acer [email protected] [email protected] Money stolen using PayPal

02-03-2007, 01:06 AM	#75
Nysus Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 7,817	There's going to be a war between nations wanting to use fossil fuels loosely and those countries concerned and affected with global-warming; mostly the only way for those countries' economies to grow cheaply is with cheap fossil fuel burning engines... and for other electricity, unless we provide them access to nuclear power (basically free) then they'll pollute for that source as well. __________________ What name is pr0 / Untouched Markets using these days? Untouched Markets - pr0 - Refund My Money Now Someone owes me $2,000 because they didn't do any work that was paid for pointing at pr0 / William / UntouchedMarkets See http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?p=16744521 and for more detailed see http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=948645

02-02-2007, 07:47 PM	#55
Splum Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 6,195	========== CLUEPON REDEEMABLE IMMEDIATELY ========== These scientists have an agenda... they need more money to study this new dilema. Dont you think that if the scientists REALLY thought this was bad they wouldnt have burnt up millions of gallons of jet fuel, billions of gallons of gasoline, flatulated, smoked and used equipment that increase the size of the ozone hole? =================================================

02-02-2007, 10:08 PM	#65
blwurmnd Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 22	scary stuff... but what an interesting discussion :lol