Sandwiches cause global warming now

[Scrumhalf]

yea and you aren't guilty of this at all... LMFAO. do you listen to yourself? holy fuck.

Point it out to me, where I did that and I will gladly accept my error. I have criticized Obama's drone strikes from day 1.

[Bouncer]

"these people are studying ingredients in sandwiches while world leaders and their staff are using thousands of private jets at the Davos Summit which is partly about climate change. lol."

What is that supposed to mean? I interpret it as "These stupid univesity researchers, in their ivory towers, worrying about the carbon footprint of their mayo. Out of touch!"

If you meant something that more charitable than that kind of put-down, then my apologies. You are an honorable person.

this is what i'm talking about. your interpretation is completely out of touch and completely wrong. you are unbelievably defensive about everything.

i called no one stupid. i said nothing about ivory towers in respect to the researchers. i was talking about the politicians and world leaders, not the scientists.

[Scrumhalf]

I don't understand why one cannot say, "you know, the researchers may have a point. the next time I make a sandwich or buy pre-packaged food, I should think about it a little and maybe try to substitute it for something better."

That's the response that the researchers were going after.

Instead, on this thread, we have suggestions of scientists imposing sandwich rationing, and pointing out Davos hypocrisy.

But I'm the leftist nut.

[Bouncer]

Point it out to me, where I did that and I will gladly accept my error. I have criticized Obama's drone strikes from day 1.

i'm not going to go through years of posts to point out examples but every single person on this forum has seen you do this not once but countless times. for you to actually believe you don't do this is insane to me. you need a long hard look in the mirror my brother.

the other day you were calling me a racist for fuck sake. not that this really proves anything against that and I realize it's a bit of a stupid point but i feel like i need to relax this thread a bit with a bit of tongue in cheek reality.

you know i have a history with women.. i been with pretty much every flavor including Indian. she was hot and she was smart. very cool person. wtf kind of racist fucks around with all flavors you asshole! lol.

[Bouncer]

I don't understand why one cannot say, "you know, the researchers may have a point. the next time I make a sandwich or buy pre-packaged food, I should think about it a little and maybe try to substitute it for something better."

That's the response that the researchers were going after.

Instead, on this thread, we have suggestions of scientists imposing sandwich rationing, and pointing out Davos hypocrisy.

But I'm the leftist nut.

hey jackass. look at post number 4 in this thread and who liked it about an hour ago.

Jesus Christ. i'm on your side about the article you dildo.

but you couldn't fucken deal with the fact that i agreed with rip also on a basic point.

yes sandwich ingredients could be an issue. but i'm also allowed to point out an irony without you accusing me of not reading or not understanding the article. fuck sake.

[Scrumhalf]

I dont trust these climate scientist.. Theyve been caught falsifying documents twice.... Obviously pushing an agenda.. No debate on that

Yeah, the agenda is to try and protect us against our own stupidity.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Scrumhalf]

Is science determined by false data?

The data on anthropogenic climate change is as rock solid as there is.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[lipripper]

kind of agree with rips last post to a point. these people are studying ingredients in sandwiches while world leaders and their staff are using thousands of private jets at the Davos Summit which is partly about climate change. lol.

imagine if all of us used private jets to go everywhere? imagine that carbon footprint.

in other words. "you normal people should stop eating sandwiches while we laugh at you from the friendly skies in our private jets spewing shit into the air"..

EXACTLY they will all fly into the next big climate change meeting in there jets..but we wont be able to buy sandwich meat anymore...LMAO

[Bouncer]

EXACTLY they will all fly into the next big climate change meeting in there jets..but we wont be able to buy sandwich meat anymore...LMAO

yup. in the same way that they all have heavily armed security but normal people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves. (brought that up just to make scrum and beast head explode). :rofl:

[Scrumhalf]

The study isn't proposing banning sandwich meat. It is merely suggesting that even things as mundane as a choice of food can have significant consequences for carbon footprint and that one should consider more environmentally friendly choices. It's just a question of getting educated about the choices we make.

[Scrumhalf]

Then why publish false statistics twice.... I think i posted ny times and forbes busting them on one of the Trump threads

The Forbes article has been debunked.

By the way, the notion that climate scientists have some financial motive for their position is laughable. They get paid peanuts (academic salaries are meager).

The money is with the fossil fuel companies. If I was a climate researcher and want to make money, I'll be supporting the oil companies 100%. Telling the truth about ACC is going against my financial interest.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Turbo3000]

The Forbes article has been debunked.

By the way, the notion that climate scientists have some financial motive for their position is laughable. They get paid peanuts (academic salaries are meager).

The money is with the fossil fuel companies. If I was a climate researcher and want to make money, I'll be supporting the oil companies 100%. Telling the truth about ACC is going against my financial interest.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Let’s clarify a bit. The academic salaries may be meager, but most scientists are hunting for grant money.

Play the game the government wants you to play (Fat is bad, sugar is good, for example) and you get more grants, more peer respect, more journals printed and all of that leads to eventually higher paying jobs in most cases.

[Turbo3000]

Or the Chinese gov who pushes global warming. But wouldnt follow the paris agreement until 2030. After their industries took over... Thank god for Trump

Oh god damn. The last part.

Thank god? Isn’t it God (figured such a Christian would note the difference)?

Thank God for this idiot, womanizing, lying, egotistical, Twitter fuck president!

[Scrumhalf]

That's where the IPCC results are so important. When you achieve consensus across multiple researchers in multiple countries with multiple research funding models, it weeds out any putative funding hankypanky.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Scrumhalf]

Or the Chinese gov who pushes global warming. But wouldnt follow the paris agreement until 2030. After their industries took over... Thank god for Trump

This is totally upfront. Developing countries need to have a chance to develop their industries in the same way the West has been able to do since the Industrial Revolution.

Do you think it is fair for the Western economies to say, well, we've burned fossil fuels for the last 150 plus years and have grown our economies, so now, we'll move the goalposts for the rest of you. That's the reason why developing countries get extra time.

It's not some nefarious plot by China or India or whoever.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk