Who knew?
I knew they’d pop a wheelie if you put a penny in the back and wound them up on the carpet a couple of times but I did not know a Prius would do 100mph.
And doesn’t weed emit greenhouse gas?
26 Responses to “Who knew?”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 5th, 2007 at 9:41 am
There is such a rich hypocrisy in that family. Do as I say, not as I do.
What was interesting is how the far left turned it around into being about the Bush family. I wasn’t aware they were in the car with Goracle Junior.
What is next for Goracle Junior, I hear Paris Hilton is available. They would make a lovely couple.
July 5th, 2007 at 10:12 am
I don’t use it myself, Unc, but I think pot is a renewable fuel. The next crop absorbs the greenhouse gases from the previous crop, unless all the stoners in the world suddenly sober up and get real jobs, which seems unlikely.
Algore III is damned lucky he didn’t hit anything in that Prius at 100 mph. Those things only get good gas mileage because they’re made of spit and Kleenex. I wonder what kind of mileage a real vehicle would get with a hybrid system? You know, like a 1 ton dually hybrid pulling a horse trailer.
July 5th, 2007 at 11:45 am
“Who knew?”
Who cared?
July 5th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
[…] Say Uncle: I knew they’d pop a wheelie if you put a penny in the back and wound them up on the carpet a couple of times but I did not know a Prius would do 100mph. […]
July 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Answer: none.
Do a google for “carbon neutrality” and get back to us. Yeah, yeah, it’s a joke…but it’s a joke that only really misinformed people find to be funny.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Isn’t that where, instead of making a difference, you run out and buy pieces of paper (made from trees) that affirm to you what a good person you are? 😉
July 5th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Here is the entire quote.
The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree. Goracle Senior was reportedly stoned through most of his Harvard days. I wonder how much Global Warming comes from a single joint?
Context helps.
I have some empathy for the Gore family and the problems Al Gore III faces. Substance abuse is a serious issue. But when father, mother, and son are so repeatedly hypocritical they do bring some of this negative energy to their doorstep.
Today Al Gore Junior is playing Rock God. Anyone remember not long ago his wife Tipper wanted to censor the words to the songs? Isn’t that just incredibly hypocritcal? These people are supreme elitist. Do as I say, not as I do. You want to follow them?
Sebastian-PGP, we disagree about man-made Global Warming. As I have written many times, if you want that movement to prosper you need a new front man. Al Gore is a supreme hypocrite.
I hope young Gore gets some help. The first step is to lose the hypocrisy.
July 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Unless it’s never transported, and no fertilizer is involved in the production, it’s hard to call pot carbon neutral. Both of those are significant greenhouse gas producers, and a seasonal crop can’t change that without fudgering thermodynamics.
July 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Both of those are significant greenhouse gas producers, and a seasonal crop can’t change that without fudgering thermodynamics.
Oh SNAP. If the man-made Global Warming folks are going to have to give up smoking weed to save the Planet, then the movement is in serious peril.
Earth to Goracle, we have a problem.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
#9, I assume that’s a joke, but it’s still an ill-founded one.
The point of real scientific efforts on the matter isn’t to have every microcosm become neutral or negative — there are just some sorts of things that can’t do that. Food production has to be carbon positive, and there’s just no way to make a heat engine that doesn’t dump heat into the air creating heat islands.
The idea is that one could do things to reduce net carbon production by acknowledging that production and trying to counter it. It’s a fairly stupid and abstract goal — if carbon is a problem dooming us all, you’d think one would want to everything one could to prevent that problem, not merely enough to look good to neighbors — but it’s just a goal. Not all of the attempts are really legitimate, since there’s nothing preventing folk from just lying, and there’s folk like Gore who use carbon neutrality as an excuse for ridiculous lifestyles, but that’s not an inherent fault with the concept, only its arguers.
That doesn’t solve the problems with
carbon creditserindulgenceser “carbon neutrality purchases” even when they actually do put carbon in the ground and don’t result in more absolute carbon being produced than would otherwise, larger accords like Kyoto (because China needs the extra market power!), or even the man-made global warming thing (we’re in the middle of three huge solar maximas, at least, and the weather’s odd? Must be man-made!).It’s just to say that there are better errors in the concept to point out.
July 5th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Not really. It’s a stupid joke (it, and it’s many variants like “gee why don’t you shut up that’ll reduce CO2 outputs”) that hasn’t gotten any funnier in the last 450342 times people have used it.
As I’ve pointed out many times, science isn’t a “movement”.
Rather than split hairs about the carbon neutrality of pot (grow it organically in your backyard, and yes, it is carbon neutral…we can go around like this in circles forever), just try for a moment to understand the difference between burning a plant and burning a fossil fuel that’s coming from under the earth.
July 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
#9, I assume that’s a joke, but it’s still an ill-founded one.
I thought it was because they were High, you know Stoned. You may have missed the punchline. It wasn’t about agriculture. It was about being High.
This idea of carbon neutrality is whack. It is just another Nanny-State micromanagement scam. Do you think I believe the .gov is all knowing? That I look to them for knowledge and enlightenment?
No one on this planet can prove the theory of carbon neutrality. We don’t have the math or the computers. All of this is based on extrapolations. Which are the fourth kind of lies; after lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Think of it this way, if you don’t trust the .gov to be your Doctor, would you trust them to tell you what to eat or what kind of car to drive or what job you should have, or where you should live, or who you should marry, or what color socks to wear?
July 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
As I’ve pointed out many times, science isn’t a “movement”.
It is now.
July 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
No, science is science. There are movements that refer to and use science, but science itself doesn’t rise or fall based on people like Al Gore. It doesn’t need gurus or talk radio.
Of course, your movement sure does, since it certainly doesn’t have much actual science in its camp. Casting aspersions at science doesn’t do much besides cement your buffoon-status.
Can you even define what “the theory” even is? I’ve never heard of it.
July 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
No, science is science. There are movements that refer to and use science, but science itself doesn’t rise or fall based on people like Al Gore. It doesn’t need gurus or talk radio.
That is so ten years ago. Science is now Public Relations and Market Share. Get real.
Of course, your movement sure does, since it certainly doesn’t have much actual science in its camp. Casting aspersions at science doesn’t do much besides cement your buffoon-status.
My movement? I have a movement? I had no idea. Damn, I am all-powerful.
No one on this planet can prove the theory of carbon neutrality
Can you even define what “the theory” even is? I’ve never heard of it.
There is a market for carbon credits. Is that part of “My Movement”. My I define “My Movement”? Let’s call it “Back to Science, forget the PR con job”. The “market” is based on the “theory”. Get it?
From the New York Post
Alright the business schools have now been indoctrinated. The plot thickens. It’s all good. Right?
There is NO scientific basis for the theory of carbon neutrality. Except of course on Madison Avenue. The finest scientist/admen have reams of material for you to “learn”.
I don’t buy what they are selling.
July 5th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Carbon-Neutral is big in Palo Alto – you see those bumperstickers on Tahoes and Sierras that have come back from both places.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
First of all, they are tiny pieces of paper, and second of all they are usually made from hemp, rice, or bamboo fiber.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
AlGore started one of the first Carbon Offset trading Rings – I guess it’s like a secret-decoder ring for the super-cognoscenti-illuminati…
July 5th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Sebastian-PGP Says:
As I’ve pointed out many times, science isn’t a “movement”.
That statement is absolutely correct. If it stands alone. However, in context, it is a falsehood. Man-caused global warming is not science, it is a political movement. Read, I say, read some real scientists.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
All discovered lifeforms on earth with but two exceptions are carbon based. You cannot burn any of them without releasing carbon. Again, I urge you to read.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Interesting – what are two that aren’t carbon based?
July 6th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Uhm…I have. Lots of them. And an overwhelming majority of them agree with me. Disagreeing on this point is a sure fire sigh that you’re a blisteringly stupid idiot. Thanks for playing.
You’re gettting dumber by the minute. I urge you to read what I wrote above–the point isn’t the release of CO2, it’s that the CO2 from fossil fuel COMES FROM UNDER THE EARTH’S SURFACE AND THUS INCREASES THE NET CO2 CONTENT OF THE ATMOSPHERE, YOU FUCKING IMBECILE.
Lighting a joint: no net increase in CO2 content.
Lighting a fossil fuel: a definite net increase in CO2 content.
If you can’t even comprehend something that straightforward, how can you expect us to place any credulity in your proclamations about AGW?
It’s like the guy who can’t figure out how to put air in his tires insisting he can swap a head gasket.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
As much as I hate to defend my evil twin when he’s making personal attacks…. he’s correct. Plant matter locks of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When it’s eaten, it decomposes, or it’s burned, that carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere. There’s no net gain of CO2. Of course, not all plant matter decomposes. Some, especially plankton, and some other types of plant life, ends up falling to the bottom of the ocean, getting buried, or what have you, and turning to coal, natural gas, or oil, depending on conditions. When you dig/pump this stuff up and burn it, you’re adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that was removed eons ago.
Ethanol and biodiesel both release carbon doxide when you burn them, but they are carbon neutral because that carbon was pulled from the atmosphere, and re-released. Biofuels are basically a biological battery for carrying around stored up solar energy. Not that there aren’t a lot of problems with biofuels, especially corn ethanol, but that’s the basic idea from a carbon neutrality standpoint.
July 6th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
One is a small frog that is copper based. I can’t remember much more about, the other is a more recent discovery from the the deep ocean, and I know only that it has been discovered. I do not even not what its base is.
PGP-fuck you. You are such a hysterical screecher you are unbelievable. Where did the carbon come from in fossil fuels? Where did the carbon come from in weed? What? What is that you say? So if it is released back into the atmosphere it is just being returned to its origin?
Oh, did I mention fuck you?
July 6th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Actually, we Americans do attempt to decrease atmospheric carbon, sort of. Most of the paper we use ends up in a landfill, where it sits without decomposing practically forever. Then we grow more pulpwood to produce more paper. That’s why North America has a carbon sink. One of the sticking points on the Kyoto Protocol is that the greenies don’t want to give us credit for our carbon sink.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Again, There is NO scientific basis for the theory of carbon neutrality. Except of course on Madison Avenue.
Two things bug me about this whole deal. First that CO2 is the culprit. It’s not. Second, that man can alter the climate. We can’t. But to say that man alters the climate through increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has NO scientific basis. Today there are four kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and extrapolation. AGW uses all four lies.
However, there is a supposed consensus of people calling themselves scientist that say they believe this is true.
They asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, he replied “that is where the money is”. This supposed consensus is about where the money is.
Is you personally want to walk more and conserve power and gasoline good for you. But not everyone buys into this. And those that don’t shouldn’t be treated like climate criminals. Pretend they are some other group of people, you know like gun owners or gays. Don’t they have a right to their own conclusions? I doubt Sebastian-PGP would tell a gun owner they are “blisteringly stupid idiot”.
A good example of why this is important is the electric car. The EV-1. Had Californians bought these cars in large enough numbers the power grid would have crashed this summer. Like many people I supported the EV-1. I didn’t look at the big picture. And that is the problem. The law of unintended consequences wins every time.
San Francisco has banned bottled water for government employees due to Global Warming. Now the .gov orders you to drink tap water. What next?
It is not a conservative/liberal thing, it is a science thing.