Woman aborts child to save the environment

Page 5 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

bheid
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 437

22 Dec 2007, 5:36 pm

LULZ.
I hereby declare this thread HUMOROUS, by my mighty powers of power.



headphase
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

22 Dec 2007, 6:46 pm

Good for her. I wonder if she tossed the fetus in a compost heap, then she would be doing even more for the environment.



Soopervilin
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 145
Location: Oklahoma

22 Dec 2007, 6:51 pm

Mankind is responsible for only 3.5% of carbon dioxide emissions, everything else is natural. So by having an abortion, she helped to reduce the CO2 emissions worldwide by...
5.17x10^-10 percent, or 0.000000000517%, which is the equivalent of one person's average carbon dioxide emissions.

I can't remember the exact address, but scientists have completely debunked the idea of global warming. The earth naturally manufactures greenhouse gases on a scale so large that the effects of 7 billion humans is a drop in the ocean.

Just google global warming debunked and you're sure to find something.



EvilJeff
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 25
Location: Duluth, MN

23 Dec 2007, 10:48 am

Global Warming? I think that someone has been watching too much Faux News....

"This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong... In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in [the Sunday Telegraph], it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation, and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist... As for James Hansen, he did not tell the US Congress that temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century. He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate — high, medium, and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was 'the most plausible.' As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right. He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000."

That was pulled off Slashdot, and I am wondering if those Carbon Dioxide emissions you speak of would be the person Carbon Dioxide emissions caused by respiration, because driving my huge ass SUV causes tons of emissions, along with the power plants so I can watch TV, and the refineries, manufacturing plants, ect.
Shall we even get into the amount of Carbon Dioxide that is not being reabsorbed by the environment because we cut down all the trees to build a golf course?

Nah, but anyway I am supporting a new bill that will have to be pushed through congress to abort all of the children of NASCAR fans, and anyone who cannot prove lineage from north of the Mason Dixon Line.... Then maybe we can start making some progress.


_________________
Since when has being Evil been a bad thing?