The Gospel of Nutrider: Oil and the Lord

[Nutrider99]

Man lifted his eyes to the Lord and said, "Lord, our men of science have told us that our emissions are greenhouse gasses and the planet will surely freeze."

And the Lord opened the eyes of man and behold, man saw that the planet would not freeze.

Man again lifted his eyes to the Lord and said, "Lord, our men of science have told us that our emissions are greenhouse gasses and the climate will surely cause global warming. The ice caps will melt and the seas will rise, causing the end of man."

And the Lord sayeth, "Are these not the men that think they crawleth from the loins of chimps? Do they not know that when floating ice melts the level of water decreases, because ice displaces more than water doeth? Be ye not worried, for I shall destroy the earth in MY time, not thee by thy actions."

Man lifted his eyes to the Lord and said, "Lord, our men of science have told us that we should not drill oil, lest we spill some of it and contaminate the earth."

The Lord laughed with such ferocity had His hand not been upon the universe, it would have surely moved. "Surely thy men of science knows that oil cometh FROM the earth! How can that which cometh from the earth endanger the earth from which it cometh?"

Man lifted his eyes to the Lord and said, "Lord, our politicians have told us that we must rely on our enemies for our oil, the same enemies that persecute and murder your faithful."

And the Lord opened the eyes of man and lo, oil continued to flow into wells thought dried, oil seeped up from the surface into the sands in Canada and into the Gulf of Mexico, so that not drilling the oil resulted in the contamination man feared would happen if he drilled. But still the heart of man was stubborn. Wells he did not drill, neither did he build refineries. While oil soiled the lands, he would not remove it from the ground, nor bring it to market.

And man presented the Lord with economy cars and said, "Lord, see how we conserve our oil."

The Lord brushed away the economy car. "Thou shouldst never place thy family in such a thing, lest ye striketh a deer, and ye would surely die." And the Lord pointeth to a Ford Excursion. A pleased countenance was on his face. "This is pleasing to the Lord."

But man was vexed. "But Lord, such a vehicle would consume the oil that floodeth the earth, and would put out emissions which doeth no harm. It would keep our families safe and let us explore areas where there are no roads. Surely, this would be displeasing to the liberals, which do afflict us with their presence."

And the Lord looketh upon the liberal, and then upon the Islamist. And He weighed them both in His hand, and found not a whit of difference between them. The Islamist controlled the removal of oil, the liberal controlled the use of oil, and the oil spilled from the earth unused.

And there was a sadness on the face of the Lord. He had given man a brain and man used it not, allowing the Islamist and the liberal, both enemies of man, to dictate man’s existence. And when the Lord had long considered the self imposed plight of man, he decided that man was, indeed, an experiment gone bad. So the Lord tooketh up His fly rod and went fishing.

[Borgia]

Man again lifted his eyes to the Lord and said, "Lord, our men of science have told us that our emissions are greenhouse gasses and the climate will surely cause global warming. The ice caps will melt and the seas will rise, causing the end of man."

And the Lord sayeth, "Are these not the men that think they crawleth from the loins of chimps? Do they not know that when floating ice melts the level of water decreases, because ice displaces more than water doeth? Be ye not worried, for I shall destroy the earth in MY time, not thee by thy actions."

Forsooth, I did not realizeth the Lord was so ignorant. Surely he should knowest that the ice caps in Antarctica are on dry land and thus werest they to melt that would add water to the oceans and thus raise the seas.


The Lord laughed with such ferocity had His hand not been upon the universe, it would have surely moved. "Surely thy men of science knows that oil cometh FROM the earth! How can that which cometh from the earth endanger the earth from which it cometh?"

Doth not the good Lord knowest that to drink oil or water contaminated by oil is hazardous to ones' health? Surely the great designer wouldst know such basic biological information about that whichest he createth.


So the Lord tooketh up His fly rod and went fishing.

He better stick to fishing if he thinks melting of land-based ice would not cause a rise in ocean levels or that other groaner that oil cometh formthe earth therefore it is good for you!

[Nutrider99]

Surely he should knowest that the ice caps in Antarctica are on dry land and thus werest they to melt that would add water to the oceans and thus raise the seas.
Anarctica is a land mass, the north pole is not.

[Nutrider99]

Doth not the good Lord knowest that to drink oil or water contaminated by oil is hazardous to ones' health? Surely the great designer wouldst know such basic biological information about that
My cousin was part of the clean up team from the Exxon Veldez. He said that the images people saw at home could not BEGIN to show the devastation caused by the oil spill. "Experts" said that the ecology would be ruined for 100 years. Guess what? You can't tell now that it had ever happened.

You argument is ignorant and stupid, as is everything that comes from the mouth of liberals. The fact is, as I pointed out, NOT DRILLING oil causes oil contamination, but the environment is more than capable of handling oil contamination. Is there an immediate consequence? Sure. A long term consequence? Not measurably. So sit down, shut up, and let the grown ups talk. You obviously don't know humor when you see it.

[Gonzo67]

Well Nutrider, I for one don't agree with it, but I won't pick it apart because I did find it rather amusing. I'll give ya 3 and a half out of 4 stars for content and comedic effect. ;)

[Borgia]

Anarctica is a land mass, the north pole is not.

And the Lord noted the plentitude of ice on the landmass of Antarctica and said that if that ice melts at current rates the oceans will rise. He also noted that this is exactly what the climatologists were referring to, not the northern ice.

[Borgia]

[/color]My cousin was part of the clean up team from the Exxon Veldez. He said that the images people saw at home could not BEGIN to show the devastation caused by the oil spill. "Experts" said that the ecology would be ruined for 100 years. Guess what? You can't tell now that it had ever happened.

You argument is ignorant and stupid, as is everything that comes from the mouth of liberals. The fact is, as I pointed out, NOT DRILLING oil causes oil contamination, but the environment is more than capable of handling oil contamination. Is there an immediate consequence? Sure. A long term consequence? Not measurably. So sit down, shut up, and let the grown ups talk. You obviously don't know humor when you see it.

Oh, I know humor, and I also can recognize truth. Yours was a tad humorous, I don't discount that, but it relied on some falsehoods too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill


Environmental impact

Both the long and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied comprehensively. Thousands of animals died immediately; the best estimates include 250,000 sea birds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 orcas, and billions of salmon and herring eggs. Despite a thorough cleanup, and little visual evidence apparent even only one year later, the effects of the spill continue to be felt today. In the long term, reductions in population have been seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations. Sea otters and ducks also showed higher death rates in following years, partly because they ingested contaminated creatures. The animals also were exposed to oil when they dug up their prey in dirty soil. Researchers said some shoreline habitats, such as contaminated mussel beds, could take up to 30 years to recover. While it will take years for a solid long term study, some interim effects have already been noted;

Rockweed - The Rockweed is once again growing on boulders where the spill occurred.
Salmon - Pink Salmon Harvests have varied in the years since the spill.

Social impact

In addition to the environmental effects of the spill, the disruption to the lives of the people affected is noteworthy. Native American groups in the area were impacted, and the fishing industry also experienced serious changes as a result. For example, commercial fishing was closed for the remainder of 1989, so many fishermen went elsewhere to work. Unfortunately for the local industry, many seafood markets also turned elsewhere to purchase products, and some never returned. In the years following the spill, a very high percentage of the fishermen and associated companies declared bankruptcy.

[Gonzo67]

Relax killer... it was a HUMOR piece. No need to analyze it... sometimes a Banana is just a banana. I don't imagine you go to a George Carlin show and scientifically explain to George and his audience why his "accumulation of more stuff" is in fact impossible due to economic trends in the junk bond market...

So read a humor piece and enjoy the humor.

[Borgia]

Relax killer... it was a HUMOR piece. No need to analyze it... sometimes a Banana is just a banana. I don't imagine you go to a George Carlin show and scientifically explain to George and his audience why his "accumulation of more stuff" is in fact impossible due to economic trends in the junk bond market...

So read a humor piece and enjoy the humor.

Facts is facts. My nitpicking hardly detracts from the grandeur of his comedy but it does show he played fast and loose with facts in order to make his point. Normally I do not care, but frankly, I don't trust people enough to not nod their head about his version of global warming and agree with his "facts".

By the way, you did notice him trying to defend his "fact" too? That is prima facia evidence that he believes them.

[Gonzo67]

Ok, but what comedy is NOT a twisting of fact and truth? And besides, so what if he believes it. Does his belief in it affect your belief to the contrary? Does the fact that he may or may not believe that it's 100% gospel, endanger your ability to believe the contrary? If he convinces me that his is accurate and your view is not, will that make you sleep less tonight? Is mine, or anyone else's approval of your belief over his really THAT important to you?

Again. A banana is just a banana bro... peel it and move on.

[Nutrider99]

Oh, I know humor, and I also can recognize truth. Yours was a tad humorous, I don't discount that, but it relied on some falsehoods too.

While it will take years for a solid long term study, some interim effects have already been noted;

Rockweed - The Rockweed is once again growing on boulders where the spill occurred.
Salmon - Pink Salmon Harvests have varied in the years since the spill.
Summation: The ecology has already overcome the short term effects of the oil spill, the same way it overcame the effects of the Mt. St. Helens eruption. The original estimate of 100 years has proven itself to be, like everything else the libs beleive about science, a bunch of:
:bsflag:

By the way, since the south pole is far colder than the north, global warming would melt the northern ice caps first. All of which is an exercise in foolishness. Global warming is not caused by greenhouse gasses, but by friction in the tectonic plates, which cause a geothermal rise in water temperatures. Rising water temperatures cause a slightly warming climate. All of which will reverse itself, leaving the ignorant to cry once again about a global freeze.

[Nutrider99]

By the way, Borgia, I think your underwear is too tight.

[Borgia]

Ok, but what comedy is NOT a twisting of fact and truth? And besides, so what if he believes it. Does his belief in it affect your belief to the contrary? Does the fact that he may or may not believe that it's 100% gospel, endanger your ability to believe the contrary? If he convinces me that his is accurate and your view is not, will that make you sleep less tonight? Is mine, or anyone else's approval of your belief over his really THAT important to you?

Again. A banana is just a banana bro... peel it and move on.

Ah, you seem to subscribe to everyone's belief should not be criticized. Why are you criticizing my belief to counter falsehoods?

Should we all take your attitude of just letting falsehoods go? Sorry, I disagree with that philosophy but don't criticize me, it is just my belief. :)

[Borgia]

Summation: The ecology has already overcome the short term effects of the oil spill, the same way it overcame the effects of the Mt. St. Helens eruption. The original estimate of 100 years has proven itself to be, like everything else the libs beleive about science, a bunch of:

I can't speak to a 100 year effect but we did see environmental and social impact.


By the way, since the south pole is far colder than the north, global warming would melt the northern ice caps first.
I take it you have no idea about the different means of heat transfer, do you? Convection, radiation, and conduction. They are distinct and would act differently depending on the environment which is NOT the same at each pole.


All of which is an exercise in foolishness. Global warming is not caused by greenhouse gasses, but by friction in the tectonic plates, which cause a geothermal rise in water temperatures. Rising water temperatures cause a slightly warming climate. All of which will reverse itself, leaving the ignorant to cry once again about a global freeze.

Well, I am no geologist or climatologist so I cannot really comment except the obvious. If global wamring is caused by tectonic plates moving against each other, why do we only see a rise in temperature over the last century? Shouldn't we see it rise throughout all of history since the plates have been shifting all that time? Also, can we see this plate friction=warming theory in a peer reviewed journal or is this just a crackpot theory you got off the Internet?

[Nutrider99]

I can't speak to a 100 year effect but we did see environmental and social impact.
Nobody ever said ANY disaster does not have a short term impact. I said there has been no noticable long term inpact.

I take it you have no idea about the different means of heat transfer, do you? Convection, radiation, and conduction.
Don't set yourself up for exposure and ridicule by presuming what I know or don't know.

They are distinct and would act differently depending on the environment which is NOT the same at each pole.
At issue is what is called GLOBAL warming. It is called global because it is a phenomenon that is noticed around the world, not simply in one region or another. Now then, a GLOBAL warming would effect the entire planet, would it not? Certainly, that would explain the use of the word "global."

Well, I am no geologist or climatologist so I cannot really comment except the obvious. If global wamring is caused by tectonic plates moving against each other, why do we only see a rise in temperature over the last century?
If you do a little research, you will see that minor shifts in the climate are pretty common over the centuries. Frankly, it is pure hubris to believe that we can accurately chronicle what the climate was a few centuries ago. We can get close, but then the minor one degree shift in temperature we can document now is within the margin of error. Global warming is a scare tactic with no other purpose than to get research dollars and to feed the "hate America" crowd.

Shouldn't we see it rise throughout all of history since the plates have been shifting all that time?
We do.

Also, can we see this plate friction=warming theory in a peer reviewed journal or is this just a crackpot theory you got off the Internet?

Human induced global warming is the crackpot theory. You see more and more scientists stepping up and pointing out its fallacies all the time. It isn't science, it's fodder for the lunatic fringe.

[Borgia]

Don't set yourself up for exposure and ridicule by presuming what I know or don't know.

Well, do you acknowledge that there are three distinct means of heat transfer and since the environments at each pole are different that would certainly imply that the heat transfer effects at each pole would be different? You were the one who implied that each pole would have the same melting effect. I merely showed you why that premise is wrong.


At issue is what is called GLOBAL warming. It is called global because it is a phenomenon that is noticed around the world, not simply in one region or another. Now then, a GLOBAL warming would effect the entire planet, would it not? Certainly, that would explain the use of the word "global."

You don't seem very familiar with the theory of global warming since the theory postulates different effects in different areas.


We do [see a continual warming in the world through all of history].

Of course you are wrong. We have had mini-ice ages before where the world as a whole cooled off. That would be contrary to your plate=friction=heat theory.

Again, can you cite me this tectonics=heat theory in a peer reviewed journal? What was your source for this theory? I am truly interested in it.


Human induced global warming is the crackpot theory. You see more and more scientists stepping up and pointing out its fallacies all the time. It isn't science, it's fodder for the lunatic fringe.

A majority of scientists (in the field) subscribe to it. They may be wrong, but until evidence shows that to be the case, it seems a pretty valid theory.

[DesertFox]

Moving this thread to the climate forum.

[Nutrider99]

You were the one who implied that each pole would have the same melting effect.
Don't try to think. It's not your long suit. I never said the effect would be the same, did I? I said that the south pole is dramatically colder than the north pole, and with a global increase in temperature the north pole would thaw first. It doesn't matter, because anyone who beleives it will happen is an idiot.

Of course you are wrong. We have had mini-ice ages before where the world as a whole cooled off. That would be contrary to your plate=friction=heat theory.
Don't try to take my words out of context because you aren't smart enough to comprehend them. We have seen heating through the ages. We have also seen cooling. It's part of the NATURAL cycle of the climate.

Again, can you cite me this tectonics=heat theory in a peer reviewed journal? What was your source for this theory? I am truly interested in it.
Do your own damn research. You might learn something. I doubt it, but you might. Typical lib. Wants everything spoon fed to them.

A majority of scientists (in the field) subscribe to it.
Have you talked to a majority of scientists? No. You're talking out your rectum again, as usual. The issue at question is not a one degree rise in temperature, but the causation of the increase. You're just a typical llib, pretending to know something when in fact you know nothing about anything.

[brilliantLiberal]

The Lord brushed away the economy car. "Thou shouldst never place thy family in such a thing, lest ye striketh a deer, and ye would surely die." And the Lord pointeth to a Ford Excursion. A pleased countenance was on his face. "This is pleasing to the Lord."
:hahaha:
I don't care whether global warming is real or not. This is funny.

[Nutrider99]

Again, can you cite me this tectonics=heat theory in a peer reviewed journal? What was your source for this theory? I am truly interested in it.....A majority of scientists (in the field) subscribe to it. They may be wrong, but until evidence shows that to be the case, it seems a pretty valid theory.
Now that your continued STUPIDITY got this thread moved to the more obscure Global Climate forum, just look around at the wealth of information that proves you don't know what you're talking about.

The surest way to ruin good comedy is to overanalyze it. Damn, what a dickfor!"

[Popperite]

Originally Posted by Nutrider99
Anarctica is a land mass, the north pole is not.


And the Lord noted the plentitude of ice on the landmass of Antarctica and said that if that ice melts at current rates the oceans will rise. He also noted that this is exactly what the climatologists were referring to, not the northern ice.

Do not forgeteth about Greenland.

[Rhino]

http://home.earthlink.net/~simmoh/images/ChickenGlobal.jpg

[sunsettommy]

And the Lord noted the plentitude of ice on the landmass of Antarctica and said that if that ice melts at current rates the oceans will rise. He also noted that this is exactly what the climatologists were referring to, not the northern ice.

Incorrect,incorrect,incorrect!

Antartica has a definite NET growth in Ice mass.This means the slight melting in the western peninsula area(an area that is about 4% of the continental area) is easily counteracted with accumulating snow and ice from the rest of the continent.

Do you have any idea just how cold most of the continent is?

Maybe you revise your position?

It is the northern ice with the vast majority of it already IN the ocean waters(mostly displacing the water already as ice mass).That region on the Russian side of the N. pole has a slow melting/dissipating trend.Most of the rest is actually doing little change.

It is Greenland that has the largest oscillation of its landmassed ice cover.That can make a definite change in the ocean sea level.

That is because it is both a large ice making zone and yet can warm up enough to lose a significant amount.

Greenland ice mass presently is in a small growth stage.

[sunsettommy]

Do not forgeteth about Greenland.

Yeah he chose the wrong place.

Antartica just simply will not melt much ice to make a significant contribution to the sea level rising.

Greenland however can indeed contribute to sea level rising.It is more susceptable to melting due to being exposed to warmer waters and also bigger precipitation swings.

[Nutrider99]

You shall not drive any abominable car, these are the models you may drive: the
coup, the sedan, the light truck, the van, the minivan, the convertible, the
sportscar, the compact, the subcompact. Any car car that has wheels you may
drive, provided it has four wheels and runs on unleaded. But you should not
drive any ofthe following that only have four wheels or only use unleaded: The
vespa, the golf cart, the motorcycle, the go kart or tiny parade car which
indeed has four wheels but is runs on methanol and is therefore unclean for
you..
The Lord doeth truely ride a full dress Goldwing, and it hath lights that twinkle as the stars when He doeth ride!

[Timberwolf]

Man, some people REALLY know how to foul up a good work.

Nut, that was pert' near the funniest thing I've read in some time. Loved the part about the Excursion and the pleased countenance....LOL

[Nutrider99]

Man, some people REALLY know how to foul up a good work.

Nut, that was pert' near the funniest thing I've read in some time. Loved the part about the Excursion and the pleased countenance....LOL
Thanks, TW. Libs just don't have a clue.

[aaron11]

All good humor is based in truth, well done Nut!

[BuckeyeMike]

This Borgy dude could f**k up a shit sandwich in a free lunch!

[brilliantLiberal]

This Borgy dude could f**k up a shit sandwich in a free lunch!
So true. The OP is Hall of Fame material.

[Nutrider99]

I was just reading this again and it even made me laugh. Sometimes I wonder how I come up with some of this stuff.

[Rhino]

You're a nut. :evilgrin:

[CountryGent]

I was just reading this again and it even made me laugh. Sometimes I wonder how I come up with some of this stuff.

Liberals can drive anyone crazy............:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

[Nutrider99]

You're a nut. :evilgrin:
I guess that's as good an explanation as any.

[Rhino]

Join the crowd. LOL!