Is the humble sandwich a climate change culprit?

originally posted by: NerdGoddess

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

Sandwiches = climate change.

Women = Sandwiches.


Ergo; Women = Climate Change.

Its funny that you say that. Someone should do a study and see if we release more CO2 when we have hot flashes or during "That time". Hot flashes like to make you think you're going through your own climate change.

-Alee

When we have the hot flashes, we turn off the house heat. We are our own heaters. That's good for the environment. 👍🏻

Sequestered carbon is a good thing. Sequestered under ground, in trees, the ocean, etc.

Except we dig up all the sequestered carbon in coal and burn it, in oil and burn it, in natural gas and burn it. Then we cut down all the forests that contribute to sequestering all that excess carbon we dug up and burned into the atmosphere.

How stupid is that?

a reply to: intrptr

Airborne fertilizer! Global Greening, we should be rejoicing.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

Sandwiches = climate change.

Women = Sandwiches.


Ergo; Women = Climate Change.

Well, women do like to talk a lot, which means increased CO2 output.

Alas. Damn you, DB.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

and to my surprise, it's YOU who seems to think this is a good use of science money and theory.

Where did I say that?

You are a special person, and I hope you never change. the smiles you provide are life saving.

Simple minds are easily amused.

Tell me, if we stopped the art of sammich making altogether, would that fix anything? Would it make a few polar bears sleep better at night?

Fix anything? Not sure. I doubt it.

But what this does do is show, in a very simple way, how man can have an affect on co2 production that finds it's way to the environment.

Not sure why that is so hard to understand, but that seems to be where we are this day and age.

can you point to where I said man has no affect on co2? I mean, I know what I said, and it's not there, but you seem to be super at manufacturing conversations in your head, so just show me that, and your entire post won't be a steaming pile of polar bear crap.

a reply to: network dude

can you point to where I said man has no affect on co2? I mean, I know what I said, and it's not there, but you seem to be super at manufacturing conversations in your head, so just show me that, and your entire post won't be a steaming pile of polar bear crap.

What conversation did I manufacture? I made no claim as to what you did or did not say in regards to that issue.

Perhaps you need to re-read what I posted.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

can you point to where I said man has no affect on co2? I mean, I know what I said, and it's not there, but you seem to be super at manufacturing conversations in your head, so just show me that, and your entire post won't be a steaming pile of polar bear crap.

What conversation did I manufacture? I made no claim as to what you did or did not say in regards to that issue.

Perhaps you need to re-read what I posted.

Yea, one of us does need to re-read some things.

how man can have an affect on co2 production that finds it's way to the environment. Not sure why that is so hard to understand

But I'm sure you were just talking, not being adversarial at all. Because you just aren't that kind of girl.

a reply to: network dude

Well, let's quote what I said in it's entirety for full disclosure:

But what this does do is show, in a very simple way, how man can have an affect on co2 production that finds it's way to the environment.

Not sure why that is so hard to understand, but that seems to be where we are this day and age.

So where in that statement did I make any claim to what you did or did not say? Please quote exactly where I made such a claim.

But I'm sure you were just talking, not being adversarial at all. Because you just aren't that kind of girl.

Backtracking now, huh? So it's all in your head?...

Could you please relay this important question to the idio....scientists. Were these tests done with the crusts on or the crusts off. This is very important because to get a good crust on a loaf the oven has to be a higher temperature so therefore uses more fuel, whatever fuel was used, electric, gas, wood ( from a sustainable forest) or nuclear.
Thinking about it knock nuclear off that list as it would make the bread radioactive.
Now did they cut the bread by hand or use an electric knife, because......
Oh hell, I Could go on for days what ifs, what buts and that's before I hit on the ingredients.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Could you please relay this important question to the idio....scientists. Were these tests done with the crusts on or the crusts off. This is very important because to get a good crust on a loaf the oven has to be a higher temperature so therefore uses more fuel, whatever fuel was used, electric, gas, wood ( from a sustainable forest) or nuclear.
Thinking about it knock nuclear off that list as it would make the bread radioactive.
Now did they cut the bread by hand or use an electric knife, because......
Oh hell, I Could go on for days what ifs, what buts and that's before I hit on the ingredients.

I have one more important variable that may infact, be vitally important and was overlooked.


.......Texas toast.

-drops mic.

a reply to: introvert

please explain the context of this:

But what this does do is show, in a very simple way, how man can have an affect on co2 production that finds it's way to the environment.

Not sure why that is so hard to understand, but that seems to be where we are this day and age.

why do you feel the need to say this? was it asked? Did I imply somehow that man doesn't affect co2? Or are you just looking for some attention?

originally posted by: crayzeed
Could you please relay this important question to the idio....scientists. Were these tests done with the crusts on or the crusts off. This is very important because to get a good crust on a loaf the oven has to be a higher temperature so therefore uses more fuel, whatever fuel was used, electric, gas, wood ( from a sustainable forest) or nuclear.
Thinking about it knock nuclear off that list as it would make the bread radioactive.
Now did they cut the bread by hand or use an electric knife, because......
Oh hell, I Could go on for days what ifs, what buts and that's before I hit on the ingredients.

I would think that if you have a good crust on your bread, then cutting that good crust off with good ol' elbow grease would cause you to use more effort and thus produce more CO2 through natural means ...

a reply to: network dude

If true, i would like to apologise to future generations for the damage i alone cause from sandwich consumption, which is vast.

Whilst im at it, i will also apologise for future consumption as i have no intention of reducing my intake.

Its selfish but if its a choice between polar ice and ciabatta with a range of fillings then its bye bye Polar bear!

a reply to: ketsuko
No, no and no again. The crusts are the best part. And besides where would you put the unwanted crusts? I suspect you would say landfill, polluting the environment more.
Network dude I'm from the UK please tell me what Texas Toast is.

a reply to: crayzeed

Oh, well you tell generations of children who seem to all go through "that" phase ... that they must eat the crust and save the planet.

a reply to: crayzeed

Oh, and Texas Toast is what happens when you thick slice bread and toast it with butter and usually garlic on it so it gets nice, crispy, tasty crust on both sides.

a reply to: ketsuko
Don't forget crusts make your hair curly. I'm nearly bald so I don't count.

a reply to: crayzeed

Wait ... I thought they put hair on your chest. As I am a woman, why did I ever want that?

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: intrptr

Airborne fertilizer! Global Greening, we should be rejoicing.

Rejoicing in our stupidity?

How big is your carbon footprint.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

At some point even the hardcore cult believers have to raise the bull# flag. This is ignorant.

How is it bull#?

This seems to me to be a very elementary way of showing the simple-minded how something as mundane as a sandwich can be used to highlight how man can have an affect on how much carbon is produced, which in turn goes in to the environment.

Carbon isn't being 'produced'. You are mistaking the element Carbon for the molecule Carbon Dioxide. You must think diamonds are floating out of tailpipes. Who are the simple minded ones?

www.cfact.org...

My apologies. Next time I will be more specific.

And just to be clear, CO2 is a compound made up of more than one molecule.

Whoa, dude.! You're like, WAY smart, bro! And I bet , like, 97% of scientists agree!

The "Climate Change" religious movement would have a hard time "researching" their way out of a rolled-up burrito.

But now all I can think about is all those poor sandwiches that could be lost forever....