Trash on Global Warming, by Sara Palin ?

Trash on Global Warming, by Sara Palin ?
---------------------------------------------------------
Is Sara Palin a scientist, or a philosopher ?

In the differentiated trash, is necessary to distinguish, in any case.

The CO2 gas in mucho more than the past century, only because
the combustions are too much.

Sara want to warm up Alaska ?

Only for this motive want she the Global Warming ?

In Texas the green grasses now are changed in yellow : the crops
have been spoiled by the aridity.

Why want Sara to destroy Texas economy ?

Akiarmy

================================================

COMBUSTION IS O2 (air) + C (oil or wood, or carbon) = CO2
(greenhouse gas)

================================================

Were not enough the school training, SARA ?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[Franc Zabkar]

I was recently cogitating about the contribution of spam to climate
change.

If we assume that there are a billion Internet connected computers,
each processing umpteen terabytes of spam per year, and each expending
an additional gazillion CPU cycles, then it stands to reason that
there must be a significant environmental impact, perhaps several
centimetres of sea level rise per decade, and several degrees of
atmospheric warming.

If we could convince our legislators to view spammers as ecological
vandals, rather than merely undesirable consequences of free
enterprise, then perhaps there would be a concerted effort to
eradicate them.

I wonder if my spam filter would qualify me for carbon credits?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Van Chocstraw]

The mouth with no brain. One of the world's oddities.

 

[Robert Macy]

On Dec 9, 3:50 pm, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

I was recently cogitating about the contribution of spam to climate
change.

If we assume that there are a billion Internet connected computers,
each processing umpteen terabytes of spam per year, and each expending
an additional gazillion CPU cycles, then it stands to reason that
there must be a significant environmental impact, perhaps several
centimetres of sea level rise per decade, and several degrees of
atmospheric warming.

If we could convince our legislators to view spammers as ecological
vandals, rather than merely undesirable consequences of free
enterprise, then perhaps there would be a concerted effort to
eradicate them.

I wonder if my spam filter would qualify me for carbon credits?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

LOL!!! enjoyed immensely.