Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists

[revkevsdi]

18 hours ago, 02sled said:

You really think that man can have more influence than mother nature  Maybe the Russians can do something with their weather machine  Where was all that global warming when everyone was heating their homes with coal which goes way back globally, So it was the carbon footprint of those Neanderthals that caused the polar ice 1.5 km thick to retreat.

500,000 people on the planet cooking or heating with fire, maybe not. 7 billion on the planet with 2 billion driving cars, Yes.

The oil companies will be pleased that they are getting their money's worth. All that money spent on climate change denial and they still own people on this site. You have to give them credit. People are comparing the Big Oil lie with the Tobacco lie. How many on here still smoke? Do you smoke around your kids and non-smoking spouses and friends? Is that because you are assholes or because you don't believe it causes health problems?

16 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

University does not teach you anything practical.  So you come out with say a four year electrical engineering degree, what are you expected to know?  Do you think your extensive Laplace Transforms or Fourier Series knowledge is going to get you anywhere?  No, it just says you went through the BS, so you should be able to learn.  Your personality from that point on is more valuable.

Sure there are many circumstances where you could take someone straight from high school and teach them far more in 4 years of specific training than someone in 7 years of University will learn. But for higher end work, university makes sense. Are University degree Nurses better than College Nurses? After 2 years, the College Nurse is probably better because she had more hands on during school. After 10 years perhaps the person that learned more than one way to tackle a problem will be better. Obviously this will change dramatically from person to person. But I'll take the average Phd's word on climate change over the average plumber, electrician or framer. I'll especially take the word of a Phd who has a day job and volunteers in the evening to raise awareness against fracking, or pipelines over the CEO of the companies that are trying to get these projects approved.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

7 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

500,000 people on the planet cooking or heating with fire, maybe not. 7 billion on the planet with 2 billion driving cars, Yes.

The oil companies will be pleased that they are getting their money's worth. All that money spent on climate change denial and they still own people on this site. You have to give them credit. People are comparing the Big Oil lie with the Tobacco lie. How many on here still smoke? Do you smoke around your kids and non-smoking spouses and friends? Is that because you are assholes or because you don't believe it causes health problems?

Sure there are many circumstances where you could take someone straight from high school and teach them far more in 4 years of specific training than someone in 7 years of University will learn. But for higher end work, university makes sense. Are University degree Nurses better than College Nurses? After 2 years, the College Nurse is probably better because she had more hands on during school. After 10 years perhaps the person that learned more than one way to tackle a problem will be better. Obviously this will change dramatically from person to person. But I'll take the average Phd's word on climate change over the average plumber, electrician or framer. I'll especially take the word of a Phd who has a day job and volunteers in the evening to raise awareness against fracking, or pipelines over the CEO of the companies that are trying to get these projects approved.

I don't know why, but for some reason your sentence structure skills bother me. Hard to read. Like you can't complete a thought and just wisp on to the next one. 

[bussman]

Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I don't know why, but for some reason your sentence structure skills bother me. Hard to read. Like you can't complete a thought and just wisp on to the next one. 

It reads like he's autistic, seriously. It's why I refrain from taking a flamethrower to his drivel. 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

7 minutes ago, bussman said:

It reads like he's autistic, seriously. It's why I refrain from taking a flamethrower to his drivel. 

The young lad has a touch of the downs. 

[revkevsdi]

3 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I don't know why, but for some reason your sentence structure skills bother me. Hard to read. Like you can't complete a thought and just wisp on to the next one. 

Having trouble concentrating? Too many McDonald's meals? Have you checked your blood sugar?

Nevermind. You probably still believe fast food is healthy, sharing a case of beer with a buddy after work with give you a change with a Budweiser model.  Doesn't all of that go along with Climate denial and smoking around children?

[bussman]

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

Having trouble concentrating? Too many McDonald's meals? Have you checked your blood sugar?

Nevermind. You probably still believe fast food is healthy, sharing a case of beer with a buddy after work with give you a change with a Budweiser model.  Doesn't all of that go along with Climate denial and smoking around children?

Derp 

[washedupmxer]

Can I just please get someone to explain why nature caused climate change before but it's impossible today. Anyone?

[revkevsdi]

2 minutes ago, bussman said:

Derp 

Shit! Did you just have a stroke?

 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

9 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Having trouble concentrating? Too many McDonald's meals? Have you checked your blood sugar?

Nevermind. You probably still believe fast food is healthy, sharing a case of beer with a buddy after work with give you a change with a Budweiser model.  Doesn't all of that go along with Climate denial and smoking around children?

Huh? What does that have to do with you sounding like you have The Downs? 

Seriously, remedial English, take it. 

[washedupmxer]

Rev has the downs and moto has the downer's

[revkevsdi]

2 minutes ago, washedupmxer said:

Can I just please get someone to explain why nature caused climate change before but it's impossible today. Anyone?

Yes. Google it.  You will be amazed.

1 minute ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Huh? What does that have to do with you sounding like you have The Downs? 

Seriously, remedial English, take it. 

I think it has more with you wanting to attack sentence structure instead of content. It probably has a fair bit with you being an asshole.

But the obtuse arguments from people on here raised a question for me.

How many people on here in their mid forties and up smoked in the car when the kids were young, how many wives smoked while pregnant. Did you smoke in the house? Would you think it was ok for your daughter to smoke while pregnant? Would you be ok for your son in law to take long car trips with babies in the car smoking?

The same denial came from big tobacco as big oil. The same type of people didn't want smoking bans. 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

8 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Yes. Google it.  You will be amazed.

I think it has more with you wanting to attack sentence structure instead of content. It probably has a fair bit with you being an asshole.

But the obtuse arguments from people on here raised a question for me.

How many people on here in their mid forties and up smoked in the car when the kids were young, how many wives smoked while pregnant. Did you smoke in the house? Would you think it was ok for your daughter to smoke while pregnant? Would you be ok for your son in law to take long car trips with babies in the car smoking?

The same denial came from big tobacco as big oil. The same type of people didn't want smoking bans. 

There is no debate to the damage or the extent of damage caused by tobacco. Lol what a specious argument... 

Edited December 3, 2016 by xtralettucetomatoe580

[bussman]

Wow, what a complete dipshit.  

[Edmo]

I'm trying to figure out WTF smoking has to do with global warming.  

[bussman]

Just now, Edmo said:

I'm trying to figure out WTF smoking has to do with global warming.  

The lit bud......billions of them.....duh.  

[washedupmxer]

7 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Yes. Google it.  You will be amazed.

I think it has more with you wanting to attack sentence structure instead of content. It probably has a fair bit with you being an asshole.

But the obtuse arguments from people on here raised a question for me.

How many people on here in their mid forties and up smoked in the car when the kids were young, how many wives smoked while pregnant. Did you smoke in the house? Would you think it was ok for your daughter to smoke while pregnant? Would you be ok for your son in law to take long car trips with babies in the car smoking?

The same denial came from big tobacco as big oil. The same type of people didn't want smoking bans. 

Id prefer to have you explain

[washedupmxer]

20 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Yes. Google it.  You will be amazed.

 

since youre void of original thought and cant explain I did as you asked... This is what showed up. What a dipshit  

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

Edited December 3, 2016 by washedupmxer

[02sled]

48 minutes ago, Edmo said:

I'm trying to figure out WTF smoking has to do with global warming.  

All the smoke from cigars and cigarettes are eroding the ozone layer don't you know. It used to be that they called it global warming and pointed to claims that we were causing holes in the ozone layer and showing lots of predictive models for the future. That was the cause of global warming. Then they claimed the ozone layer was repairing itself even though we were still producing all kinds of air pollution. Now it's not global warming it's climate change. Nobody offered an explanation on how the ozone layer was repairing itself. Now you don't here about it anymore.

There are also lots of people with PHD's that say this climate change that is caused by us and fixable by us is a bunch of bunk and those that are proponents of climate change are simply promoting the need for ongoing research that keeps them employed.

[02sled]

42 minutes ago, washedupmxer said:

since youre void of original thought and cant explain I did as you asked... This is what showed up. What a dipshit  

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

good article....

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

I'll bet the document and research was done by a bunch of PHD's...

[washedupmxer]

I guess I'll never get an answer. Is asked pages ago and the only response was google it

[Snoslinger]

1 hour ago, washedupmxer said:

Can I just please get someone to explain why nature caused climate change before but it's impossible today. Anyone?

i already did. you have no idea what part of nature caused the warming a long time ago, for obvious reasons. today though, we have the warming in a very short amount of time, that just happens to align with the timing of industrial boom and heavy use of fossil fuels. we also have the tools to determine if it's nature or not. finally, the vast majority of scientists, and some of the fossil fuel industry itself, knows the cause, and it's not nature.

as far as the smoking analogy, i'm not surprised some of you cannot correlate what rev is saying. when the science world started "turning" on the industry, i fucking guarantee most of you would have been in here denying it. "tobacco does no harm" "tobacco causing cancer? but now that it's so obvious, much like GW is becoming, you may wake the fuck up. then you'll pull the same shit then you are now, "of course man made global warming is real"  

 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

7 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

i already did. you have no idea what part of nature caused the warming a long time ago, for obvious reasons. today though, we have the warming in a very short amount of time, that just happens to align with the timing of industrial boom and heavy use of fossil fuels. we also have the tools to determine if it's nature or not. finally, the vast majority of scientists, and some of the fossil fuel industry itself, knows the cause, and it's not nature.

as far as the smoking analogy, i'm not surprised some of you cannot correlate what rev is saying. when the science world started "turning" on the industry, i fucking guarantee most of you would have been in here denying it. "tobacco does no harm" "tobacco causing cancer? but now that it's so obvious, much like GW is becoming, you may wake the fuck up. then you'll pull the same shit then you are now, "of course man made global warming is real"  

 

I didn't read your post... BUT

Fuck you and your avy and fuck the PENN STATE RAPISTS.  

[ArcticCrusher]

4 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Sure there are many circumstances where you could take someone straight from high school and teach them far more in 4 years of specific training than someone in 7 years of University will learn. But for higher end work, university makes sense. Are University degree Nurses better than College Nurses? After 2 years, the College Nurse is probably better because she had more hands on during school. After 10 years perhaps the person that learned more than one way to tackle a problem will be better. Obviously this will change dramatically from person to person. But I'll take the average Phd's word on climate change over the average plumber, electrician or framer. I'll especially take the word of a Phd who has a day job and volunteers in the evening to raise awareness against fracking, or pipelines over the CEO of the companies that are trying to get these projects approved.

For many programs at University, they create a filter.  Now if the smartest kids are going into a higher end program, thus leaving the others behind, chances are they will achieve greater academic success. That does not necessarily translate to financial success as many professional careers pay well but not great.

So if two kids finish their undergrad in say engineering, one goes off to work in the field, the other decides to get his masters and then PHD.  You will automatically assume the one with the PHD would be considered smarter.  Well I know a few of my graduating class who did just that and they are not smarter than the average, and nobody considers them to be.  Also, nobody fails a masters or PHD.

What education level do you have cause this should really be basic common sense and knowledge? 

[revkevsdi]

1 hour ago, Snoslinger said:

i already did. you have no idea what part of nature caused the warming a long time ago, for obvious reasons. today though, we have the warming in a very short amount of time, that just happens to align with the timing of industrial boom and heavy use of fossil fuels. we also have the tools to determine if it's nature or not. finally, the vast majority of scientists, and some of the fossil fuel industry itself, knows the cause, and it's not nature.

as far as the smoking analogy, i'm not surprised some of you cannot correlate what rev is saying. when the science world started "turning" on the industry, i fucking guarantee most of you would have been in here denying it. "tobacco does no harm" "tobacco causing cancer? but now that it's so obvious, much like GW is becoming, you may wake the fuck up. then you'll pull the same shit then you are now, "of course man made global warming is real"  

 

Do you think they really didn't understand the analogy? It was so obvious. How fucking stupid are they?

I'll ask them again and see if they follow.

Attn: Man made climate change deniers:

How many of you smoked around your children? How many thought it was ok for your wife to smoke when she was Pregnant? 

The guys selling you the Cigarettes told you it was fine. Did you believe them?

Do you still believe them now?

Here's another one for you.

If someone you knew bought a car from a used car lot with an obvious death rattle. Then they told you that the salesman told them it was suppose to sound like that. 

Wouldn't you think they were gullible at a minimum? If you then got a mechanic friend to tell them the car was fucked and they insisted that a mechanic is too educated to know anything. After all they spend all kinds of time behind the wheel. The mechanic spent a lot of time reading about cars. Wouldn't you be a little bit disdainful?

[revkevsdi]

17 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

For many programs at University, they create a filter.  Now if the smartest kids are going into a higher end program, thus leaving the others behind, chances are they will achieve greater academic success. That does not necessarily translate to financial success as many professional careers pay well but not great.

So if two kids finish their undergrad in say engineering, one goes off to work in the field, the other decides to get his masters and then PHD.  You will automatically assume the one with the PHD would be considered smarter.  Well I know a few of my graduating class who did just that and they are not smarter than the average, and nobody considers them to be.  Also, nobody fails a masters or PHD.

What education level do you have cause this should really be basic common sense and knowledge? 

Are you attempting to argue that the average person on this board knows as much about climate science as a Phd who works for NASA? 

Do you think that the CEO of a pipeline or oil company should be trusted as much as the NASA scientists?

Nobody fails a masters or Phd? Interesting way to put it. Isn't that like saying no one that makes it to the finish line fails to cross. If you have passed all of the classes, defended your thesis, made revisions etc. sure it would rare to fail.

But along the way many people drop out. From dropping out the first month of University to failing to complete a thesis people fail.