Remember me
▼ Content

Greenman



Page 4 of 6<<<23456>
15-08-2017 03:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote: Yea you got us, they aren't exactly the same


"aren't exactly the same" One might mention you couldn't find your butt with both hands behind you.
15-08-2017 03:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote: Oh, I finally see the problem. One of us got confused by the scaling differences between the two graphs. It's a common ploy used by the Church of AGW Denial High Priests to make it look like there is no change, when there really was one. People don't realize that graphs can be scaled so that changes are flatlined. But this graph shows the satellite data and the land based data on the same scale, both time and temperature.


Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


So it took you half a day to "see the problem" and now you're going to tell us that it's out error for being unable to read the charts.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

Yeah, it's OUR error that we might have though you had sufficient mental powers to understand that fire burns and water washes away cinders.

Well stupid and stupid jr. - Which one of you were claiming to have used spectrometers? I don't see you telling all of us what you used and how you used them. Since I'm so full of crap about the claim that I designed them it should be no problem whatsoever to prove me wrong. After all - you ARE the expert aren't you?
Edited on 15-08-2017 03:19
15-08-2017 03:20
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1714)
GreenMan wrote:
Nothing wrong with riding a bike to work.

True, just don't think you're doing me a favor.
But you really got my attention when you said you provide free burgers for people who want to sleep with you wife.

Seriously? You might want to get a hold of yourself....literally.
Throw in some beer, and I might just come over the next time you decide to experiment with climate control using your barbecue grill.

It was not an experiment. I was simply noticing reality. This is something you should experiment with. By the way...where's all the flooding and storms from hell you predicted? Haven't seen any yet.
So I'm thinking that you are getting your kicks out of poking holes in other people's explanations,

Sure, why not? Tell me you're any different.
and it doesn't matter to you if your reasoning is flawed.

it most certainly does matter. Can't be right if you're wrong.... Well, there a few here that would disagree with that statement.
You are just trying to get them to answer more and more questions until they get frustrated.

If you post up something as fact, you should be able to back it up and field any questions I or anyone else may have.
Too bad. If you had a brain, you would spend your time more wisely.

I do agree that time spent here may be a waste, but it sure does entertain me. I make no bones about it...I am "uneducated" compared to most around here. I do come here to learn and I've come to understand things a lot better since hanging out here.
You are here, so why not begin investing in your future by learning what other people have to teach you?

The biggest thing I've learned since hanging out here is how to quickly identify hooey, or bogus as you like to call it.
You were a perfect example. You started off talking reasonably about ocean temps and their effect, and then you stuck your fat foot in your mouth when you started talking about the weather. You made it clear after 2 sentences that you were clueless. What does it matter, right?
People want to talk about climate change and what's causing it, and that's fine, let's have a good discussion. But the problem is that people like you are so narrow minded that you think climate is only temperature. Climate by definition is the average of all weather. I know ITN thinks there is no such thing as a global climate. I disagree, I think there is a global climate, we just have no way of knowing exactly what those average numbers are. I do however think that scientists are close enough to see trend lines fairly accurately. Which bring me to another point. Why do you keep shouting about averages and then slapping up a graph that is 100 years worth and pointing to it as global warming? That's not an average, that's called a warm day. If you look at the last 12,000 years it's called "thank you for turning the heat back on, I was getting cold!" If you look at the last 400,000 years it's a disappointing heat wave that just can quite climb to expectations....and I got side tracked.
I just don't understand how all these "scientists" are credible without any background in meteorology.
Who knows, you might even start to appreciate those who ride their bikes to work.
Do whatever you want with your life, just don't send me the bill for it.
Oh yeah. Is your wife blonde, or at least have those sexy blonde streaks in her hair?

Proverbs 18:6
A fool's lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating.



gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Attached image:


Edited on 15-08-2017 03:22
15-08-2017 03:30
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1714)
GreenMan wrote:



Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


Possible I'm the idiot here, but could Greenboy please explain the flat spot or even drop in temps during the 30 year period between 1940 and 1970? Did the CO2 take a little sabbatical or somethin?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
15-08-2017 03:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:



Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


Possible I'm the idiot here, but could Greenboy please explain the flat spot or even drop in temps during the 30 year period between 1940 and 1970? Did the CO2 take a little sabbatical or somethin?


Believe it or not that was a giant spike in CO2 and carbon soot in the atmosphere from WW II.

As I tried to explain to these dumbasses once you jog the climate in any manner it takes years - in that case 30 years for it to change state again. So we have the dynamic duo not knowing what Dr. Spencer is talking about when he says there is no temperature change shown on the satellite record. All we're seeing is normal weather patterns.
15-08-2017 04:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.


Do you mean like at almost every single zoo in the world?


Look see that's what I'm talking about. you haven't a clue but using "common sense" you have declared yourself the winner in an argument.

And ITN, you leave a bit of slack for a reason. chop everything down and if the panel needs rewiring how are you supposed to do that?

If you were trained you would know that, instead you just make work for the poor sod that comes after you.

cowboy


Actually, you have the wrong person. I wasn't the one describing how to wire a panel. I am well aware of sloppy technicians wiring panels though. I've had to rewire after them to clean it up.

The only slack you need to leave is that required for getting a decent penetration on the punch slot.

I tend to wire aircraft instead. That's a whole different kind of quality I have to maintain.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-08-2017 04:40
15-08-2017 04:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.


Do you mean like at almost every single zoo in the world?


Precisely! You tell me something is dead from a 1 degree rise in average temp and common sense screams at me that someone is fullashit. I don't even have to Giggle it. I know they don't keep the Polar Bear cages in the zoo at -30F!

A heatwave is a different story. Heatwaves do kill, but a heatwave is far too often associated and even mistaken for global warming. (Hello Groinman)



Quick quiz question; what was the average global temperature difference between now and the last glaciation?

Another quick quiz question; what are average temperatures predicted to be in 100 years time should we continue to do nothing about CO2 emissions?

You can google this information in a few seconds folks.

Or you can be an edgy genius and give your own personal interpretation.


Please consult your chicken entrails for the answer to this question.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 04:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
GreenMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Green Man I

think everyone you are interacting with is a troll with the possible exception of James who is wrong anyway. Into the night and Wake are not scientists Wake at best was a technician that worked with scientists in the dim and distant past. Into the night is crazy, you would think if everyone you spoke to and everything you could read disagred with you on the basic laws of thermodynamics you would question yourself.

Tim the plumber likes getting people to work out math problems when he is to stupid and lazy to do them himself and Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.


Yes I see. But there might be some people coming through here that are really looking for information about AGW. They come in here, and they get these insane retards spewing their troll nonsense. The climate gods don't even want them, because they are blemished. So we can't even sacrifice them. Shaming them into rational thought doesn't work, because they get to hide behind their cyber shield. So maybe the Internet just isn't the place for climate change discussions.


So you figure that the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is troll nonsense, eh science denier?


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 04:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.


Do you mean like at almost every single zoo in the world?


Look see that's what I'm talking about. you haven't a clue but using "common sense" you have declared yourself the winner in an argument.

And ITN, you leave a bit of slack for a reason. chop everything down and if the panel needs rewiring how are you supposed to do that?

If you were trained you would know that, instead you just make work for the poor sod that comes after you.

cowboy


You being you don't understand why penguins are found in the arctic regions and so believe that they can't live in warmer climates. You are really a laugh.

Penguins are found on every southern continent and many of the islands including the Galapagos Islands which is near the equator. But you think that there is some sort of necessity for Antarctic penguins to live near ice - even though they mostly nest on rocky shores.


So confident one could almost think you know what you are talking about.

You should talk to the scientists that are observing Adélie penguins, the scientists who's work I referenced. I'm sure your musings on the subject would be very helpful to their research.

Genius.


No, Wake has this one right. Penguins are found all over the southern hemisphere, from polar climates to tropical ones.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 04:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are either stupid or a liar - which is it? The statistical average of the satellite reports are zero. Got that Mr. Mathematics? Zero. And because it's rising near the end means absolutely nothing since the normal chaotic weather patterns normally run between five and ten years. The NASA chart shows a clear increase of ONE degree that we all know never occurred.

Since any sort of engineer would be able to discern that either you are lying about being some sort of engineer or you're lying about understanding anything at all about AGW. So what is it?


Maybe I'm just stupid, but I'm not stupid enough to try to tell other people that there is no increase in the global average temperature based on this chart.

Anybody can see that there has been an increase. What you are talking about is that Dr Spenser determined that there is no statistical increase from 1998 and 2016. And that is even though there was a slight increase in 2016. That is all eplained here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/
There has however been a measured 0.16C rise in temperature per decade since those satellite readings were available, which is also close to what NOAA's land and sea based data shows. Yes, the land and sea based data does not agree, but it is close enough to be useful in determining warming trends. It's getting hotter, you idiot.


No - you're wrong - you are stupid. As I pointed out - over a 93 year period with a growth in CO2 of 17% there was more warming per year than in 38 years with a 24% increase EVEN if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about.

You don't know anything about physics are love to show that fact off to everyone available.

You are so clueless that you don't even understand that there isn't some sort of magik unlimited energy for CO2 to absorb. That the one band of CO2 absorption spectra that isn't totally blanketed by H2O is completely absorbed at levels of about 200 ppm. Meaning that NO ADDITIONAL CO2 HAS ANY EFFECT.

But by all means tell us about how yous be de jeenus.


Do you see that black line in the graph, that runs horizontally across the graph at location 0? That my illiterate friend is the 1981-2010 average. If the blue and red line goes above that black line, it means it was warmer then than the 1981-2010 average. And if the blue and red lines go below the black line, then it was colder than the 1981-2010 average. I don't want to rush you, so when that has sunk in, take a look at the blue and red lines before 1998 [it's about center of the graph, and is that big hot spot]. Do you see how they are primarily below the black line? Now take a look to the right of 1998. Do you see how they are primarily above the black line? That's because it was warmer then than the average. I don't mean to embarass you in front of all these people, but that means that it is getting warmer.

Your argument is just a talking point, and it has made a fool out of you. The point is that 2016 was not hotter from a statistical view, because it wasn't significantly hotter. It has to be significantly hotter before they will call it a rise. But they are just talking about 2 years, and not the overall trend. But you are running it into the trend, as if it isn't getting hotter, just because 2016 was just slightly warmer than 2018. That has nothing to do with the overall trend.


And yet again you show you haven't the faintest idea of statistical analysis. Weather patterns are chaotic and that means they are completely unpredictable. Just the drought of the dust bowl years was 10 years long across the entire middle America. The weather patterns in that area were deranged for well over 20 years. That means you have to AVERAGE 30 or 40 years at a time to get a baseline average and stupid you doesn't know how to do that.

Averaging the time of that satellite data gives and average of ZERO change from 1979.

But as usual you aren't answering my question - are you claiming that NASA is lying with their chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg ?

Or are you going to tell us all about something else you don't know about?


An average by itself is not statistical analysis. It is just an average.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 04:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:


That does not show warming? what drugs are you on?


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you think that the graph of NASA and that of Dr. Spencer are the same thing.


Mate, that graph is from your link.


This is the one the idiot meant to link to.

And it shows warming too.


I knew that English had to be a second language for you pair.

Which one is right "mate"? From what I can see you don't even know what I'm talking about. Pretty slow I'd say.


Oh, I finally see the problem. One of us got confused by the scaling differences between the two graphs. It's a common ploy used by the Church of AGW Denial High Priests to make it look like there is no change, when there really was one. People don't realize that graphs can be scaled so that changes are flatlined. But this graph shows the satellite data and the land based data on the same scale, both time and temperature.


Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to this accuracy.

Your graph is manufactured data.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 05:09
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1714)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.


Do you mean like at almost every single zoo in the world?


Look see that's what I'm talking about. you haven't a clue but using "common sense" you have declared yourself the winner in an argument.

And ITN, you leave a bit of slack for a reason. chop everything down and if the panel needs rewiring how are you supposed to do that?

If you were trained you would know that, instead you just make work for the poor sod that comes after you.

cowboy


You being you don't understand why penguins are found in the arctic regions and so believe that they can't live in warmer climates. You are really a laugh.

Penguins are found on every southern continent and many of the islands including the Galapagos Islands which is near the equator. But you think that there is some sort of necessity for Antarctic penguins to live near ice - even though they mostly nest on rocky shores.


So confident one could almost think you know what you are talking about.

You should talk to the scientists that are observing Adélie penguins, the scientists who's work I referenced. I'm sure your musings on the subject would be very helpful to their research.

Genius.


No, Wake has this one right. Penguins are found all over the southern hemisphere, from polar climates to tropical ones.


Point is Mr Spot, the article you posted tried to blame the declining population of these creatures on a couple degrees of warming. It's total hooey. But I'm just an uneducated dumbass that can't think for myself.

Migration and Vagrancy:
Adelie Penguins are migratory and after breeding do not return to their colonies until the next spring. Little is know about the non-breeding distribution of this species. There are only a few records of Adelie Penguins during the Antarctic winter. Recent work using satellite telemetry indicates that Adelie Penguins from the Ross Sea leave this area in autumn and migrate about 600 km north of the Antarctic continent. Juveniles are suspected to travel even further north than adults. Vagrant birds have been recorded as far north as South Georgia, Falkland Islands, Kerguelen, Macquarie Island, Tasmania, Heard Island, and the South Island of New Zealand.


Now Mr Spot, why would they travel to such warm waters when it kills them dead on the "spot"?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
15-08-2017 06:12
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gassed & guzzling" gushed: I should have been a cop.

Lots of cops are old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs. You'll have lots of company. As slow as Charlottesville cops were to act at the riot, some of them musta been white supremacists themselves. I mean, who wants to arrest their partner?

White supremacists pick the re-pubic-lick-un party. AGW denier liar whiners pick the re-pubic-lick-un party. White supremacists & re-pubic-lick-un "don'T rump" supporters met together to support "don'T rump". The problem was "don'T rump" supporters couldn't figure out who to sit down with. "don'T rump" supporters & white supremacists often attend "don'T rump" support meetings AND kkk(always small letters) bonfire klan gatherings.
Edited on 15-08-2017 06:28
15-08-2017 06:54
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1714)
OK you stupid piece of buffalo shit. I've had it with your racism crap and trying to pin it on a party. Racism in this country would be dead if it weren't for snot nosed little turds like you who want it to live on forever so you've got something to cry about. The Civil Rights Act 1964...here's the numbers. It is regretful both parties were not 100% yea, but the Dems were clearly more racist. Now take you BS elsewhere. Would you care to comment on a climate topic?

Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
By party[edit]
The original House version:[22]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[23]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[22]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[22]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
15-08-2017 07:38
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
[After Guzzling a big load] JizzGuzzler belched:
GreenMan wrote:



Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


Possible I'm the idiot here, but could Greenboy please explain the flat spot or even drop in temps during the 30 year period between 1940 and 1970? Did the CO2 take a little sabbatical or somethin?


Nah, as far as I can tell, CO2 has been on a steady climb upward, Jizz. Soot was the most likely cause of the decline in temperature, before the Clean Air Act.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 07:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
OK you stupid piece of buffalo shit. I've had it with your racism crap and trying to pin it on a party. Racism in this country would be dead if it weren't for snot nosed little turds like you who want it to live on forever so you've got something to cry about. The Civil Rights Act 1964...here's the numbers. It is regretful both parties were not 100% yea, but the Dems were clearly more racist. Now take you BS elsewhere. Would you care to comment on a climate topic?

Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
By party[edit]
The original House version:[22]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[23]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[22]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[22]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)


Like all racists litebeer wants to pretend that it's someone else that's the racist. He cried about the trail of tears until I gave him figures of all mass movements such as the gold rush and since then he's hated everyone and everything. He even told us I threatened Pocohantas his wife. I suppose he figure that I would beat her up as she was trying to protect him since she has more manliness than he will ever have.
15-08-2017 07:46
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Without Thinking, Into the Darkness wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:


That does not show warming? what drugs are you on?


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you think that the graph of NASA and that of Dr. Spencer are the same thing.


Mate, that graph is from your link.


This is the one the idiot meant to link to.

And it shows warming too.


I knew that English had to be a second language for you pair.

Which one is right "mate"? From what I can see you don't even know what I'm talking about. Pretty slow I'd say.


Oh, I finally see the problem. One of us got confused by the scaling differences between the two graphs. It's a common ploy used by the Church of AGW Denial High Priests to make it look like there is no change, when there really was one. People don't realize that graphs can be scaled so that changes are flatlined. But this graph shows the satellite data and the land based data on the same scale, both time and temperature.


Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to this accuracy.

Your graph is manufactured data.


Not my graph, doofus. And I think that the data being represented are averages of thermometers, located around the world. I think everyone knows that means there are some gaps here and there, and even some discrepancies [OMG!]. But if you can get over the fact that it's not perfect, and accept the fact that it's all we have to go by, then you might find it to be useful information.

You just have a few talking points, and then you run completely out of gas and have to start recycling them. Broken record. And on the losing side. Must be sad to be you.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 07:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
[After Guzzling a big load] JizzGuzzler belched:
GreenMan wrote:



Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


Possible I'm the idiot here, but could Greenboy please explain the flat spot or even drop in temps during the 30 year period between 1940 and 1970? Did the CO2 take a little sabbatical or somethin?


Nah, as far as I can tell, CO2 has been on a steady climb upward, Jizz. Soot was the most likely cause of the decline in temperature, before the Clean Air Act.


You know, I'm from the "silent generation" and people like you should have your teeth removed forcibly. I know that you're not afraid of me because you've never said things like you say out loud in public. If you do you will discover what it's like to be very afraid.
15-08-2017 07:52
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gushed: The Civil Rights Act 1964...here's the numbers. It is regretful both parties were not 100% yea, but the Dems were clearly more racist. Now take you(sic) BS elsewhere.

Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
By party[edit]
The original House version:[22]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[23]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[22]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[22]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Several versions of the Act were considered. re-pubic-lick-uns, being the minority, voted for the weakest of the versions AND that is the one that passed. As for southern democrats & southern re-pubic-lick-uns, only 7 dems voted for the Act. Of course, zero re-pubic-lick-uns voted for the Act.
You see. The democrats really wanted the strongest Civil Rights Act, from the beginning.
Only as the years passed, were strengthening measures taken to make the Civil Rights Act, the great mandate that it is.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" got mad at me, because "gazzed & guzzling" remembers the Civil Rights Act with great animosity because "gazzed & guzzling" is "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling".
Edited on 15-08-2017 07:58
15-08-2017 07:55
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
GreenMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Green Man I

think everyone you are interacting with is a troll with the possible exception of James who is wrong anyway. Into the night and Wake are not scientists Wake at best was a technician that worked with scientists in the dim and distant past. Into the night is crazy, you would think if everyone you spoke to and everything you could read disagred with you on the basic laws of thermodynamics you would question yourself.

Tim the plumber likes getting people to work out math problems when he is to stupid and lazy to do them himself and Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.


Yes I see. But there might be some people coming through here that are really looking for information about AGW. They come in here, and they get these insane retards spewing their troll nonsense. The climate gods don't even want them, because they are blemished. So we can't even sacrifice them. Shaming them into rational thought doesn't work, because they get to hide behind their cyber shield. So maybe the Internet just isn't the place for climate change discussions.


Still Confused, Into the Darkness spouted:

So you figure that the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is troll nonsense, eh science denier?


No, what I figure is that when stupid people post irrelevant facts, they are just trying to find an argument [trolling].


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 08:33
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
[After taking a big load] JizzGuzzler belched:
GreenMan wrote:
Nothing wrong with riding a bike to work.

True, just don't think you're doing me a favor.
But you really got my attention when you said you provide free burgers for people who want to sleep with you wife.

Seriously? You might want to get a hold of yourself....literally.
Throw in some beer, and I might just come over the next time you decide to experiment with climate control using your barbecue grill.

It was not an experiment. I was simply noticing reality. This is something you should experiment with. By the way...where's all the flooding and storms from hell you predicted? Haven't seen any yet.
So I'm thinking that you are getting your kicks out of poking holes in other people's explanations,

Sure, why not? Tell me you're any different.
and it doesn't matter to you if your reasoning is flawed.

it most certainly does matter. Can't be right if you're wrong.... Well, there a few here that would disagree with that statement.
You are just trying to get them to answer more and more questions until they get frustrated.

If you post up something as fact, you should be able to back it up and field any questions I or anyone else may have.
Too bad. If you had a brain, you would spend your time more wisely.

I do agree that time spent here may be a waste, but it sure does entertain me. I make no bones about it...I am "uneducated" compared to most around here. I do come here to learn and I've come to understand things a lot better since hanging out here.
You are here, so why not begin investing in your future by learning what other people have to teach you?

The biggest thing I've learned since hanging out here is how to quickly identify hooey, or bogus as you like to call it.
You were a perfect example. You started off talking reasonably about ocean temps and their effect, and then you stuck your fat foot in your mouth when you started talking about the weather. You made it clear after 2 sentences that you were clueless. What does it matter, right?
People want to talk about climate change and what's causing it, and that's fine, let's have a good discussion. But the problem is that people like you are so narrow minded that you think climate is only temperature. Climate by definition is the average of all weather. I know ITN thinks there is no such thing as a global climate. I disagree, I think there is a global climate, we just have no way of knowing exactly what those average numbers are. I do however think that scientists are close enough to see trend lines fairly accurately. Which bring me to another point. Why do you keep shouting about averages and then slapping up a graph that is 100 years worth and pointing to it as global warming? That's not an average, that's called a warm day. If you look at the last 12,000 years it's called "thank you for turning the heat back on, I was getting cold!" If you look at the last 400,000 years it's a disappointing heat wave that just can quite climb to expectations....and I got side tracked.
I just don't understand how all these "scientists" are credible without any background in meteorology.
Who knows, you might even start to appreciate those who ride their bikes to work.
Do whatever you want with your life, just don't send me the bill for it.
Oh yeah. Is your wife blonde, or at least have those sexy blonde streaks in her hair?

Proverbs 18:6
A fool's lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating.


Not sure why you think I'm claiming that 100 years worth of temperature data indicates that we are in trouble. No, my gay friend, that's not where my concern is rooted. My concern is because I know that the warming trend that we have been in, is going to continue because of the amount of greenhouse gases we have put in the air. And besides that, I'm using 800,000 years worth of climate data to come to that conclusion.

You didn't say if your wife had sexy hair or not. Pretty girls with stringy hair don't do anything for me. I like the hotties that know they are hot and flaunt it, with their "come do me fast hairdos." And do you have a pool? I prefer hanging out at the pool and drinking free beer while ogling other people's old ladies.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 08:43
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Won't Wake Up somehow managed to say:
GreenMan wrote:
[After Guzzling a big load] JizzGuzzler belched:
GreenMan wrote:



Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


Possible I'm the idiot here, but could Greenboy please explain the flat spot or even drop in temps during the 30 year period between 1940 and 1970? Did the CO2 take a little sabbatical or somethin?


Nah, as far as I can tell, CO2 has been on a steady climb upward, Jizz. Soot was the most likely cause of the decline in temperature, before the Clean Air Act.


You know, I'm from the "silent generation" and people like you should have your teeth removed forcibly. I know that you're not afraid of me because you've never said things like you say out loud in public. If you do you will discover what it's like to be very afraid.


Then why don't you shut the hell up, mr silent generation? You are just an old wannabe something you never were. And now you are trying your best to justify your misguided belief that the government is out to rob you, and wants to use Global Warming to do it. So here you are, out here shooting your stupid mouth off about things you know little. Oh, and get ready to move to the mountains. The sooner the better. If you continue to hang around where you are, then another **** just like you is going to come knocking on your door, with his papers in hand.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 09:37
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
[After taking a big load] JizzGuzzler belched:
By the way...where's all the flooding and storms from hell you predicted? Haven't seen any yet.


Here's one Jizz, that I just happened to come across.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57001/new-orleans-flood/

If you would take a few minutes each day away from guzzling jizz, and read the news, you would know more. So what do you get for guzzling? Do they still give you $5 a head?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 15:57
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1714)
GreenMan wrote:
[After taking a big load] JizzGuzzler belched:
By the way...where's all the flooding and storms from hell you predicted? Haven't seen any yet.


Here's one Jizz, that I just happened to come across.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57001/new-orleans-flood/

If you would take a few minutes each day away from guzzling jizz, and read the news, you would know more. So what do you get for guzzling? Do they still give you $5 a head?


Taking a look at the statistics over the past week, I don't see anything out of the ordinary in New Orleans. Sure, they got hit with some heavy rain. It was an extremely localized weather event. The upper levels of the atmosphere in the south become very stagnant this time of year, and when storms go up, they don't move much. Saw the same thing in Iowa a few weeks ago, it just happened over open farm country, not a city below see level. Can you explain how this is because of global warming? Some "researchers" seem very convinced, but I'm having trouble finding any solid details...only a blame game. Can you help?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
15-08-2017 18:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote: And ITN, you leave a bit of slack for a reason. chop everything down and if the panel needs rewiring how are you supposed to do that?

If you were trained you would know that, instead you just make work for the poor sod that comes after you.


What is comical in your continuous statements is that if you so much as had a clue what you're doing you would know what I was talking about. Since the major cable run always has a 180 degree loop in it you could always pull it up a bit. You absolutely must work for a telephone company and leave wires hanging off the interconnect board. You're incompetent at absolutely everything you write about.
15-08-2017 18:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: An average by itself is not statistical analysis. It is just an average.


The term "statistical analysis" isn't really a scientific term but a business term. But it brings the data together the same as data integration and people understand it more readily.
15-08-2017 19:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote: Then why don't you shut the hell up, mr silent generation? You are just an old wannabe something you never were. And now you are trying your best to justify your misguided belief that the government is out to rob you, and wants to use Global Warming to do it. So here you are, out here shooting your stupid mouth off about things you know little. Oh, and get ready to move to the mountains. The sooner the better. If you continue to hang around where you are, then another **** just like you is going to come knocking on your door, with his papers in hand.


What did you say your credentials were again? Oh, that's right, you have none. What are mine again? Oh, that's right - I worked on most major advances of the 20th century. Tell us all again how much you know and how little I.

Tell me does it hurt you to be so stupid?
15-08-2017 21:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
GreenMan wrote:
[After Guzzling a big load] JizzGuzzler belched:
GreenMan wrote:



Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


Possible I'm the idiot here, but could Greenboy please explain the flat spot or even drop in temps during the 30 year period between 1940 and 1970? Did the CO2 take a little sabbatical or somethin?


Nah, as far as I can tell, CO2 has been on a steady climb upward, Jizz. Soot was the most likely cause of the decline in temperature, before the Clean Air Act.


As far as you can tell, you can't tell the difference between manufactured numbers, soot, or history.

You think the clean air act actually cleaned anything??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 21:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
OK you stupid piece of buffalo shit. I've had it with your racism crap and trying to pin it on a party. Racism in this country would be dead if it weren't for snot nosed little turds like you who want it to live on forever so you've got something to cry about. The Civil Rights Act 1964...here's the numbers. It is regretful both parties were not 100% yea, but the Dems were clearly more racist. Now take you BS elsewhere. Would you care to comment on a climate topic?

Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
By party[edit]
The original House version:[22]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[23]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[22]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[22]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)


Like all racists litebeer wants to pretend that it's someone else that's the racist. He cried about the trail of tears until I gave him figures of all mass movements such as the gold rush and since then he's hated everyone and everything. He even told us I threatened Pocohantas his wife. I suppose he figure that I would beat her up as she was trying to protect him since she has more manliness than he will ever have.


The Trail of Tears was real. It happened. It was caused by a racist (president Jackson).


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 21:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
GreenMan wrote:
Without Thinking, Into the Darkness wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:


That does not show warming? what drugs are you on?


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you think that the graph of NASA and that of Dr. Spencer are the same thing.


Mate, that graph is from your link.


This is the one the idiot meant to link to.

And it shows warming too.


I knew that English had to be a second language for you pair.

Which one is right "mate"? From what I can see you don't even know what I'm talking about. Pretty slow I'd say.


Oh, I finally see the problem. One of us got confused by the scaling differences between the two graphs. It's a common ploy used by the Church of AGW Denial High Priests to make it look like there is no change, when there really was one. People don't realize that graphs can be scaled so that changes are flatlined. But this graph shows the satellite data and the land based data on the same scale, both time and temperature.


Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to this accuracy.

Your graph is manufactured data.


Not my graph, doofus.

You are using the graph as your argument. It is your graph for the purposes of this conversation. Don't try contextomies.

Your graph is manufactured data.

GreenMan wrote:
And I think that the data being represented are averages of thermometers, located around the world.

Such an average is not global temperature. Not even close.
GreenMan wrote:
I think everyone knows that means there are some gaps here and there,

Gaps??? There are nowhere near enough thermometers to begin with!
GreenMan wrote:
and even some discrepancies [OMG!].

Those are logged (at least at NOAA stations).
GreenMan wrote:
But if you can get over the fact that it's not perfect, and accept the fact that it's all we have to go by, then you might find it to be useful information.

This is a math error in statistics known as selection by opportunity.

There is nowhere near sufficient information to even begin a statistical analysis of the temperature of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
You just have a few talking points, and then you run completely out of gas and have to start recycling them. Broken record. And on the losing side. Must be sad to be you.

It just seems that way to you because I keep pointing out the same mistakes you keep making.

If there are 100 thermometers in Seattle, averaging 77 deg F, what is the temperature in Yakima? In Issaquah?

How many thermometers are in the world (just the 'official' ones, please)? Do you even know?


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
GreenMan wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Green Man I

think everyone you are interacting with is a troll with the possible exception of James who is wrong anyway. Into the night and Wake are not scientists Wake at best was a technician that worked with scientists in the dim and distant past. Into the night is crazy, you would think if everyone you spoke to and everything you could read disagred with you on the basic laws of thermodynamics you would question yourself.

Tim the plumber likes getting people to work out math problems when he is to stupid and lazy to do them himself and Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.


Yes I see. But there might be some people coming through here that are really looking for information about AGW. They come in here, and they get these insane retards spewing their troll nonsense. The climate gods don't even want them, because they are blemished. So we can't even sacrifice them. Shaming them into rational thought doesn't work, because they get to hide behind their cyber shield. So maybe the Internet just isn't the place for climate change discussions.


Still Confused, Into the Darkness spouted:

So you figure that the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is troll nonsense, eh science denier?


No, what I figure is that when stupid people post irrelevant facts, they are just trying to find an argument [trolling].


So you figure that the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is irrelevant, eh science denier?


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
GreenMan wrote:
[After taking a big load] JizzGuzzler belched:
GreenMan wrote:
Nothing wrong with riding a bike to work.

True, just don't think you're doing me a favor.
But you really got my attention when you said you provide free burgers for people who want to sleep with you wife.

Seriously? You might want to get a hold of yourself....literally.
Throw in some beer, and I might just come over the next time you decide to experiment with climate control using your barbecue grill.

It was not an experiment. I was simply noticing reality. This is something you should experiment with. By the way...where's all the flooding and storms from hell you predicted? Haven't seen any yet.
So I'm thinking that you are getting your kicks out of poking holes in other people's explanations,

Sure, why not? Tell me you're any different.
and it doesn't matter to you if your reasoning is flawed.

it most certainly does matter. Can't be right if you're wrong.... Well, there a few here that would disagree with that statement.
You are just trying to get them to answer more and more questions until they get frustrated.

If you post up something as fact, you should be able to back it up and field any questions I or anyone else may have.
Too bad. If you had a brain, you would spend your time more wisely.

I do agree that time spent here may be a waste, but it sure does entertain me. I make no bones about it...I am "uneducated" compared to most around here. I do come here to learn and I've come to understand things a lot better since hanging out here.
You are here, so why not begin investing in your future by learning what other people have to teach you?

The biggest thing I've learned since hanging out here is how to quickly identify hooey, or bogus as you like to call it.
You were a perfect example. You started off talking reasonably about ocean temps and their effect, and then you stuck your fat foot in your mouth when you started talking about the weather. You made it clear after 2 sentences that you were clueless. What does it matter, right?
People want to talk about climate change and what's causing it, and that's fine, let's have a good discussion. But the problem is that people like you are so narrow minded that you think climate is only temperature. Climate by definition is the average of all weather. I know ITN thinks there is no such thing as a global climate. I disagree, I think there is a global climate, we just have no way of knowing exactly what those average numbers are. I do however think that scientists are close enough to see trend lines fairly accurately. Which bring me to another point. Why do you keep shouting about averages and then slapping up a graph that is 100 years worth and pointing to it as global warming? That's not an average, that's called a warm day. If you look at the last 12,000 years it's called "thank you for turning the heat back on, I was getting cold!" If you look at the last 400,000 years it's a disappointing heat wave that just can quite climb to expectations....and I got side tracked.
I just don't understand how all these "scientists" are credible without any background in meteorology.
Who knows, you might even start to appreciate those who ride their bikes to work.
Do whatever you want with your life, just don't send me the bill for it.
Oh yeah. Is your wife blonde, or at least have those sexy blonde streaks in her hair?

Proverbs 18:6
A fool's lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating.


Not sure why you think I'm claiming that 100 years worth of temperature data indicates that we are in trouble. No, my gay friend, that's not where my concern is rooted. My concern is because I know that the warming trend that we have been in, is going to continue because of the amount of greenhouse gases we have put in the air.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. There is not problem. You don't have any data for the temperature of the Earth. It's not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
And besides that, I'm using 800,000 years worth of climate data to come to that conclusion.

You don't have such data. All you have is manufactured numbers.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
GreenMan wrote:
Won't Wake Up somehow managed to say:
GreenMan wrote:
[After Guzzling a big load] JizzGuzzler belched:
GreenMan wrote:



Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


Possible I'm the idiot here, but could Greenboy please explain the flat spot or even drop in temps during the 30 year period between 1940 and 1970? Did the CO2 take a little sabbatical or somethin?


Nah, as far as I can tell, CO2 has been on a steady climb upward, Jizz. Soot was the most likely cause of the decline in temperature, before the Clean Air Act.


You know, I'm from the "silent generation" and people like you should have your teeth removed forcibly. I know that you're not afraid of me because you've never said things like you say out loud in public. If you do you will discover what it's like to be very afraid.


Then why don't you shut the hell up, mr silent generation? You are just an old wannabe something you never were. And now you are trying your best to justify your misguided belief that the government is out to rob you,

The elements in government IS out to rob you. They've certainly done so in the past. They will continue to do so in the future.
GreenMan wrote:
and wants to use Global Warming to do it.

Those elements in government created the global warming hoax to do just exactly that.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 21:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: An average by itself is not statistical analysis. It is just an average.


The term "statistical analysis" isn't really a scientific term but a business term. But it brings the data together the same as data integration and people understand it more readily.


It is neither a scientific term or a business term. It is a term in mathematics. It is a system of summarizing arrays of numbers (the population of data) through the use of a selection process (the selected data, selected by use of a randN, independent of any aspect of the data), and comparing them against probabilities (through the use of a paired randR curve), and the calculation of the confidence of that probability.

Because of it's use of random numbers it loses the power of prediction found elsewhere in math. It is only good for summarizing past or present events. It cannot show the future.

It is not data integration. It is a summarization system.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 21:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: Then why don't you shut the hell up, mr silent generation? You are just an old wannabe something you never were. And now you are trying your best to justify your misguided belief that the government is out to rob you, and wants to use Global Warming to do it. So here you are, out here shooting your stupid mouth off about things you know little. Oh, and get ready to move to the mountains. The sooner the better. If you continue to hang around where you are, then another **** just like you is going to come knocking on your door, with his papers in hand.


What did you say your credentials were again? Oh, that's right, you have none. What are mine again? Oh, that's right - I worked on most major advances of the 20th century. Tell us all again how much you know and how little I.

Tell me does it hurt you to be so stupid?


Bad tactic. Credentials mean nothing on forums.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 22:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: As far as you can tell, you can't tell the difference between manufactured numbers, soot, or history.

You think the clean air act actually cleaned anything??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As is usual the True Believers like to talk about things they don't understand. t wasn't until 1970 that the act was created and it didn't take entire effect until around 1980. But according to greenman it affect the atmosphere in 1950.

What's more, the cleanest power plants in the world were in the USA at the time and the rest of the world never bothered with any clean air acts of their own.

So you are 100% correct that the clean air act had NO effect on anything but the coal industry and the auto industry. You now pay twice as much for power as you should and triple the gas price.
15-08-2017 23:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: As far as you can tell, you can't tell the difference between manufactured numbers, soot, or history.

You think the clean air act actually cleaned anything??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As is usual the True Believers like to talk about things they don't understand. t wasn't until 1970 that the act was created and it didn't take entire effect until around 1980. But according to greenman it affect the atmosphere in 1950.

What's more, the cleanest power plants in the world were in the USA at the time and the rest of the world never bothered with any clean air acts of their own.

So you are 100% correct that the clean air act had NO effect on anything but the coal industry and the auto industry. You now pay twice as much for power as you should and triple the gas price.


Gas is not more expensive, the dollar has crashed that far. Gas is actually pretty cheap right now, when compared to other commodities.

The changes made in engine design had little to do with the Clean Air Act. EGR systems, which were already being developed at the time BEFORE the Clean Air Act, did most of the contribution to removing smog from our cities. That system consists of a piece of plumbing running from the exhaust to the induction system and a simple reed valve. It's about as simple a system as you could ask for.

The catalytic converters WERE required by the Clean Air Act. They don't reduce pollution. They convert one form of pollution into another. I call them pollution to pollution converters.

The FADEC engines that cars use today were not required by the Clean Air Act. That came about simply as a cheaper and more precise way to control the engine. Jet aircraft had been using FADEC systems since the 60's. The cheap microcontroller made it practical for cars. FADEC produces are more precise burn, wasting less fuel. Fuel economy is already a marketing point. They didn't need a government law for that!

The ethanol in gas was not part of the Act, but from a later implementation by fiat by the EPA.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 01:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Gas is not more expensive, the dollar has crashed that far. Gas is actually pretty cheap right now, when compared to other commodities.

The changes made in engine design had little to do with the Clean Air Act. EGR systems, which were already being developed at the time BEFORE the Clean Air Act, did most of the contribution to removing smog from our cities. That system consists of a piece of plumbing running from the exhaust to the induction system and a simple reed valve. It's about as simple a system as you could ask for.

The catalytic converters WERE required by the Clean Air Act. They don't reduce pollution. They convert one form of pollution into another. I call them pollution to pollution converters.

The FADEC engines that cars use today were not required by the Clean Air Act. That came about simply as a cheaper and more precise way to control the engine. Jet aircraft had been using FADEC systems since the 60's. The cheap microcontroller made it practical for cars. FADEC produces are more precise burn, wasting less fuel. Fuel economy is already a marketing point. They didn't need a government law for that!

The ethanol in gas was not part of the Act, but from a later implementation by fiat by the EPA.


You should learn something about relativity. If I went back to work today I would make 30% less than as a lower level engineer back in 2008. Gas in the meantime went all over the place because of the Clean Air Act. California was the hardest hit as usual because they enacted highly restrictive regulations that weren't necessary in any other state. But STILL on 11/24/2008 gas was $1.70 or roughly half of what it is today. In Arizona gas is presently less than $2.50/gal at the company gas stations. At cut rate places it can hit as low as $1.50.

Methanol decreases mileage about 10% while generating more pollutants. Why did that ever come along except to hand out money to corn farmers?
16-08-2017 01:35
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1714)
Despite gov regs, here's what still amazes me...
They can go to the other side of the globe, stick a drill bit in the ground, extract the oil, send back to our side of the globe, refine it into something that packs amazing power, send it 2,000 miles across the country to my little small town gas station, for only $2.25 a gallon.
16-08-2017 01:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Despite gov regs, here's what still amazes me...
They can go to the other side of the globe, stick a drill bit in the ground, extract the oil, send back to our side of the globe, refine it into something that packs amazing power, send it 2,000 miles across the country to my little small town gas station, for only $2.25 a gallon.


I once filled the tank of my '49 Pontiac for $0.10/gal.
Page 4 of 6<<<23456>





Join the debate Greenman:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
GreenMan's Climate Model4001-03-2018 21:16
Greenman and Education909-11-2017 04:08
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact