True, a lot of the more urban ones do (Hmm... Germany supplies what, 60+% of their electricity via renewables?). The trains that travel all across Europe use diesel just because of the infrastructure logistics.Antknot wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2019 12:14 amOne point: Not all European trains are Deisel a bunch are electric.DandyDon wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2019 7:04 pmHmm, OK.
The fact that the train uses diesel means nothing because that's what they all run on, so it's not like she could have chosen another kind of train. Also, taking a train is much better for the environment because it moves 100s of people in one vehicle along with large amounts of cargo at a fraction of the energy. Everybody driving individual cars is what's bad for the environment.
Europe's recycling practices are much better than ours. All that single use stuff actually gets recycled over there, unlike here where we just throw it in the trash or out the window. What is she supposed to carry her bread and butter in? Bread and butter don't come in a different type of container, it's stupid to point out they're single use because she couldn't buy it differently if she wanted to. I do notice reusable drink bottles, so it appears she is controlling what she can.
It's sooo weird Bikers memes that just show up in his feed are the exact same ones posted by my FB RWNJ friends.
Consequences be damned apparently
Moderator: Biker
- DandyDon
- Redneck Commie
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:05 pm
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
- beagleboy
- Biker's Biatch
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:23 pm
- Location: Free born
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
As I understood it a lot of trains in Europe are dual mode and can switch from electric to diesel depending upon the route.
Our train from Berlin to Prague was diesel. 4 1/2 hour journey and it cost us $36 for first class. $5 extra to get first class and the car was almost completely empty. Such an easy trip to get through the stations.
Our train from Berlin to Prague was diesel. 4 1/2 hour journey and it cost us $36 for first class. $5 extra to get first class and the car was almost completely empty. Such an easy trip to get through the stations.
- DandyDon
- Redneck Commie
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:05 pm
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
All modern trains are electric. The diesel engines only supply power for the generators.beagleboy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:57 pm As I understood it a lot of trains in Europe are dual mode and can switch from electric to diesel depending upon the route.
Our train from Berlin to Prague was diesel. 4 1/2 hour journey and it cost us $36 for first class. $5 extra to get first class and the car was almost completely empty. Such an easy trip to get through the stations.
- beagleboy
- Biker's Biatch
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:23 pm
- Location: Free born
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
We were considering vacationing in the UK but I don't think we can risk that type of weather.
- Burn1dwn
- Non-Gay Omar
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm
- CHEEZY17
- Libertarian house cat
- Posts: 14903
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:25 pm
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
We're all gonna be dead or underwater in 10 years anyway.
AMIRITE!?
AMIRITE!?
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
- Stapes
- World's Only Blue Collar Guy
- Posts: 12853
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:50 pm
- Location: Port St Lucie former Dirty Jerzey
-
- Not UJR's Military Attaché
- Posts: 6740
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:30 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
Don't know if I would want her childhood. To produce a human with that grim a demeanor (at least the public one) it couldn't have been all that great.
- CHEEZY17
- Libertarian house cat
- Posts: 14903
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:25 pm
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
Shes been coached and taught her public demeanor. I hope shes happier when there are no cameras around. Kinda sad really.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
- Charliesheen
- Snarky Fucker
- Posts: 9252
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:49 am
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
I think people who adore and obey the little moppet need to find a more established religion. Clearly there’s something missing in their lives.
A cunt is a cunt by any other name.
- necronomous
- Official UJR Trolling Czar
- Posts: 7939
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
Quote by Jim Sibbison, public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are"
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ.: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
Quote by Sir John Houghton, lead editor of first three IPCC reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change gives the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
Quote by Jim Sibbison, public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are"
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ.: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
Quote by Sir John Houghton, lead editor of first three IPCC reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change gives the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
- Stapes
- World's Only Blue Collar Guy
- Posts: 12853
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:50 pm
- Location: Port St Lucie former Dirty Jerzey
- necronomous
- Official UJR Trolling Czar
- Posts: 7939
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm
- Stapes
- World's Only Blue Collar Guy
- Posts: 12853
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:50 pm
- Location: Port St Lucie former Dirty Jerzey
- necronomous
- Official UJR Trolling Czar
- Posts: 7939
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm
- Wut
- Denmarkian Citizen
- Posts: 5841
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:11 pm
- Location: On a rock
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
The fire? There's only one? Lolololol that's retarded.
wut?
- necronomous
- Official UJR Trolling Czar
- Posts: 7939
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
I thought we were throwing ludicrous ideas out about what started the fires. You think a degree in weather change causes a fire is just as hilarious.
- necronomous
- Official UJR Trolling Czar
- Posts: 7939
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm
- Stapes
- World's Only Blue Collar Guy
- Posts: 12853
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:50 pm
- Location: Port St Lucie former Dirty Jerzey
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
I blame Biker.
-
- Not UJR's Military Attaché
- Posts: 6740
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:30 pm
- Location: South Carolina
- necronomous
- Official UJR Trolling Czar
- Posts: 7939
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:42 pm
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
The vast majority of high quality long-term temperature data comes from the US, and in fact much of the planet has little or no long-term temperature data. Because of the poor coverage, it is doubtful that the published global temperature record has any scientific validity. The US is one of very few places with reliable temperature data.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=1653928
In 1986, NASA’s top climate scientist James Hansen predicted the US would heat up 4-6 degrees by 2020.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X ... 00,1495975
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=l ... nsen&hl=en
But three years later, NOAA reported that there had been no warming in the US over the past century.
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/u ... tml?src=pm
And by 1999, Hansen’s US temperature data (left graph below) showed cooling since the 1940s.
In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
This was very disturbing to both NASA and NOAA. Their CO2 warming theory was failing badly, so they simply changed the data, turning cooling into warming. This happened at the same time Michael Mann was erasing the Medieval Warm Period.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
The blue line below shows the five year mean of the average annual temperature at all NOAA United States Historical Climatology Network Stations. The red line shows the graph they release to the public, which has been highly altered to create the appearance of warming – which does not exist in the thermometer data.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5
If they believe there is error in the data, the correct way to handle it is to leave the data intact, and put error bars on it. Not alter the data and pass it to the public as if it represents the actual thermometer data.
The next graph shows the adjustments they are making, which creates a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering since the 1960s.
Plotted with atmospheric CO2 on the X-axis instead of time, it becomes apparent that the data is being altered precisely (R² = 0.97) to match global warming theory. The ultimate junk science.
Most of the recent data tampering has been due to simply making data up. In their monthly temperature data, they mark estimated (as opposed to measured) temperatures with a capital “E.” So far in 2019, sixty-one percent of the monthly temperature data is now estimated by a computer model, rather than actual measured thermometer data. The amount of fake data is up 500% since 30 years ago.
When we group the NOAA adjusted temperatures into two groups:
Measured and adjusted (blue) Estimated (red) Almost all of the US warming since 1990 is due to fake data from computer models, which now makes up 60% of the data.
The fake data is running two degrees warmer than the measured adjusted data. Not hard to create warming when you are simply making the data up.
Climate scientists openly discussed getting rid of the 1940s warmth, and they did just that.
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
But even with all their data tampering, the fraudsters couldn’t come close to to Hansen’s six degrees warming by 2020.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=l ... nsen&hl=en
There is overwhelming evidence of fraud in NOAA and NASA’s handling of climate data, and it is very important they are held to account.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=1653928
In 1986, NASA’s top climate scientist James Hansen predicted the US would heat up 4-6 degrees by 2020.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X ... 00,1495975
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=l ... nsen&hl=en
But three years later, NOAA reported that there had been no warming in the US over the past century.
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/u ... tml?src=pm
And by 1999, Hansen’s US temperature data (left graph below) showed cooling since the 1940s.
In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
This was very disturbing to both NASA and NOAA. Their CO2 warming theory was failing badly, so they simply changed the data, turning cooling into warming. This happened at the same time Michael Mann was erasing the Medieval Warm Period.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
The blue line below shows the five year mean of the average annual temperature at all NOAA United States Historical Climatology Network Stations. The red line shows the graph they release to the public, which has been highly altered to create the appearance of warming – which does not exist in the thermometer data.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5
If they believe there is error in the data, the correct way to handle it is to leave the data intact, and put error bars on it. Not alter the data and pass it to the public as if it represents the actual thermometer data.
The next graph shows the adjustments they are making, which creates a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering since the 1960s.
Plotted with atmospheric CO2 on the X-axis instead of time, it becomes apparent that the data is being altered precisely (R² = 0.97) to match global warming theory. The ultimate junk science.
Most of the recent data tampering has been due to simply making data up. In their monthly temperature data, they mark estimated (as opposed to measured) temperatures with a capital “E.” So far in 2019, sixty-one percent of the monthly temperature data is now estimated by a computer model, rather than actual measured thermometer data. The amount of fake data is up 500% since 30 years ago.
When we group the NOAA adjusted temperatures into two groups:
Measured and adjusted (blue) Estimated (red) Almost all of the US warming since 1990 is due to fake data from computer models, which now makes up 60% of the data.
The fake data is running two degrees warmer than the measured adjusted data. Not hard to create warming when you are simply making the data up.
Climate scientists openly discussed getting rid of the 1940s warmth, and they did just that.
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
But even with all their data tampering, the fraudsters couldn’t come close to to Hansen’s six degrees warming by 2020.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=l ... nsen&hl=en
There is overwhelming evidence of fraud in NOAA and NASA’s handling of climate data, and it is very important they are held to account.
- Stapes
- World's Only Blue Collar Guy
- Posts: 12853
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:50 pm
- Location: Port St Lucie former Dirty Jerzey
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
If your going to just copy and paste something that looks like you put together you might want to say so and put links.
necronomous wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:42 am The vast majority of high quality long-term temperature data comes from the US, and in fact much of the planet has little or no long-term temperature data. Because of the poor coverage, it is doubtful that the published global temperature record has any scientific validity. The US is one of very few places with reliable temperature data.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=1653928
In 1986, NASA’s top climate scientist James Hansen predicted the US would heat up 4-6 degrees by 2020.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X ... 00,1495975
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=l ... nsen&hl=en
But three years later, NOAA reported that there had been no warming in the US over the past century.
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/u ... tml?src=pm
And by 1999, Hansen’s US temperature data (left graph below) showed cooling since the 1940s.
In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
This was very disturbing to both NASA and NOAA. Their CO2 warming theory was failing badly, so they simply changed the data, turning cooling into warming. This happened at the same time Michael Mann was erasing the Medieval Warm Period.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
The blue line below shows the five year mean of the average annual temperature at all NOAA United States Historical Climatology Network Stations. The red line shows the graph they release to the public, which has been highly altered to create the appearance of warming – which does not exist in the thermometer data.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5
If they believe there is error in the data, the correct way to handle it is to leave the data intact, and put error bars on it. Not alter the data and pass it to the public as if it represents the actual thermometer data.
The next graph shows the adjustments they are making, which creates a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering since the 1960s.
Plotted with atmospheric CO2 on the X-axis instead of time, it becomes apparent that the data is being altered precisely (R² = 0.97) to match global warming theory. The ultimate junk science.
Most of the recent data tampering has been due to simply making data up. In their monthly temperature data, they mark estimated (as opposed to measured) temperatures with a capital “E.” So far in 2019, sixty-one percent of the monthly temperature data is now estimated by a computer model, rather than actual measured thermometer data. The amount of fake data is up 500% since 30 years ago.
When we group the NOAA adjusted temperatures into two groups:
Measured and adjusted (blue) Estimated (red) Almost all of the US warming since 1990 is due to fake data from computer models, which now makes up 60% of the data.
The fake data is running two degrees warmer than the measured adjusted data. Not hard to create warming when you are simply making the data up.
Climate scientists openly discussed getting rid of the 1940s warmth, and they did just that.
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
But even with all their data tampering, the fraudsters couldn’t come close to to Hansen’s six degrees warming by 2020.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=l ... nsen&hl=en
There is overwhelming evidence of fraud in NOAA and NASA’s handling of climate data, and it is very important they are held to account.
I blame Biker.
- Stapes
- World's Only Blue Collar Guy
- Posts: 12853
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:50 pm
- Location: Port St Lucie former Dirty Jerzey
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
and just to be fair that article was written by a guy named Tony Heller. A youtube climate denier and birther under the pseudonym Steven Geller. He is a pure, unadulterated bullshit artist with no background in Climatology.
I don't think it takes too much thought process to understand that the earth is warming. There is too much date to say otherwise. Whether it is do to human beings, natural cyclical weather or a combination of both.....it would be hard to argue that CO2 emissions add to the problem and just the huge amount of deforestation over the past couple hundred years make us vulnerable. It wouldn't take too many failed crops and dried up water reservoirs worldwide to cause some real problems.
I don't think it takes too much thought process to understand that the earth is warming. There is too much date to say otherwise. Whether it is do to human beings, natural cyclical weather or a combination of both.....it would be hard to argue that CO2 emissions add to the problem and just the huge amount of deforestation over the past couple hundred years make us vulnerable. It wouldn't take too many failed crops and dried up water reservoirs worldwide to cause some real problems.
I blame Biker.
- DandyDon
- Redneck Commie
- Posts: 2008
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:05 pm
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
Here in SC we have 71F, thunderstorms, and tornadoes in January. In 54 years I have never seen this kind of weather.Stapes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:43 am and just to be fair that article was written by a guy named Tony Heller. A youtube climate denier and birther under the pseudonym Steven Geller. He is a pure, unadulterated bullshit artist with no background in Climatology.
I don't think it takes too much thought process to understand that the earth is warming. There is too much date to say otherwise. Whether it is do to human beings, natural cyclical weather or a combination of both.....it would be hard to argue that CO2 emissions add to the problem and just the huge amount of deforestation over the past couple hundred years make us vulnerable. It wouldn't take too many failed crops and dried up water reservoirs worldwide to cause some real problems.
-
- Not UJR's Military Attaché
- Posts: 6740
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:30 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Consequences be damned apparently
Don't know about you, but, the weather is playing merry hell with my arthritis.DandyDon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:50 amHere in SC we have 71F, thunderstorms, and tornadoes in January. In 54 years I have never seen this kind of weather.Stapes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:43 am and just to be fair that article was written by a guy named Tony Heller. A youtube climate denier and birther under the pseudonym Steven Geller. He is a pure, unadulterated bullshit artist with no background in Climatology.
I don't think it takes too much thought process to understand that the earth is warming. There is too much date to say otherwise. Whether it is do to human beings, natural cyclical weather or a combination of both.....it would be hard to argue that CO2 emissions add to the problem and just the huge amount of deforestation over the past couple hundred years make us vulnerable. It wouldn't take too many failed crops and dried up water reservoirs worldwide to cause some real problems.