4merper4mer Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Irony. I never do this, but who's in favor of submitting this discourse to Urban Dictionary as a definition of irony? I mean, the Urban Dictionary is largely a symptom of the idiocy that I have to deal with(see: me talking networking with a F'ing Cable Guy), so it's generally depressing. I deal with idiots all day. That's my job. My entire career: I literally get paid because the phonies that are in charge pay me extra not only to do the job they are incapable of doing, but to do it without exposing their staggering incompetence. (And, they expect me to clean up the mess == fire anybody who figures out what is going on/gets in the way. I haven't gone along with that since 1999.) Yesterday, a CEO of a supposed "analytics" firm told me that they use a "snowflake" design. I **** you not. Data Warehouses use a star schema. Snowflakes are what we do when we can't get a dimension right, or, because there are integration issues. Nobody sets out to make a "snowflake". We only do it as a last resort. Yet, this guy is touting it as a feature? (Hint: that's like Boyst, the cow farmer, telling you he's in the fencing business) The man doesn't have any idea what his own company does, or how it does it, and they've been in business, proudly, for 30 F'ing years. So, it's between the post above, and this idiot CEO, for my first Urban dictionary post. Submit your votes! I vote for......oh, wait, wtf are we supposed to be voting on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 So you are advocating for those who disagree with you to die? How very tolerant and Progressive No I just want to hear someone explain how burning fossil fuels is good for the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 No I just want to hear someone explain how burning fossil fuels is good for the environment. It gets rid of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 No I just want to hear someone explain how burning fossil fuels is good for the environment. Who's making this claim? No one's making this claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Who's making this claim? No one's making this claim. Well, if you don't believe it's bad for the environment, then obviously you must believe it's good for the environment. Because...DENIER!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Scientists say man made global warming is real, politicians with cash from energy companies say it isn't. Who ya gonna believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Scientists say man made global warming is real, politicians with cash from energy companies say it isn't. Who ya gonna believe? [This is an automated response.] This ridiculous verbiage is brought to you by... Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 No I just want to hear someone explain how burning fossil fuels is good for the environment. Good for plant life. From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 If all you fossil fuel fans, Pegs included, would just seal up your garage and crank up the car there would be a lot less debate, meat eating, farting, oil spills..... While you are huffing away tap out those last few key strokes telling me how the air is just fine. You would die of asphyxiation. Not much different than putting a plastic bag over your head. A 17-year-old man was discovered lying on his left side in the driver’s seat of his 1997 BMW which was parked in a wooded area several miles from his home. The automobile engine was running. One end of a pool hose was connected to the exhaust pipe; the other end entered the interior of the vehicle through the driver’s side rear window. Pieces of cloth were used to seal the open window gap. The vehicle was locked and the fire department gained access by breaking a window. Several hand written suicide notes were found in the car. At autopsy fixed purple lividity and Tardieu spot distribution were consistent with the position in which he was found. The abdomen was distended with gas and there were patchy areas of skin slippage. He had neither physical injury nor natural disease. Standard toxicology testing was negative for ethanol, opiates, benzodiazepines, and basic drugs. His blood carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) was less than 5% saturation. Subsequent testing of the automobile emissions revealed that the CO was consistently 0.01% and the CO2 varied between 14.9% and 15.2%. His cause of death was attributed to asphyxiation due to exhaustion of O2 in the interior of the car due to instilled exhaust fumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Well, if you don't believe it's bad for the environment, then obviously you must believe it's good for the environment. Because...DENIER!!! Which is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you. And to everyone that wants to be as obtuse as possible in this discussion, yes we have to breathe but we don't have to burn fossil fuel for all things energy. So the comparison, that we make climate change by breathing and farting while true is misleading to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Which is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you. And to everyone that wants to be as obtuse as possible in this discussion, yes we have to breathe but we don't have to burn fossil fuel for all things energy. So the comparison, that we make climate change by breathing and farting while true is misleading to say the least. Whoever it is you're arguing with, they're not here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 GLOBAL WARMING IN ONE EASY LESSON Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. MIT’s web site suggests his scientific eminence: (multiple paragraphs at link) Professor Lindzen recently wrote a letter to President Donald Trump explaining, briefly and cogently, why he and many other scientists are skeptical of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory–which, despite tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies, has failed to generate significant empirical support. The letter was reproduced by the Science and Environmental Policy Project. It has the virtue of being easily read and understood: For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are. Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC [united Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. The UNFCCC was established twenty-five years ago, to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth. • The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming, • It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2, • Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed, • The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments, • Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide, • Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans. Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Scientists say man made global warming is real, politicians with cash from energy companies say it isn't. Who ya gonna believe? Considering the Republican party is the only Conservative Party out of any of the Democratic countries in the world to have at least a fraction of their party flat out deny man made climate change, I'm going to believe the scientific consensus throughout the world. The real question is not if, but how much humans have contributed to climate change. Fossil fuel companies shelled out 100 million dollars to various Republicans in the primaries with the most going to Tea Party favorite and bs extraordinaire Ted Cruz (20 million). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Whoever it is you're arguing with, they're not here. Right...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Considering the Republican party is the only Conservative Party out of any of the Democratic countries in the world to have at least a fraction of their party flat out deny man made climate change, I'm going to believe the scientific consensus throughout the world. The real question is not if, but how much humans have contributed to climate change. Fossil fuel companies shelled out 100 million dollars to various Republicans in the primaries with the most going to Tea Party favorite and bs extraordinaire Ted Cruz (20 million). Maybe they don't believe it because they're not stupid enough to get involved in the billion-dollar money-laundering scheme that is global warming cooling climate change. Same scheme the unions run. Create a cause. Help people get elected to address the cause by appropriating funds to whatever 'foundation' or pyramid scheme is being run by the very people who got them elected. They then take the money and spend a bunch of it keeping their baby daddy's in elected position to continue funding their 'cause.' But hey...you keep listening to Bill Nye. He's genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Considering the Republican party is the only Conservative Party out of any of the Democratic countries in the world to have at least a fraction of their party flat out deny man made climate change, I'm going to believe the scientific consensus throughout the world. The real question is not if, but how much humans have contributed to climate change. Fossil fuel companies shelled out 100 million dollars to various Republicans in the primaries with the most going to Tea Party favorite and bs extraordinaire Ted Cruz (20 million). Pretty sure you would have been suckered into the Eugenic consensus too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richstadiumowner Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 140 pages and counting, still not a smidgeon of proof their religion is real. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurna Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 We interrupt this comic for a public service anouncement to show you the 'calculations' vs. reality. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Chicken Little © program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurna Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Hey how are the Global Sea Ice levels doing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts