It is true diesel is better for the environment compared to gas, but it is only 10-20% better. Diesel engines are also more efficient because of their high compression ratio. But most of the time they need to be heavy iron blocks instead of aluminum. & they need to be heated in cold weather. I love diesels they can be a blast to drive. It's real easy to learn manual on one too. Never stalls.
I'm white and live in these Americas too! RAM, FORD and CHEVY are all made from interchangeable parts from the same plants. and same steel from that same foundry. The same plastic and leather from the same oversea's plants. The only difference is the power plant!
I'd take a Cummins over the rest any dam day brother in a stick-shift! Yeeeeehaaaaa...!!!
duramax and cummins are great motors, just diesels are made to be in a straight line.... look at cat, detroit and all the big truckers. there all inline motors
@vetroid45 CUMMINS= makes several diesel engines for many applications, even a couple light duty models specifically for a contract with Ram trucks. DURAMAX= GM designed, owned and built, not just ordered from CUMMINS like shitty Fiat/Dodge does.
DURAMAX= thats where you're wrong. Duracrap is IZUZU designed and built, only to later be baught out by GM with all the wonderful bailout money us taxpayers gave them. You should do a little research before you speak
@eeezzz007 actually isuzu just designed the lower end and was a division of GM when it was designed as a joint venture. GM owns DMAX 100% and has built every single DMAX in morraine ohio where they pour the blocks. A simple google search is all that is needed. quit talking shit about something you clearly know nothing about.
@kris10qify that black smoke isnt as bad for the enviroment. It is verry heavy and falls down to the earth releasing almost no polutants into the air. Burining gas is worse than that black smoke.
that's an aweful lotta metal to be launching that fast. It always amazes me how much torque these diesels have. still dunno why you'd drag race em but shit. dont matter hahah race is a race
@goodson305 Diesels throw a lot of torque, so there's sport in racing two similar sized platforms. Diesels are capable of beating gas in the low ends in general. Big truck diesels, especially duallys are meant to haul large items, but unfortunately American men have a knack for purchasing large trucks to compensate for the lack of size in their anatomy.
@1m4wesome When your gas engine reaches the 500k+ miles diesel engines are known to last for, then we can talk about the other reasons people buy them....
@desertfox2020 Just paid off the dodge 3500 a few months ago, engines not even broken in yet. I did not say all American men, just most and if you buy trucks for their usefulness then you should know that gut wrenching feeling you get when you see some pompous ass with chrome rims and slicks on his jacked up rig.
@1m4wesome I wouldn't say most, but definitely some. I drive a truck because I enjoy driving one, I enjoy being up in the air and having a large vehicle, and I just happen to like trucks. Im not making a statement nor do I care to. Mines gas because I don't do any heavy hauling. I definitely agree drag slicks is going too far. Looking nice and going overboard are two different things. Lowered trucks with 22" rims half covered by the fenders and a half inch of ground clearance make me sick.
@beunbad If you notice, the greatest amount of "black" smoke is at the launch under full throttle! As the trucks accelerate down the road, the smoke decreases showing efficient burning of the diesel fuel. Ever been to a top fuel drag race and seen the raw fuel being expelled from the headers when the engines are at idle???????
@darknes7800 They should set the tweaks to minimize the waste of fuel so it runs more effiently on the lower end and use it more on the higher end. The fuel not being used bogs the machine down. Thanks for the cpomment !
@Ackman172 Please correct me then. I don't drive a diesel, thats just what I was led to believe, I'm perfectly OK with being corrected. Not sarcasm at all, I seriously an admitting I might be wrong so fill me in.
@desertfox2020 Ok. Those are automatic transmissions. They're not revving in neutral. They're doing a boosted launch to build turbo boost, notice the brake lights. I could go on with this but there's no the point. You don't drive a diesel and know only what you were "led to believe", so why even comment? And also.....on the dragstrip, these trucks use 4WD and slicks.
"Greenies" cannot just go live in their small little worlds and leave people alone.... they have to post on sites showing trucks drag racing????? Dont the greenies, lefties and progressives have new multi colored socks or new throw pillows to pick out!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL Maybe some new drapes for the study!!!!!!!!!LOL SOURDOUGHMUSK must have gotten lost while surfing for a new armoire! LOL
@darknes7800 And the personal attacks begin...FACE IT! You have NO data to support anything you have spewed forth on these comments. You are completely full of crap!
@SourdoughMusk Right back at you.......again you post nothing which calls out the DIFFERENCE between natural cyclical warming and your myth of man made warming.....
@SourdoughMusk NICE TRY!!!!!!!! LOL Volcanos represent only a small fraction of the total NATURAL CO2 emmissions from the earth.....Just look up the lakes in Africa which sit on massive concentrations of CO2.....the runoff looks like carbonated soda pop! In the past few years, one actually released its CO2 and wiped out a village! Not to mention vegetation decay. Human contribution to the CO2 level is minor compared to all other sources.
@darknes7800 FYI...the USGS link I posted was NOT meant to show that manmade CO2 dwarfed all natural CO2 production. It was a refutation of the idea that volcanoes produce more CO2 than man's activities. Natural CO2 is much higher but for thousands of years the CO2 cycle (in/out) was balanced. Now it appears man has tipped that balance based on 30+ years of research.
@SourdoughMusk 30 years of research...Give me a break! Plate tectonics was not discovered until the mid 1960's....Yet (so you say) they have had a 100% grasp of all climate information for 30 years????? Bottom line is this....it is foolish and irresponsible to push an agenda which has NO 100% proof, when the finality of that agenda is to increase energy taxes and thereby increase corporate and personal expenses....which reduces the amount of discretionary spending availble to US citizens.
@darknes7800 Apparently, you really don't understand science or the scientific method. Proof is a mathematical term. I've never said 100% because that is unscientific. The evidence shows that warming is occurring and is influenced by manmade CO2. You are really grasping at straws on that.
@SourdoughMusk Again, there is no 100% proof of man made GW.....We have 100% scientific proof of many things...Existance of dinosaurs....Clouds are water vapor....rain is H2O...air is (approx) 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen...But the only "scientists" and climate agencies who agree with man made GW are those whos budgets and contributions are directly tied to PROPAGATING the myth......more bought and paid for science from GORE and CO. Follow the money!
@SourdoughMusk 30 years of "so called" research..to "discover" (working backward FROM the foregone conclusion of man made GW)...which they say has been happening for 100-200 years...on a planet which is over 4.5 BILLION years old???? Do you realize the minute amount of time 200 years is?????? Let me help you out...450,000,000 years would be 1/10th....45,000,000 years would be 1/100th...4,500,000 years would be 1/1000th...45,000 years would be 1/10,000th...4500 years would be 1/100,000th TBC....
@SourdoughMusk TBC..(corrected) 450,000 years would be 1/10,000th...45,000 years would be 1/100,000....4500 years would be 1/1,000,000th.....450 years would be 1/10,000,000 the age of the earth....So what your saying is that a time period less than ONE TEN MILLIONTH (0.0000001) (aka "a blink of the eye") the age of the earth is an accurate model on which to base ANYTHING that happens, on this planet?????...WOW thats a huge stretch.......
@darknes7800 The sources for evidence of AGW are all over the interwebs. Try the NASA GISS sat site...data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/...or CRU ...w w w .cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/..Oh no! It's the evil and terrible (when taken out of context) Phil Jones ... there is CDIAC's radiosonde data...cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html... there is much more but it really doesn't matter because you're not going to check them anyway.
@SourdoughMusk Your actually saying that 30 years of research, on 200 years of climate data (most of which is inaccurate)....which represents less than 1/10,000,000th (ONE TEN MILLIONTH!) the earths historical timeline...is an accurate gauge of any real change? Do you realize that IF (huge IF) there was warming, it means NOTHING in the earths timeline? Show me 100,000 years of warming, then we can get serious...except for that inconvenient little thing called and ICE AGE 60,000 years ago! LOL
@darknes7800 That is what you don't understand. Based on the Milankovitch cycles we should be in a cooling period. Which we were before the Industrial Revolution. The warming that has occurred is an anamoly. It has coincided with an increase in manmade CO2. So, it's pretty clear that climate scientists ARE aware of the Earth's cycles.
@SourdoughMusk Well obviously you and whoever you are quoting does not pay attention to anything but their WARMER agenda and their next check from gores foundation. If you track the historical timeline of ice ages and the periods of warming between them....last ice age occured approx. 60K years ago and we are now in a period warm BETWEEN ice ages.....which has allowed human life to flourish! In the future we are in for another ice age. Better buy your parka now! LOL
@darknes7800 ROFL! Are you suggesting that the last ice age ended 60,000 years ago? If that is the case you are severely misinformed. The Earth was in the middle of the last ice age about 60k years ago but that is NOT when it ended. That was more like 10K years ago.
@SourdoughMusk BEGAN 60K years ago! AGAIN, we are IN BETWEEN ice ages, earths history tells us this. Meaning, we are currently in a period of NATURAL CYCLICAL warming, which historically will be followed by another ice age. wakey wakey.........
@SourdoughMusk Thanks for continuing to post all the LEFTY and LIB man made GW sites (suprise! they say its real LOL!).....But again, it does not hold up under the logical scrutiny. Maybe you and Barbara (call me senator) Boxer can figure out how to save the 8000 people she says will die in the US because of man made GW this year, due to boiler emmissions!!!!!!!!!! You see, its LOONS like this who constantly errode your myth and simply make all GW statement unbelieveable!
@darknes7800 Please post a link that clearly and irrefutably demonstrates how any of the data from the sites I listed does not hold up under logical scrutiny. Until you do that I think we're done here. Your lack of understanding of the science involved is very apparent. You have not posted any real data just bombastic politicized garbage. Happy Holidays!
@SourdoughMusk I could say the same for you! Posting only links to all the "bought and paid for" science from gore and his lockstep followers AND you have FAILED to post any 100% proven scientific data which supports MAN MADE GW! Funny, you want me to prove MMGW does not exist, but you offer no proof it does exist! Again, just puzzle parts you want to hammer together and MAKE them fit, even if the dont!
@SourdoughMusk Right back at you! You have posted NO 100% third party scientific proof of man made GW! I understand that when all you have is a blind follower attitute toward GW....everything starts looking like GW! Again, the big picture must be looked at......during Midevel times, the earth was slightly WARMER, but there was not the supposed. I also understand that when you losing the argument you resort to personal attacks and insults.....just like everyother lib warmer!
@SourdoughMusk LOL!!!!!!!!!!! NICE TRY!!!!!!!!! But all your "melting" data....ice borehole data.....and sealevel rise data is corrupted....BECAUSE again, all the data being collected is NOT cross referrenced against the NATURAL CYCLES of the earth! That data is puposefully left out and largely unknow......showing only 1/2 the picture....to extract the predetermined results and foregone conclusion of man made GW! What you have done is walk into the theater after the movie is 1/2 over!!!! LOL
@SourdoughMusk You conveniently forgot to mention how Gores story about ice melt at Kilimanjaro has been 100% DEBUNKED as not melting, but instead ice sublimation! You would think that a scientists (errr sideshow barker) like GORE would know the difference between melting of ice and sublimation! Maybe he didnt have PHIL JONES with him on that trip....or didnt have JONES hand up his butt, working him like a ventriloquist dummy! LOL
@SourdoughMusk Himalayan glaciers melting??? NOPE.....Kilimanjaro ice meling???? NOPE......Massive storms due to GW???? NOPE......AND absolutely ZERO proof of any melting due to man made GW! This is like a game of tetris.....with "WARMERS" trying to make UNRELATED occurances fit the man made GW puzzle! CRAP and TRADE is dead....the EPA does not get to classify CO2 as a pollutant.....go home and cry some more! LOL
@darknes7800 Actually, the eastern Himalayan glaciers ARE retreating at an advanced rate. A small number of western Himalayan glaciers are advancing slightly due to different weater patterns there. Also, Kilimanjaro's glaciers are melting and sublimating. Both are a cause of glacial retreat. I would post links but you'll just dissmiss them.
@SourdoughMusk Regardless of who or what your post its all the same old "make the parts fit the man made GW theory"....with zero 100% proof. I know this flies in the fact of your belief...But the glaciers in Italy are GROWING in size, areas of arctic ice has doubled at the pole since 2008, the Petermann Glacier in Greenland is GROWING and advancing.....the list goes on and on....but never hear or reported in the LIB mainstream media......
@SourdoughMusk LINKS on the web???? Yea right, because EVERYTHING you find o the WEB is true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You might want to take a logical look at all the information availible to you and determine the most obvious conclusion (no warming).....instead of relying on links to sites sympathtic to the WARMER cause!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL ALL debate aside, if you just look at the political pandering and money making surrounding the man made GW myth, it again loses all credibility!
@darknes7800 I'm still waiting for your link. Look dumbass, if there is all this alternative research you should easily be able to post a link for it. Please give SOME reference on these alternative data sets. Until you do that you are just a misiniformed troll. It's amazing how you talk about "obvious conclusions" without understanding how complex the climate science is. It's not as intuitive as your feeble mind may think.
@SourdoughMusk Dumbass????? Troll??????? I know I have won the arguement since the insults and personal attacks are the only thing you have left! What is OBVIOUS is that there is ZERO 100% proof of man made GW...200 years worth of data means nothing.....its simply a bunch of politicians and crooks trying to cash in on the next "big thing". How about some data on the obama lead CCX? You keep refusing to answer the REAL questions about political involvement.
@darknes7800 I'm still waiting for any links from you. You appear to view science through a political lens and that is never going to work. I called you dumbass because you have been bombastic and dismissive (which is insulting). And because you have not provided any references for your information. Don't be hurt by it...just show your evidence that scientifically and completely refutes any of the data from the sites I posted earlier.
@darknes7800 The websites I listed make references to actual peer-reviewed papers in legitimate science journals. So just because the info is on the internet does not mean it's crap. Oh, and I'm still waiting for your link.
@SourdoughMusk Peer reviewed????? By other people and scientists who have a vested interest in the myth! LOL When those documents are actually reviewed by scientists and climatologists who DOUBT the man made GW myth...they show how full of holes and the massive leaps made to substantiate the myth!
@SourdoughMusk ANY type of climate change is made up of HUNDREDS of factors, not just your beloved CO2! Then making the leap to man made GW???? I think not! What you fail to grasp is the made up "crisis" surrounding the man made GW myth! 30 years ago some of the SAME climatologists and scientists said we were headed for the next ICE AGE now its GW! Its all about the crisis or flavor of the week! You have been caught up in a Madoff style scam.....and Gore is getting rich...
@darknes7800 CO2 is but one force that acts upon the climate. You actually said something truthful! Now see higher CO2 can cause feedbacks to occur that raise the temperature even higher. It is a complex system. First you said warming is occuring but is natural then you deny any warming at all. Which one is it?
@SourdoughMusk That is where we must disagree, because there is no conclusive proof that CO2 results in warming without fail AND that the CO2 in question is caused by man. Give it a rest and stop trying to twist what I say! I said IF there was warming, there is no conclusive evidence it is due to man made causes! All indicators say we are in a warmer period of earths history, BETWEEN ice ages! So yes its warmer, but not for the reasons you site.
@darknes7800 What is the natural cause then? The natural cycles that explain the ice ages (Milankovitch) do not explain the current warming trend. The ice age cycles take thousands of years to make the jump in temperature we are seeing. The evidence suggests there is something else forcing the change. Further evidence suggests it is manmade GHG, CO2 being the primary suspect. I would like to see your sources.
@SourdoughMusk im not trying to get in on this argument that you two are having so much fun in but you should watch Penn and Teller's show Bullshit there's an episode about global warming perhaps you and the other gentlemen/lady could watch it together then discuss the matter
@SourdoughMusk The "causes" are natural CYCLICAL climate changes. During the past 130K years, the earth has gone from a warm climate, to an ice age, back to warming, again cooling which peaked about 50K years ago and now we are in a natural state of warming. The earths climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years, you cannot use a graph or chart to determine exactly when the changes occur, but that is exactly what you want to do! We are in a warm period, with slight NATURAL fluctations.
@SourdoughMusk I trust logic, reason and common sense when looking at the man made GW myth! If more people approached it with common sense, it would have gone away much sooner. If I post an article from Dr. Spencer, you say he is paid by big oil....if you post something from your messiah gore or jones, I say they cooked the GW books! It all comes down to what you can prove! Man made global warming neither makes sense, nor can it be proven! Still waiting on the 100% proof of mmGW......
@darknes7800 I never said Spencer was paid by big oil. I said his paper YOU CITED was shown to be full of innaccurate interpretations of data and inaccurate conclusions. I provided evidence that supports AGW. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NOTHING!
@SourdoughMusk LOL....Spencers paper is only inaccurate because your guy Gore says so! LOL It was peer reviewed, just like the beloved pseudo science you quote! Are you starting to see the trend? You continue to assert that mmGW is real, but can produce NO 100% proof...meaning it does not exist! Again, you constantly avoid the political connection....with Goldman Sacks, obama, gore, the CCX and everyone who stood to make billions from Crap and Trade! What say you?
@darknes7800 Spencer's paper was peer reviewed. But peer review is not perfect and other researchers quickly pointed out the problems in the paper. The editor of Remote Sensing RESIGNED after admitting that Spencer's paper was flawed! Dessler posted a rebuttal in another peer reviewed journal, Geophysical Research Letters. So please show how Al Gore had anything to do with that. You are full of crap!
@SourdoughMusk You might want to look up an Forbes article from James Taylor dated July 27, 2011...for a reality check on the Dr Spencer info. BTW Wolfgang resigned because the Spencer paper didnt include the viewpoint of the WARMER agenda.....not because the paper was flawed.....he said it himself! Spencers goal was to show data, which did not include the WARMER data...its called fresh perspective! All you have is lib "out of context" nonsense!!!!!!!!!!
@SourdoughMusk Funny...you citing a editor how resigned just because he came to believe the other side of the argument (being the mmGW fanatics)? What the hell does an editor of a magazine know about anything abouth the atmosphere? Besides, your beloved Remote Sensing Journal is about GEOGRAPHY....not CLIMATOLOGY! He was likely offered a job in a Vienna bath! LOL AGAIN EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!
@darknes7800 Wow! You just go on and on and STILL have not provided any data to substantiate your wild claims. Dr. Spencer USED CRU DATA IN HIS PAPER! (Did you happen to miss that?) Also, Dessler clearly showed that Spencer and Braswell LEFT OUT the climate model outputs that closely matched the observations!
@darknes7800 Ah so now that you know that the editor said the paper was flawed you attack him as well. You are patethetically political about all of this.
@darknes7800 What say I? I say you are full of crap! You are citing a conspiracy theory against scientific evidence. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? If the data from NASA, CRU, and others is all part of a conspiracy then please give the "conspiracy free" data sets. Oh wait...you're insane!
@SourdoughMusk AGAIN please product your 100% scientific evidence, which shows that man made CO2 emmission are 100% responsible for the current WARM PERIOD BETWEEN ICE AGES!!!!!!!!! BUT I know you cannot, so you resort to name calling, insults and personal attacks because your fresh out of arguments! There are more climatologists and scientist who say there is no evidence of MMGW, than those who currently say MMGW exists.
@darknes7800 You are once again lying. The VAST majority (97%) of published climatologists support AGW. If there are more climatolgists against AGW then why are they only 3% of the published papers. Please stop being so arrogant about your ignorance.
@SourdoughMusk the wast majority of the climatologists who support AGW get their money from saying that. We need climatologists who aren't supported by government checks to chime in. And you won't find many.
@pencilneck22 All professional scientists get paid to do research. But if the research is poor and the conclusions false that is often made readily apparent. A scientist who could completely refute AGW would hold a place in history. It would be a paradigm shift that ANY climate scientist would want to be a part of. The financial gains would be huge (speeches, books, etc). However, sadly, the scientific evidence supports AGW theory.
@SourdoughMusk My stance is the same as it was when we began this debate. Your beloved 97% of "all" climatologists have a vested interest in manipulating and ommitting data (supported by Climategate 1.0 and now 2.0) and like some unscrupulous scientists, they are desperately trying to prove the man made GW theory to rescue their professional reputations. You might want to look up the latest round of emails from Jones, more proof of deleting data and hiding the facts.
@darknes7800 This has not been a debate. This has been me showing you the scientific evidence for AGW and you dismissing it as part of a conspiracy. You have not provided any real evidence to support your conspiracy theory. At best you've quote-mined some hacked emails. But anyone who looks into anything you've said will find that you are completely incorrect in almost evey claim you have made. They will find your "source" to be denier blogs devoid of real peer-reviewed scientific papers.
@SourdoughMusk LOL! You have not shown any 100% proof of any man made GW! LOL You have only regurgitated speaking points from Al Gore and his band of bought and paid for scientists. EPIC FAIL! With all the corruption and misinformation surrounding the man made GW theory, its is impossible to believe any of it! Or maybe in your world, if a scientist lies or fabricates data to match their foregone conclusion, its "real" science.
@SourdoughMusk Correct, its not a debate! Because to have a true debate the topic in question must actually exist...and man made GW does not exist and cannot be proven. You keep asking me to disprove the existance of man made GW......its tough to disprove its existance when there is NO 100% PROOF that it does exist. You have certainly NOT proven anything, except your ability to copy and paste mmGW websites!
@SourdoughMusk Another HUGE issue in the man made GW debate is the complete lack of tranparency from two main data sources (U of EA and NASA) used by the WARMER crowd! First your beloved University of East Anglia publishes their pro mmGW papers, yet still REFUSES to release the raw data! Then NASA has to revise their "math" three times, to get the current "warming" result they wanted! Even the Queens University refuses to release the raw data they used in their "tree ring" study!
@darknes7800 You apparently did not read my post that CRU gets their raw data from primary sources that ANYONE can access. That means anybody can get the raw data from Global Historical Climatology Network and National Centre for Atmospheric Research and check CRU's work. So what raw data does CRU need to release? You REALLY don't know what you are talking about in any meaningful detail.
@darknes7800 It is quite obvious that YOU are the one lacking in an unbiased view on the actual climate science that is going on. You read out of context quotes from hacked emails and have made up your mind that all climate science is an overarching liberal conspiracy. You have not done ANY real unbiased and open minded research into the situation. You heard something that fits your politics and so anything else, in your mind, must be bunk. That is BIAS.
@darknes7800 AGW scientists have evidence that strongly supports AGW. So, why can't you post something that refutes it? You claim "its tough to disprove its existance when there is NO 100% PROOF that it does exist." Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. If the real-world observations did not support AGW then it would be pretty easy to debunk. However, the observations made by climate scientists all over the world support AGW.
@darknes7800 I like how you never really discuss what I've posted. You try to bring up some other point instead of trying to refute the ones I've made. And please explain the details of how NASA had to revise their "math" three times to get the current warming. If you are so knowledgeable that should be easy for you. I'm not going to hold my breath though. I predict you will go on about your conspiracy theory for which you have provided NO SUPPORT.
@darknes7800 And one other thing: You say that climate warming is occurring but that it is part of a natural cycle. Then why do you question the measurements (supported by real world events) that show there is warming? Your main argument should be against the evidence that it's manmade. However, your argument would still not hold up. It's unfornutate you are not able to see how contradictory and politically biased your thinking is.
@SourdoughMusk Hey fucker,black diesel smoke FALLS BACK TO THE GROUND. or in other words,doesnt pollute the atmoshpere...me warming my hemi for 20 minutes does that
@GreatWhiteHyype I'm not talking about diesel soot you fucking moron! I'm talking about C02. There is more to diesel exhaust than particulate. Besides, the whole thing started with darknes talking about AGW as if it were not happening.
@SourdoughMusk Arrogant? More name calling? LOL Again, my position is simple. There is no 100% proof of man made GW. Most (if not all) the data and scientists you quote are in question (CG 2.0)....In addition to Berkeley's so called RURAL climate tracking stations, which were actually URBAN locations....intended to support the "warming" myth and basically LIE about the temperature increases in those areas! How much proof of LYING by the man made GW scientists do you need to hear?????
@darknes7800 How are the scientists in question? Have you read all the hacked emails? Have you really put the comments into the correct context? I worry that you have just read all the quote mining and c'n'pd it here. See, if there was anything revealed to be a true conspiracy (in CG 2.0) it would have made HUGE headlines. In case you didn't realize, the UK Daily Mail is not known for it's journalistic integrity.
@SourdoughMusk Here AGAIN is the ultimate flaw in the mmGW theory. First, ALL of the so called data can be and has been manipulated to show the intended outcome. Jones and his crew have YET to fully disclose all their RAW DATA ( I wonder why?). Data has been lost and destroyed, yet they continue to use it as fact. Politicians are making MILLIONS and trying to make BILLIONS off the scam. With the ultimate goal being to scam the WORLD out of $47 TRILLION in new taxes. Follow the money!
@SourdoughMusk ClimateGate 2.0 will be the final nail in the man made GW debate. Unless you want to quote Gore, who 2-3 years ago said, the debate is over. He only wanted the debate to be over, because he had manipulated the data to show what he and Jones wanted. Jones then started his document destruction and shredding parties to hide all the corrupt data and emails used in their quest for their foregone conclusion of mmGW. The wheels are coming off, yet you still blindly believe......????
@darknes7800 Climategate 2.0? LOL! You deny the evidence that is available from multiple peer reviewed research documents from around the world. You do not have a grasp of the science or the scientific debate. You have not posted any evidence to counter AGW theory. All you have done is blustered on about a conspiracy theory! try this: skepticalscience. com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced. htm (remove the spaces)
@darknes7800 Shredding parties? Of what? The raw data CRU uses comes from a primary source that ANYONE can access. WTF are you talking about? Please post a link that substantiates ANYTHING you have said.
The sounds they make, make a ford sound like a toy truck
lxEpIcCoNtEnT 1 day ago
Im a Chevy guy but Cummins is straight bad ass
LBigJake14 3 days ago
i wanna see that monte carlo in action ;)
jrios559 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I couldn't find Let's Go For A Drive by Duane Steele anywhere can you please post this song.
I haven't heard this song in a while since 2006 on country radio
randyknowsongt 3 days ago
the next comentor is GAY!
bass12w6 5 days ago
It is true diesel is better for the environment compared to gas, but it is only 10-20% better. Diesel engines are also more efficient because of their high compression ratio. But most of the time they need to be heavy iron blocks instead of aluminum. & they need to be heated in cold weather. I love diesels they can be a blast to drive. It's real easy to learn manual on one too. Never stalls.
lifeisgood070 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm white and live in these Americas too! RAM, FORD and CHEVY are all made from interchangeable parts from the same plants. and same steel from that same foundry. The same plastic and leather from the same oversea's plants. The only difference is the power plant!
I'd take a Cummins over the rest any dam day brother in a stick-shift! Yeeeeehaaaaa...!!!
Aonexia 1 week ago
6 cylinder vs 8....ram all the way.
Jaymobe07 1 week ago
Ha That Monte Carlo in the side could smoke em Easily!
MoreThanJackass 1 week ago
@MoreThanJackass i was thinking it was a Grand national. but now that you mention monte carlo... could be.
DBbyDesign 3 days ago
@MoreThanJackass i still think Grand National tho.
DBbyDesign 3 days ago
that's a bad ass Chevy lol]
chevylovervdodgehate 1 week ago
thats a sexy dodge
Beastin1231 1 week ago
duramax and cummins are great motors, just diesels are made to be in a straight line.... look at cat, detroit and all the big truckers. there all inline motors
steveandant 1 week ago
duramax = little trucks CUMMINS = tractors the size of your house trains with mile long cargo lines and generators that power your city!
vetroid45 1 week ago
@vetroid45 CUMMINS= makes several diesel engines for many applications, even a couple light duty models specifically for a contract with Ram trucks. DURAMAX= GM designed, owned and built, not just ordered from CUMMINS like shitty Fiat/Dodge does.
highsmokedope420 1 week ago
@highsmokedope420
DURAMAX =
eeezzz007 1 week ago
@eeezzz007
DURAMAX= thats where you're wrong. Duracrap is IZUZU designed and built, only to later be baught out by GM with all the wonderful bailout money us taxpayers gave them. You should do a little research before you speak
eeezzz007 1 week ago
@eeezzz007 actually isuzu just designed the lower end and was a division of GM when it was designed as a joint venture. GM owns DMAX 100% and has built every single DMAX in morraine ohio where they pour the blocks. A simple google search is all that is needed. quit talking shit about something you clearly know nothing about.
ls3100sfi 1 week ago
Duramax 1 Cummings 0 What's new?
PtotheRum 1 week ago
No wonder, this earth is going to hell....
kris10qify 1 week ago
@kris10qify that black smoke isnt as bad for the enviroment. It is verry heavy and falls down to the earth releasing almost no polutants into the air. Burining gas is worse than that black smoke.
TJDTaylor 1 week ago 18
@TJDTaylor Well, that is good. Didn't know that.
kris10qify 1 week ago
@TJDTaylor its unburnt carbon, actually good for the environment
WillieMcWilson 1 week ago
@TJDTaylor then why is the diesel emission standard stricter than that of the gasoline in the US?
Dudelajk 4 days ago
@Dudelajk the diesel emission standard is higher becuase of the nox a diesel produces.
MrSeaMPea 3 days ago
@Dudelajk yah - what he said. All the black stuff is soot, which doesnt go into the air.
TJDTaylor 3 days ago
ya your dodge can smoke ha so can i but chevy barly smokes at all exept the cummins
Alex2552RuS 2 weeks ago
you hear that dodge fans chevy won now EAT it
Alex2552RuS 2 weeks ago
That chev got quite literally smoked
SgtADAMS11 2 weeks ago
@SgtADAMS11 very true
jaedan47 2 weeks ago
@SgtADAMS11 i take it you didnt read the description. the duramax won by half a truck length retard.
928Ranger 1 week ago
Wtf is all that black smoke?!?
kmann1994 2 weeks ago
@kmann1994 Unburnt fuel.
crazyp2jimmy 2 weeks ago
i'm surprised that the dodge kept up that much. considering there are 2 less cylinders.
ccubsfan94 2 weeks ago
"6 in a row, built to tow" NOT TO RACE
elitecssplayer 2 weeks ago
But FFS is some pls telling me what the heal Cummins and Duramax mean :)?
motanelustelistu 2 weeks ago
annnnd their gone...
fischsnopro 2 weeks ago
that's an aweful lotta metal to be launching that fast. It always amazes me how much torque these diesels have. still dunno why you'd drag race em but shit. dont matter hahah race is a race
ZackNakazora 3 weeks ago
damn youtube is so glitchy now...
kowal789 3 weeks ago
seriously whats cumming?! no truck can run on cum.
grig24x 3 weeks ago
que que isso
pedrosantana2000mi 3 weeks ago
@The05ZX10R, They were made for Women.
TheHyperkid97 3 weeks ago
I'll smoke them in my Miata
grocer3 4 weeks ago
@grocer3 LOL you mean you'll smoke their cocks in your miata, that's a chick car lol.
The05ZX10R 3 weeks ago
Duramax wins, read descrip :)
xXxMuSiCdUdEXxX 4 weeks ago
and they wonder why the ozone layer is depleting, good race tho
rguereca987 1 month ago
LIKE A TRAIN
PPykPPykPPykPPyk 1 month ago
gotta love the instant jump to immaturity and name calling there. i only watched the 1 video and in that video the dodge looked to be leading.
squishy1127 1 month ago
sure looked like the dodge won that
squishy1127 1 month ago
@squishy1127 try taking a close look moron. theres even two vids of this race....
highsmokedope420 1 month ago
emissions does not like you guys.
thomascolin12 1 month ago
cops come to the scene not for illegal street racing but smoke from a forest fire lol
Muskyfst39inch 1 month ago
I like the Grand National on the side of the road.
NativeWarrior1492 1 month ago
they both sound like condom brands ;)
kismo94 1 month ago 120
@kismo94 they both sound like condom brands because if you buy either one of them you fucked :P
xmo3000 3 weeks ago
@xmo3000 yea and if ya get a power stroke ya still aint gettin any haha
D12caterpillar 3 weeks ago
@kismo94 Exactly my point and my first thought when i first heared about them :)
motanelustelistu 2 weeks ago
@kismo94 oh my god they do
face plam
highflyingfish95 1 week ago 2
@kismo94 so does powerstroke :)
Dietze23 2 days ago 2
hey sourdoughmusk and darkness..whatever, take your shit somewhere else
gabogabo34 1 month ago
who gives a rats ass who's faster, let's see the true meaning of diesel and see which one can tow more
TheTRJG 2 months ago
Hicks...
TeamTacoTV 2 months ago
Why are you racing school buses ?
vwwargod 2 months ago
more trucks that think they are race cars........ go haul hay or something
soabojangles 2 months ago
soabojangles dont be mad cuz diesels beat majority of the "race" cars out there...
lt1nightmare 2 months ago
amazing how something this big is so fast gotta love diesel
cole909cole 2 months ago 24
i hate when i see long comments on first page
subzero4334 2 months ago
Stacks are gay and that one tops them all.
MTturboYota 2 months ago
i love how every diesel video causes a global warming argument. its great isnt it?
verderider597 2 months ago
@verderider597 Its all the WARMERS trying to further their agenda with lies and pseudo science.....all in attempt to raise taxes!
darknes7800 2 months ago
guys with small peckers do the silliest shit! hahaha
CandyLaStar 2 months ago
there goes the environment
ThePaulDreyer 2 months ago
the trucks are like: "Fuck you Earth!" (BTW I'm not some wine-sipping, prius-driving, tree-hugging, hippie pussy or nothing)
ChuckNorrisOwnsYoMom 2 months ago
@goodson305 Diesels throw a lot of torque, so there's sport in racing two similar sized platforms. Diesels are capable of beating gas in the low ends in general. Big truck diesels, especially duallys are meant to haul large items, but unfortunately American men have a knack for purchasing large trucks to compensate for the lack of size in their anatomy.
1m4wesome 2 months ago
@1m4wesome Damnit.... the secrets out.....
StarLiteDiesel 2 months ago
@1m4wesome When your gas engine reaches the 500k+ miles diesel engines are known to last for, then we can talk about the other reasons people buy them....
desertfox2020 2 months ago
@desertfox2020 Just paid off the dodge 3500 a few months ago, engines not even broken in yet. I did not say all American men, just most and if you buy trucks for their usefulness then you should know that gut wrenching feeling you get when you see some pompous ass with chrome rims and slicks on his jacked up rig.
1m4wesome 2 months ago
@1m4wesome I wouldn't say most, but definitely some. I drive a truck because I enjoy driving one, I enjoy being up in the air and having a large vehicle, and I just happen to like trucks. Im not making a statement nor do I care to. Mines gas because I don't do any heavy hauling. I definitely agree drag slicks is going too far. Looking nice and going overboard are two different things. Lowered trucks with 22" rims half covered by the fenders and a half inch of ground clearance make me sick.
desertfox2020 2 months ago
@1m4wesome Also I wasn't aware trucks like that were even available overseas
desertfox2020 2 months ago
Diesel vs gas which faster and why people like those big truck diesel?
goodson305 2 months ago
Black smoke is unburned fuel,it's a waste. Why spend money on it if your not getting power from it.
beunbad 2 months ago
@beunbad get outta here then
GINNISNYY1 2 months ago
@beunbad If you notice, the greatest amount of "black" smoke is at the launch under full throttle! As the trucks accelerate down the road, the smoke decreases showing efficient burning of the diesel fuel. Ever been to a top fuel drag race and seen the raw fuel being expelled from the headers when the engines are at idle???????
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 They should set the tweaks to minimize the waste of fuel so it runs more effiently on the lower end and use it more on the higher end. The fuel not being used bogs the machine down. Thanks for the cpomment !
beunbad 2 months ago
Comment removed
desertfox2020 2 months ago
@desertfox2020 You don't have it right.
Ackman172 2 months ago
@Ackman172 Please correct me then. I don't drive a diesel, thats just what I was led to believe, I'm perfectly OK with being corrected. Not sarcasm at all, I seriously an admitting I might be wrong so fill me in.
desertfox2020 2 months ago
@desertfox2020 Ok. Those are automatic transmissions. They're not revving in neutral. They're doing a boosted launch to build turbo boost, notice the brake lights. I could go on with this but there's no the point. You don't drive a diesel and know only what you were "led to believe", so why even comment? And also.....on the dragstrip, these trucks use 4WD and slicks.
Ackman172 2 months ago
Nice buick
Racemybuick 2 months ago
"Greenies" cannot just go live in their small little worlds and leave people alone.... they have to post on sites showing trucks drag racing????? Dont the greenies, lefties and progressives have new multi colored socks or new throw pillows to pick out!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL Maybe some new drapes for the study!!!!!!!!!LOL SOURDOUGHMUSK must have gotten lost while surfing for a new armoire! LOL
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 And the personal attacks begin...FACE IT! You have NO data to support anything you have spewed forth on these comments. You are completely full of crap!
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Right back at you.......again you post nothing which calls out the DIFFERENCE between natural cyclical warming and your myth of man made warming.....
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Ahh...Man's activities produce more CO2 annually than the world's volcanoes... h t t p ://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
Also, carbon isotopes can be used to distinguish between manamde and natural CO2.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk NICE TRY!!!!!!!! LOL Volcanos represent only a small fraction of the total NATURAL CO2 emmissions from the earth.....Just look up the lakes in Africa which sit on massive concentrations of CO2.....the runoff looks like carbonated soda pop! In the past few years, one actually released its CO2 and wiped out a village! Not to mention vegetation decay. Human contribution to the CO2 level is minor compared to all other sources.
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 FYI...the USGS link I posted was NOT meant to show that manmade CO2 dwarfed all natural CO2 production. It was a refutation of the idea that volcanoes produce more CO2 than man's activities. Natural CO2 is much higher but for thousands of years the CO2 cycle (in/out) was balanced. Now it appears man has tipped that balance based on 30+ years of research.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk 30 years of research...Give me a break! Plate tectonics was not discovered until the mid 1960's....Yet (so you say) they have had a 100% grasp of all climate information for 30 years????? Bottom line is this....it is foolish and irresponsible to push an agenda which has NO 100% proof, when the finality of that agenda is to increase energy taxes and thereby increase corporate and personal expenses....which reduces the amount of discretionary spending availble to US citizens.
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Apparently, you really don't understand science or the scientific method. Proof is a mathematical term. I've never said 100% because that is unscientific. The evidence shows that warming is occurring and is influenced by manmade CO2. You are really grasping at straws on that.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Again, there is no 100% proof of man made GW.....We have 100% scientific proof of many things...Existance of dinosaurs....Clouds are water vapor....rain is H2O...air is (approx) 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen...But the only "scientists" and climate agencies who agree with man made GW are those whos budgets and contributions are directly tied to PROPAGATING the myth......more bought and paid for science from GORE and CO. Follow the money!
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk 30 years of "so called" research..to "discover" (working backward FROM the foregone conclusion of man made GW)...which they say has been happening for 100-200 years...on a planet which is over 4.5 BILLION years old???? Do you realize the minute amount of time 200 years is?????? Let me help you out...450,000,000 years would be 1/10th....45,000,000 years would be 1/100th...4,500,000 years would be 1/1000th...45,000 years would be 1/10,000th...4500 years would be 1/100,000th TBC....
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk TBC..(corrected) 450,000 years would be 1/10,000th...45,000 years would be 1/100,000....4500 years would be 1/1,000,000th.....450 years would be 1/10,000,000 the age of the earth....So what your saying is that a time period less than ONE TEN MILLIONTH (0.0000001) (aka "a blink of the eye") the age of the earth is an accurate model on which to base ANYTHING that happens, on this planet?????...WOW thats a huge stretch.......
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 The sources for evidence of AGW are all over the interwebs. Try the NASA GISS sat site...data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/...or CRU ...w w w .cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/..Oh no! It's the evil and terrible (when taken out of context) Phil Jones ... there is CDIAC's radiosonde data...cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html... there is much more but it really doesn't matter because you're not going to check them anyway.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Your actually saying that 30 years of research, on 200 years of climate data (most of which is inaccurate)....which represents less than 1/10,000,000th (ONE TEN MILLIONTH!) the earths historical timeline...is an accurate gauge of any real change? Do you realize that IF (huge IF) there was warming, it means NOTHING in the earths timeline? Show me 100,000 years of warming, then we can get serious...except for that inconvenient little thing called and ICE AGE 60,000 years ago! LOL
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 That is what you don't understand. Based on the Milankovitch cycles we should be in a cooling period. Which we were before the Industrial Revolution. The warming that has occurred is an anamoly. It has coincided with an increase in manmade CO2. So, it's pretty clear that climate scientists ARE aware of the Earth's cycles.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Well obviously you and whoever you are quoting does not pay attention to anything but their WARMER agenda and their next check from gores foundation. If you track the historical timeline of ice ages and the periods of warming between them....last ice age occured approx. 60K years ago and we are now in a period warm BETWEEN ice ages.....which has allowed human life to flourish! In the future we are in for another ice age. Better buy your parka now! LOL
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 ROFL! Are you suggesting that the last ice age ended 60,000 years ago? If that is the case you are severely misinformed. The Earth was in the middle of the last ice age about 60k years ago but that is NOT when it ended. That was more like 10K years ago.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk BEGAN 60K years ago! AGAIN, we are IN BETWEEN ice ages, earths history tells us this. Meaning, we are currently in a period of NATURAL CYCLICAL warming, which historically will be followed by another ice age. wakey wakey.........
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Actually, the last ice age started approximately 110,000 years ago. FAIL!
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Ahh what the hell..let's put up some more...borehole data w w w.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Glacial melt info...nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
Sea level rise... sealevel.colorado.edu/
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Thanks for continuing to post all the LEFTY and LIB man made GW sites (suprise! they say its real LOL!).....But again, it does not hold up under the logical scrutiny. Maybe you and Barbara (call me senator) Boxer can figure out how to save the 8000 people she says will die in the US because of man made GW this year, due to boiler emmissions!!!!!!!!!! You see, its LOONS like this who constantly errode your myth and simply make all GW statement unbelieveable!
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Please post a link that clearly and irrefutably demonstrates how any of the data from the sites I listed does not hold up under logical scrutiny. Until you do that I think we're done here. Your lack of understanding of the science involved is very apparent. You have not posted any real data just bombastic politicized garbage. Happy Holidays!
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk I could say the same for you! Posting only links to all the "bought and paid for" science from gore and his lockstep followers AND you have FAILED to post any 100% proven scientific data which supports MAN MADE GW! Funny, you want me to prove MMGW does not exist, but you offer no proof it does exist! Again, just puzzle parts you want to hammer together and MAKE them fit, even if the dont!
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Right back at you! You have posted NO 100% third party scientific proof of man made GW! I understand that when all you have is a blind follower attitute toward GW....everything starts looking like GW! Again, the big picture must be looked at......during Midevel times, the earth was slightly WARMER, but there was not the supposed. I also understand that when you losing the argument you resort to personal attacks and insults.....just like everyother lib warmer!
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk LOL!!!!!!!!!!! NICE TRY!!!!!!!!! But all your "melting" data....ice borehole data.....and sealevel rise data is corrupted....BECAUSE again, all the data being collected is NOT cross referrenced against the NATURAL CYCLES of the earth! That data is puposefully left out and largely unknow......showing only 1/2 the picture....to extract the predetermined results and foregone conclusion of man made GW! What you have done is walk into the theater after the movie is 1/2 over!!!! LOL
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk You conveniently forgot to mention how Gores story about ice melt at Kilimanjaro has been 100% DEBUNKED as not melting, but instead ice sublimation! You would think that a scientists (errr sideshow barker) like GORE would know the difference between melting of ice and sublimation! Maybe he didnt have PHIL JONES with him on that trip....or didnt have JONES hand up his butt, working him like a ventriloquist dummy! LOL
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Himalayan glaciers melting??? NOPE.....Kilimanjaro ice meling???? NOPE......Massive storms due to GW???? NOPE......AND absolutely ZERO proof of any melting due to man made GW! This is like a game of tetris.....with "WARMERS" trying to make UNRELATED occurances fit the man made GW puzzle! CRAP and TRADE is dead....the EPA does not get to classify CO2 as a pollutant.....go home and cry some more! LOL
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Actually, the eastern Himalayan glaciers ARE retreating at an advanced rate. A small number of western Himalayan glaciers are advancing slightly due to different weater patterns there. Also, Kilimanjaro's glaciers are melting and sublimating. Both are a cause of glacial retreat. I would post links but you'll just dissmiss them.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Regardless of who or what your post its all the same old "make the parts fit the man made GW theory"....with zero 100% proof. I know this flies in the fact of your belief...But the glaciers in Italy are GROWING in size, areas of arctic ice has doubled at the pole since 2008, the Petermann Glacier in Greenland is GROWING and advancing.....the list goes on and on....but never hear or reported in the LIB mainstream media......
darknes7800 2 months ago
Comment removed
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Still waiting for that link...
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk LINKS on the web???? Yea right, because EVERYTHING you find o the WEB is true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You might want to take a logical look at all the information availible to you and determine the most obvious conclusion (no warming).....instead of relying on links to sites sympathtic to the WARMER cause!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL ALL debate aside, if you just look at the political pandering and money making surrounding the man made GW myth, it again loses all credibility!
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 I'm still waiting for your link. Look dumbass, if there is all this alternative research you should easily be able to post a link for it. Please give SOME reference on these alternative data sets. Until you do that you are just a misiniformed troll. It's amazing how you talk about "obvious conclusions" without understanding how complex the climate science is. It's not as intuitive as your feeble mind may think.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Dumbass????? Troll??????? I know I have won the arguement since the insults and personal attacks are the only thing you have left! What is OBVIOUS is that there is ZERO 100% proof of man made GW...200 years worth of data means nothing.....its simply a bunch of politicians and crooks trying to cash in on the next "big thing". How about some data on the obama lead CCX? You keep refusing to answer the REAL questions about political involvement.
darknes7800 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darknes7800 I'm still waiting for any links from you. You appear to view science through a political lens and that is never going to work. I called you dumbass because you have been bombastic and dismissive (which is insulting). And because you have not provided any references for your information. Don't be hurt by it...just show your evidence that scientifically and completely refutes any of the data from the sites I posted earlier.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@darknes7800 The websites I listed make references to actual peer-reviewed papers in legitimate science journals. So just because the info is on the internet does not mean it's crap. Oh, and I'm still waiting for your link.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Peer reviewed????? By other people and scientists who have a vested interest in the myth! LOL When those documents are actually reviewed by scientists and climatologists who DOUBT the man made GW myth...they show how full of holes and the massive leaps made to substantiate the myth!
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk ANY type of climate change is made up of HUNDREDS of factors, not just your beloved CO2! Then making the leap to man made GW???? I think not! What you fail to grasp is the made up "crisis" surrounding the man made GW myth! 30 years ago some of the SAME climatologists and scientists said we were headed for the next ICE AGE now its GW! Its all about the crisis or flavor of the week! You have been caught up in a Madoff style scam.....and Gore is getting rich...
darknes7800 2 months ago
Comment removed
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@darknes7800 CO2 is but one force that acts upon the climate. You actually said something truthful! Now see higher CO2 can cause feedbacks to occur that raise the temperature even higher. It is a complex system. First you said warming is occuring but is natural then you deny any warming at all. Which one is it?
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk That is where we must disagree, because there is no conclusive proof that CO2 results in warming without fail AND that the CO2 in question is caused by man. Give it a rest and stop trying to twist what I say! I said IF there was warming, there is no conclusive evidence it is due to man made causes! All indicators say we are in a warmer period of earths history, BETWEEN ice ages! So yes its warmer, but not for the reasons you site.
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 What is the natural cause then? The natural cycles that explain the ice ages (Milankovitch) do not explain the current warming trend. The ice age cycles take thousands of years to make the jump in temperature we are seeing. The evidence suggests there is something else forcing the change. Further evidence suggests it is manmade GHG, CO2 being the primary suspect. I would like to see your sources.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk im not trying to get in on this argument that you two are having so much fun in but you should watch Penn and Teller's show Bullshit there's an episode about global warming perhaps you and the other gentlemen/lady could watch it together then discuss the matter
addisonu23 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk The "causes" are natural CYCLICAL climate changes. During the past 130K years, the earth has gone from a warm climate, to an ice age, back to warming, again cooling which peaked about 50K years ago and now we are in a natural state of warming. The earths climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years, you cannot use a graph or chart to determine exactly when the changes occur, but that is exactly what you want to do! We are in a warm period, with slight NATURAL fluctations.
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk I trust logic, reason and common sense when looking at the man made GW myth! If more people approached it with common sense, it would have gone away much sooner. If I post an article from Dr. Spencer, you say he is paid by big oil....if you post something from your messiah gore or jones, I say they cooked the GW books! It all comes down to what you can prove! Man made global warming neither makes sense, nor can it be proven! Still waiting on the 100% proof of mmGW......
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 I never said Spencer was paid by big oil. I said his paper YOU CITED was shown to be full of innaccurate interpretations of data and inaccurate conclusions. I provided evidence that supports AGW. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NOTHING!
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk LOL....Spencers paper is only inaccurate because your guy Gore says so! LOL It was peer reviewed, just like the beloved pseudo science you quote! Are you starting to see the trend? You continue to assert that mmGW is real, but can produce NO 100% proof...meaning it does not exist! Again, you constantly avoid the political connection....with Goldman Sacks, obama, gore, the CCX and everyone who stood to make billions from Crap and Trade! What say you?
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Spencer's paper was peer reviewed. But peer review is not perfect and other researchers quickly pointed out the problems in the paper. The editor of Remote Sensing RESIGNED after admitting that Spencer's paper was flawed! Dessler posted a rebuttal in another peer reviewed journal, Geophysical Research Letters. So please show how Al Gore had anything to do with that. You are full of crap!
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk You might want to look up an Forbes article from James Taylor dated July 27, 2011...for a reality check on the Dr Spencer info. BTW Wolfgang resigned because the Spencer paper didnt include the viewpoint of the WARMER agenda.....not because the paper was flawed.....he said it himself! Spencers goal was to show data, which did not include the WARMER data...its called fresh perspective! All you have is lib "out of context" nonsense!!!!!!!!!!
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Funny...you citing a editor how resigned just because he came to believe the other side of the argument (being the mmGW fanatics)? What the hell does an editor of a magazine know about anything abouth the atmosphere? Besides, your beloved Remote Sensing Journal is about GEOGRAPHY....not CLIMATOLOGY! He was likely offered a job in a Vienna bath! LOL AGAIN EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Wow! You just go on and on and STILL have not provided any data to substantiate your wild claims. Dr. Spencer USED CRU DATA IN HIS PAPER! (Did you happen to miss that?) Also, Dessler clearly showed that Spencer and Braswell LEFT OUT the climate model outputs that closely matched the observations!
/watch?v=vDNXuX6D60U&sns=em
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Ah so now that you know that the editor said the paper was flawed you attack him as well. You are patethetically political about all of this.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@darknes7800 What say I? I say you are full of crap! You are citing a conspiracy theory against scientific evidence. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? If the data from NASA, CRU, and others is all part of a conspiracy then please give the "conspiracy free" data sets. Oh wait...you're insane!
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk AGAIN please product your 100% scientific evidence, which shows that man made CO2 emmission are 100% responsible for the current WARM PERIOD BETWEEN ICE AGES!!!!!!!!! BUT I know you cannot, so you resort to name calling, insults and personal attacks because your fresh out of arguments! There are more climatologists and scientist who say there is no evidence of MMGW, than those who currently say MMGW exists.
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 You are once again lying. The VAST majority (97%) of published climatologists support AGW. If there are more climatolgists against AGW then why are they only 3% of the published papers. Please stop being so arrogant about your ignorance.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk the wast majority of the climatologists who support AGW get their money from saying that. We need climatologists who aren't supported by government checks to chime in. And you won't find many.
pencilneck22 2 months ago
@pencilneck22 All professional scientists get paid to do research. But if the research is poor and the conclusions false that is often made readily apparent. A scientist who could completely refute AGW would hold a place in history. It would be a paradigm shift that ANY climate scientist would want to be a part of. The financial gains would be huge (speeches, books, etc). However, sadly, the scientific evidence supports AGW theory.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk My stance is the same as it was when we began this debate. Your beloved 97% of "all" climatologists have a vested interest in manipulating and ommitting data (supported by Climategate 1.0 and now 2.0) and like some unscrupulous scientists, they are desperately trying to prove the man made GW theory to rescue their professional reputations. You might want to look up the latest round of emails from Jones, more proof of deleting data and hiding the facts.
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 This has not been a debate. This has been me showing you the scientific evidence for AGW and you dismissing it as part of a conspiracy. You have not provided any real evidence to support your conspiracy theory. At best you've quote-mined some hacked emails. But anyone who looks into anything you've said will find that you are completely incorrect in almost evey claim you have made. They will find your "source" to be denier blogs devoid of real peer-reviewed scientific papers.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk LOL! You have not shown any 100% proof of any man made GW! LOL You have only regurgitated speaking points from Al Gore and his band of bought and paid for scientists. EPIC FAIL! With all the corruption and misinformation surrounding the man made GW theory, its is impossible to believe any of it! Or maybe in your world, if a scientist lies or fabricates data to match their foregone conclusion, its "real" science.
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Correct, its not a debate! Because to have a true debate the topic in question must actually exist...and man made GW does not exist and cannot be proven. You keep asking me to disprove the existance of man made GW......its tough to disprove its existance when there is NO 100% PROOF that it does exist. You have certainly NOT proven anything, except your ability to copy and paste mmGW websites!
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Another HUGE issue in the man made GW debate is the complete lack of tranparency from two main data sources (U of EA and NASA) used by the WARMER crowd! First your beloved University of East Anglia publishes their pro mmGW papers, yet still REFUSES to release the raw data! Then NASA has to revise their "math" three times, to get the current "warming" result they wanted! Even the Queens University refuses to release the raw data they used in their "tree ring" study!
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 You apparently did not read my post that CRU gets their raw data from primary sources that ANYONE can access. That means anybody can get the raw data from Global Historical Climatology Network and National Centre for Atmospheric Research and check CRU's work. So what raw data does CRU need to release? You REALLY don't know what you are talking about in any meaningful detail.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@darknes7800 It is quite obvious that YOU are the one lacking in an unbiased view on the actual climate science that is going on. You read out of context quotes from hacked emails and have made up your mind that all climate science is an overarching liberal conspiracy. You have not done ANY real unbiased and open minded research into the situation. You heard something that fits your politics and so anything else, in your mind, must be bunk. That is BIAS.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darknes7800 AGW scientists have evidence that strongly supports AGW. So, why can't you post something that refutes it? You claim "its tough to disprove its existance when there is NO 100% PROOF that it does exist." Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. If the real-world observations did not support AGW then it would be pretty easy to debunk. However, the observations made by climate scientists all over the world support AGW.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@darknes7800 I like how you never really discuss what I've posted. You try to bring up some other point instead of trying to refute the ones I've made. And please explain the details of how NASA had to revise their "math" three times to get the current warming. If you are so knowledgeable that should be easy for you. I'm not going to hold my breath though. I predict you will go on about your conspiracy theory for which you have provided NO SUPPORT.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@darknes7800 And one other thing: You say that climate warming is occurring but that it is part of a natural cycle. Then why do you question the measurements (supported by real world events) that show there is warming? Your main argument should be against the evidence that it's manmade. However, your argument would still not hold up. It's unfornutate you are not able to see how contradictory and politically biased your thinking is.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk unfortunate
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk Hey fucker,black diesel smoke FALLS BACK TO THE GROUND. or in other words,doesnt pollute the atmoshpere...me warming my hemi for 20 minutes does that
GreatWhiteHyype 1 month ago in playlist More videos from zfuller123
@GreatWhiteHyype lmao y do we even bother trying to explain our selves to people anymore lol
lb7boy 1 month ago
@GreatWhiteHyype I'm not talking about diesel soot you fucking moron! I'm talking about C02. There is more to diesel exhaust than particulate. Besides, the whole thing started with darknes talking about AGW as if it were not happening.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk Arrogant? More name calling? LOL Again, my position is simple. There is no 100% proof of man made GW. Most (if not all) the data and scientists you quote are in question (CG 2.0)....In addition to Berkeley's so called RURAL climate tracking stations, which were actually URBAN locations....intended to support the "warming" myth and basically LIE about the temperature increases in those areas! How much proof of LYING by the man made GW scientists do you need to hear?????
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 How are the scientists in question? Have you read all the hacked emails? Have you really put the comments into the correct context? I worry that you have just read all the quote mining and c'n'pd it here. See, if there was anything revealed to be a true conspiracy (in CG 2.0) it would have made HUGE headlines. In case you didn't realize, the UK Daily Mail is not known for it's journalistic integrity.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk Here AGAIN is the ultimate flaw in the mmGW theory. First, ALL of the so called data can be and has been manipulated to show the intended outcome. Jones and his crew have YET to fully disclose all their RAW DATA ( I wonder why?). Data has been lost and destroyed, yet they continue to use it as fact. Politicians are making MILLIONS and trying to make BILLIONS off the scam. With the ultimate goal being to scam the WORLD out of $47 TRILLION in new taxes. Follow the money!
darknes7800 2 months ago
@SourdoughMusk ClimateGate 2.0 will be the final nail in the man made GW debate. Unless you want to quote Gore, who 2-3 years ago said, the debate is over. He only wanted the debate to be over, because he had manipulated the data to show what he and Jones wanted. Jones then started his document destruction and shredding parties to hide all the corrupt data and emails used in their quest for their foregone conclusion of mmGW. The wheels are coming off, yet you still blindly believe......????
darknes7800 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Climategate 2.0? LOL! You deny the evidence that is available from multiple peer reviewed research documents from around the world. You do not have a grasp of the science or the scientific debate. You have not posted any evidence to counter AGW theory. All you have done is blustered on about a conspiracy theory! try this: skepticalscience. com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced. htm (remove the spaces)
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago
@darknes7800 Shredding parties? Of what? The raw data CRU uses comes from a primary source that ANYONE can access. WTF are you talking about? Please post a link that substantiates ANYTHING you have said.
SourdoughMusk 2 months ago