The heat is on: UPS misplaces Earth

satellitedriver

Moderator
Thanks for asking me. I will do just that.
In my opinion, and having read your posts for some time, your existence "seems" to be a very singular one.
By that I mean it "seems" to be all about satellitedriver. You "seem" to fancy yourself as a "cyborg" as featured on the "Terminator" and "Sarah Conner Chronicles" movie and TV series.
You "seem" to care less about your fellow man to the extent that you disavow the organized labor organization that you may, at one time, have belonged to. We all know that super heros don't need anyone negotiating their labor contract. Super heros can inflict their wrath and force the company to pay the wages they currently receive. Your scope doesn't "seem" to be broad enough to understand what would happen if the union were busted and the company had full control.
Your post about the greenpeace people, you know, the ones that are trying to keep the environment from going straight to hell, "seems" to illustrate your singular philosophy as it applies to the satellitedriver instead of getting the whole picture and the consequences further down the road if we don't do something now. BUT WAIT....I forgot.... programmed cyborgs can't be stopped and their scope is fairly limited.
In "seems" in the world according to satellitedriver that it's all about satellitedriver and no one else.
Just curious, did the company create that satellite route for you after you decided to step out of the bigger picture, you know, the one that applied to everyone else (the evil union collective unit)?
I'm sure I will be exiled again because it "seems" I have insulted another member but I really offered my opinion as asked by said member.
It "seems" to me.
I welcome your counterpoint.
Glad you got that off your chest.
Sorry, I will have to respond tomorrow or this weekend.
I am still running Christmas loads and punched out with another 10hr day.
BTW, one question you posed I will answer tonight.
I was already a Sat driver in 97'and a dues paying member for 11 years.
Later gator.
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
So it's safe to say that it took 3-4 posts for you understand what most people probably got in the 1st post?
While it's not offensive, it is sad.

It doesn't take "voices", just common sense, to understand, you haven't made one contributing post to this thread except avoid the issues as usual.



Hmmmm. Earth= Several billion years old.......160 years= a nanosecond.....Ok maybe not 1 billionth of a second, but you get the idea.

temperature%20history.jpg

Do you see what I see, and no, its not a Diad.

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=92074

Sometimes when your stumbling, you stumble in a pile of crap...:smart:

La Nina schma Nina. La-Nina winters are more typically cold across the NW CONUS and Upper plains, but this fall into winter is different as the equatorial waters are not nearly as La-nina like as the pattern that is being produced. Infact this fall we were closer to La-Nada , heading out of last winter through summers own La-Nina episode.

Last fall winter into spring was a Nina which turned neutral, and how cold/hot was it in your backyards?

Last summer was one of the coolest and wettest summers in recent memory here in the northeast, which is very typical of La-Nina. Yes, last year for the most part was a well-behaved Nina so we call it.

My Point: There are too many climate indexes to starting pointing fingers in any GW argument, especially since you can grab any one index (ex PDO) and make the index fit your agenda just because it does so by coincidence and run with it but never be able to prove anything.

Alrighty then.......who the heck is this Sec Gen of the WMO anyway, with your expertise why are you a truck driver? :wink2:

My point; Several naysayers seem to produce weathermen here to support the view that human activity is not influencing global warming, but these weathermen seem to be deficient in basic scientific training and seem to lack an understanding of CO2 chemistry and physics that one should acquire in high school.

The basic argument is that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level. Why do doubters deny this scientific fact and called it a scam?
 
It doesn't take "voices", just common sense, to understand, you haven't made one contributing post to this thread except avoid the issues as usual.
LOL, have you been sniffing diesel fuel tanks again?
Want me to address the issue? OK, I will.

Has UPS found the miss placed package yet?
Thread name :The heat is on: UPS misplaces Earth
 

dilligaf

IN VINO VERITAS
So it's safe to say that it took 3-4 posts for you understand what most people probably got in the 1st post?
While it's not offensive, it is sad.

So it's safe to say, the feelings are mutual for you towards the majority who "hears voices" and speak up on behalf of the human contribution of global warming. Which resorts back to my previous posts of the contempt towards the messengers and the innocense of implementing common sense....wow, such offensive mearsures.
You boys are pissin all over my floor. Go play outside!:happy-very:
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
LOL, have you been sniffing diesel fuel tanks again?
Want me to address the issue? OK, I will.

Has UPS found the miss placed package yet?
Thread name :The heat is on: UPS misplaces Earth

After the first post of this thread, it turned into a bashfest of treehuggers, greenpeace, and Al Gore. It had nothing to do about a miss-placed global awareness package. Once an opposition spoke up for all the ignorance being spewed, I must have touched a nerve. :woohoo:

You boys are pissin all over my floor. Go play outside!:happy-very:

Chill Dill...:wink2: It's to cold to go outside......It's a whole 58 degrees this morning...:cold: in my neck of the woods.... besides I perfer tile....but I know a good carpet cleaner for you...lol
 
P

pickup

Guest
I remember in the first half of this decade, stories in the news that referred to global warming always had a disclaimer "which some scientists believe in" (or something to that effect. I could be wrong about the exact year (2005 late 2004) I remember sitting in my truck in a customer's loading dock listening to the radio to a cbs radio affiliate( I found out that cbs news radio stations pretty much have the same format as well as some of the same contributers, but I digress) and heard a news report that said, " Well, it is no longer a theory but fact, scientists have definitively proven global warming." From that very same day, every news outlet (print, tv, radio, etc) had global warming as a fact in any story related to it. It was as if a central figure decided to change what we were hearing one day (whether it was the truth or not is beside the point. Did anyone else notice this? How it was considered a theory one day, and the next day trumpeted as if God etched it in stone and it was not to be de bated?
 
After the first post of this thread, it turned into a bashfest of treehuggers, greenpeace, and Al Gore. It had nothing to do about a miss-placed global awareness package. Once an opposition spoke up for all the ignorance being spewed, I must have touched a nerve.

Actually I think it was YOUR nerve that was "touched". I challenge you to show me where I bashed"treehuggers, greenpeace, and Al Gore." I didn't even "bash" you, just poked a little fun your way and you came unglued.
Personally I find it very hard to take any debate on man kind's contribution to global warming very serious. As someone has already pointed out there are enough very qualified scientist on both sides of the argument to be able to make a solid verifiable conclusion. Does that mean I don't think we should do our part in keeping our environment as clean as we can? No, it sure doesn't, cuz I do. But I sure don't think that getting in a heated argument on a message board is going to stop Global Warming, especially since it has been proven that it is going to happen regardless of what we do or don't do.
Other than that, I don't have anymore to say. Well, one more thing.
Deisel, sorry you can't take a joke.
 

tieguy

Banned
(global warming fast facts).




And for those who think just because it's cold outside, global warming doesn't exist; From the WMO website;

Global warming continues, despite cold snap
(updated on 14 January)

The Secretary-General of WMO, Michel Jarraud, told journalists last week that, despite the current cold snap in Europe, the major trend remained unmistakably one of warming. "If we look at the trajectory over the last 160 years”, he said “it overlays a large natural variability, and that's what causes confusion”.
The cooler weather that was a hallmark of 2008 could be explained partly by La Niña, a reversal of the phenomenon by which warm waters build up on the surface of the Pacific.
Secretary-General's press briefing

They have spent a lot of time and effort building up the global warming hoax. I would expect them to try to defend it even though there was a dramatic reversal in warming last year.
 

dilligaf

IN VINO VERITAS
After the first post of this thread, it turned into a bashfest of treehuggers, greenpeace, and Al Gore. It had nothing to do about a miss-placed global awareness package. Once an opposition spoke up for all the ignorance being spewed, I must have touched a nerve. :woohoo:



Chill Dill...:wink2: It's to cold to go outside......It's a whole 58 degrees this morning...:cold: in my neck of the woods.... besides I perfer tile....but I know a good carpet cleaner for you...lol

Yes Ma'am...I'll stop...but please don't make me go outside...it's cold out there.
I'm glad you both agree. I was gettin' ready to get the willow switch out. :wink2:
 

satellitedriver

Moderator
Thanks for asking me. I will do just that.
You are welcome. (I am typing in green just for you.)
In my opinion, and having read your posts for some time, your existence "seems" to be a very singular one.
By that I mean it "seems" to be all about satellitedriver. You "seem" to fancy yourself as a "cyborg" as featured on the "Terminator" and "Sarah Conner Chronicles" movie and TV series.
Huh?
I am flesh and blood. I may act like an android at work,
but,I have never fancied myself in any fictional form.
You "seem" to care less about your fellow man to the extent that you disavow the organized labor organization that you may, at one time, have belonged to.
Wrong again, 1trickpony.
I am still in good standing with IBEW and the USWA.
It is the teamsters I refuse to be counted as a member.
We all know that super heros don't need anyone negotiating their labor contract. Super heros can inflict their wrath and force the company to pay the wages they currently receive. Your scope doesn't "seem" to be broad enough to understand what would happen if the union were busted and the company had full control.
First off, I have never claimed to be a superhero, that is your dementia.
My scope is sighted for 200 yards.
It is their company, so be it.
I do the job and they pay me.
How much more simple can it be?

Your post about the greenpeace people, you know, the ones that are trying to keep the environment from going straight to hell, "seems" to illustrate your singular philosophy as it applies to the satellitedriver instead of getting the whole picture and the consequences further down the road if we don't do something now. BUT WAIT....I forgot.... programmed cyborgs can't be stopped and their scope is fairly limited.
Well, that paragraph made sense.:funny:
In "seems" in the world according to satellitedriver that it's all about satellitedriver and no one else.

Time for your meds?

Just curious, did the company create that satellite route for you after you decided to step out of the bigger picture, you know, the one that applied to everyone else (the evil union collective unit)?
No, Sat driver since 95'.
In your negative view world, only UPS can be called the "evil empire."
I'm sure I will be exiled again because it "seems" I have insulted another member but I really offered my opinion as asked by said member.
I will not exile you, and will defend you stating your feelings.

It "seems" to me.
I welcome your counterpoint.

"Seems" this thread has been hijacked.
OK, back to tree hugging.
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
I remember in the first half of this decade, stories in the news that referred to global warming always had a disclaimer "which some scientists believe in" (or something to that effect. I could be wrong about the exact year (2005 late 2004) I remember sitting in my truck in a customer's loading dock listening to the radio to a cbs radio affiliate( I found out that cbs news radio stations pretty much have the same format as well as some of the same contributers, but I digress) and heard a news report that said, " Well, it is no longer a theory but fact, scientists have definitively proven global warming." From that very same day, every news outlet (print, tv, radio, etc) had global warming as a fact in any story related to it. It was as if a central figure decided to change what we were hearing one day (whether it was the truth or not is beside the point. Did anyone else notice this? How it was considered a theory one day, and the next day trumpeted as if God etched it in stone and it was not to be de bated?

It is true the earth has warmed. There is no question about that. The problem is not that evidence, it is WHAT the cause of the warming is.

Technically global warming is real.
 

UnconTROLLed

perfection
It doesn't take "voices", just common sense, to understand, you haven't made one contributing post to this thread except avoid the issues as usual.

Why Do Conservatives Deny Global Warming? - CareCure Forums <...click

Sometimes when your stumbling, you stumble in a pile of crap...:smart:


Alrighty then.......who the heck is this Sec Gen of the WMO anyway, with your expertise why are you a truck driver? :wink2:

My point; Several naysayers seem to produce weathermen here to support the view that human activity is not influencing global warming, but these weathermen seem to be deficient in basic scientific training and seem to lack an understanding of CO2 chemistry and physics that one should acquire in high school.

The basic argument is that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level. Why do doubters deny this scientific fact and called it a scam?

Say what you will, but I have advanced through college level math and physics to run circles around your basic theories and general opinions. Call me a dumb truck driver or whatever you want to label me, I will label you a blind follower and incapable of thinking for yourself. ;);) Trust me, I am not on the outside looking in on this one. Of course you may believe what you wish.
 
Last edited:

diesel96

Well-Known Member
Actually I think it was YOUR nerve that was "touched". I challenge you to show me where I bashed"treehuggers, greenpeace, and Al Gore." I didn't even "bash" you, just poked a little fun your way and you came unglued.
Personally I find it very hard to take any debate on man kind's contribution to global warming very serious. As someone has already pointed out there are enough very qualified scientist on both sides of the argument to be able to make a solid verifiable conclusion. Does that mean I don't think we should do our part in keeping our environment as clean as we can? No, it sure doesn't, cuz I do. But I sure don't think that getting in a heated argument on a message board is going to stop Global Warming, especially since it has been proven that it is going to happen regardless of what we do or don't do.

Other than that, I don't have anymore to say. Well, one more thing.
Deisel, sorry you can't take a joke.

I've been putting out an opposing view to most participating on this thread, trying to stick to the subject when you decided to take it to a lower level (or poke fun). Oh well, anyway....Eventhough we disagree, I was interested what you had to say about the subject matter. That I can respect.




I'm glad you both agree. I was gettin' ready to get the willow switch out. :wink2:

We agree to dis-agree...So pull up a chair, and we'll share our w(h)ines with some cheese...and break bread.

They have spent a lot of time and effort building up the global warming hoax. I would expect them to try to defend it even though there was a dramatic reversal in warming last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm

If not reducing Co2 emmissions for your Earth and mankind, but do it for your country and stop enriching our enemies......Have our indepedence come full circle?

Say what you will, but I have advanced through college level math and physics to run circles around your basic theories and general opinions. Call me a dumb truck driver or whatever you want to label me, I will label you a blind follower and incapable of thinking for yourself. ;);) Trust me, I am not on the outside looking in on this one. Of course you may believe what you wish.

:congrats:on your advanced schooling, seriously, I can't even remember my college days 20 years ago, nor do I feel the need to embellish my credentials or be ashamed to be a truck driver because at the end of the day we all claim to be experts with "the internets" and "the google"(..lol quotes of GWB) at our fingertips. How we process info and form opinions is another subject. But when it comes to Climatology, no offense, I don't pretend to be a meterologist, I will blindly follow the majority concensus of outside independent agencies looking in, such as WMO = World Meteorological Organization with no liberal-conservative agenda hang-ups.....
 

dilligaf

IN VINO VERITAS
I've been putting out an opposing view to most participating on this thread, trying to stick to the subject when you decided to take it to a lower level (or poke fun). Oh well, anyway....Eventhough we disagree, I was interested what you had to say about the subject matter. That I can respect.






We agree to dis-agree...So pull up a chair, and we'll share our w(h)ines with some cheese...and break bread.


OKAY! Works for me. I like wheat bread. How 'bout you Trp?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm

If not reducing Co2 emmissions for your Earth and mankind, but do it for your country and stop enriching our enemies......Have our indepedence come full circle?



:congrats:on your advanced schooling, seriously, I can't even remember my college days 20 years ago, nor do I feel the need to embellish my credentials or be ashamed to be a truck driver because at the end of the day we all claim to be experts with "the internets" and "the google"(..lol quotes of GWB) at our fingertips. How we process info and form opinions is another subject. But when it comes to Climatology, no offense, I don't pretend to be a meterologist, I will blindly follow the majority concensus of outside independent agencies looking in, such as WMO = World Meteorological Organization with no liberal-conservative agenda hang-ups.....
:happy-very:
 
Top