If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Caller)   Remember when NOAA said that July 2012 was the hottest month ever recorded in the US? Yeah, about that   (dailycaller.com) divider line 293
    More: Followup, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, temperature record, average surface temperature  
•       •       •

15529 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2014 at 9:19 PM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



293 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-30 10:06:47 PM
It's only weather...
 
2014-06-30 10:09:59 PM

fusillade762: spamdog: Do these guys need constant reassurance or what?

Gotta muddy the waters so people will still think there's a debate when there isn't. It's the exact same thing they did with acid rain and cigarette smoke.


jim32rr: thefonz37: Time to sell the Prius and go buy a big gas guzzling v8 I guess? Seems legit.

They make V-12's you know

Screw that noise.

[o.aolcdn.com image 628x417]

Sixteen cylinders. Flat out the tank is empty in 12 minutes.


I'll see your Bugatti Veyron, and suck that fuel down the old school way ...

sp.yimg.com
 
2014-06-30 10:10:36 PM
anyone dare me to fark my wife in this humidity tonight?
 
2014-06-30 10:10:43 PM

Mikey1969: Wait, is the scandal that they listed 2012 as the "hottest", that they fixed the error, or that they "quietly" made 1936 the "hottest" again? I don't quite follow these scandals.


This isn't really one.  The average temperature in the US isn't terribly relevant to the global warming discussion, and that's what this article is about.  Average global temperature would be.
 
2014-06-30 10:13:41 PM

SlothB77: The NOAA has been adjusting past temperatures down and recent temperatures up.


Did you read the article? They said 1936 was reinstated as the warmest year, not because 2012 numbers were moved down, but because 1936 numbers were moved up.

So tell me how this changes anything?
 
2014-06-30 10:13:50 PM
if you worry about climate change then you must be poor

meanwhile my health insurance costs more per year than I make gross
 
2014-06-30 10:14:27 PM

austin_millbarge: SlothB77: The NOAA has been adjusting past temperatures down and recent temperatures up.

Did you read the article? They said 1936 was reinstated as the warmest year, not because 2012 numbers were moved down, but because 1936 numbers were moved up.

So tell me how this changes anything?


because you are gay
 
2014-06-30 10:15:38 PM

vodka: meanwhile my health insurance costs more per

yearmonth than I make gross per year

FTFM
 
2014-06-30 10:16:23 PM
farking hell I hate the new Fark comment non-HTML bullshiat
 
2014-06-30 10:17:18 PM
Greatest astrotufing campaign in history.  Get a whole bunch of folks to doubt climate change to protect corporate profits, even though in the long term it'll be ruinous to their lives and their children's lives.  But so what?  At least you get to jam a big stick into the eye of that smartassed science guy you imagine slighted you in some way!  Yeah, take THAT, science man!  And when the climate shifts and crops fail, and people worldwide are dying in the millions, you can be content and secure in the knowledge that you personally helped bring this about.  Oh well, at least they gave you a coupon for a one time delivery of a half-days rations for one person and a little packet of pubic hairs the Koch brothers personally clipped from their balls.  But the important thing is you put them smug science farkers in their place, right?
 
2014-06-30 10:17:25 PM

kvinesknows: anyone dare me to fark my wife in this humidity tonight?


Yeah. Fark her right in the humidity.
 
2014-06-30 10:17:45 PM
After last Winter I really don't care how hot it gets.

/Coldest Winter ever.
//Ten straight days of zero degree weather.
///I live in the South btw.
 
2014-06-30 10:18:45 PM

SlothB77: 98% of scientists agree, there is man-made global warming when using falsified data.

The NOAA has been adjusting past temperatures down and recent temperatures up.  They have been manipulating the data.  it isn't accurate.  It is falsified.

Wanna talk about unskewing the statisticals?  NOAA is the king of unskewing.


People like you are the reason why scientists have had to just straight up literally film glaciers melting.
 
2014-06-30 10:18:47 PM

fusillade762: kvinesknows: anyone dare me to fark my wife in this humidity tonight?

Yeah. Fark her right in the humidity.


its slippery when wet
 
2014-06-30 10:19:18 PM
the daily caller citing anthony watts? the circle of derp is complete
 
2014-06-30 10:19:57 PM

vodka: farking hell I hate the new Fark comment non-HTML bullshiat


i58.tinypic.com

Under preferences. Uncheck that second box.
 
2014-06-30 10:22:27 PM
Whatever is going on the difference so far is so slight people can sling this argument back and forth. So lets start building nukes, because pumping out all that CO2 indefinitely can't be good, and hold off seizing control of people's lives until we have something absolutely solid to go on. And stop hyping the goddam models. So far they've been useless. None of their predictions are happening. Storms are NOT getting more numerous and intense, and claiming that it will just hurts scientific credibility. A whole bunch of greedy government/socialist types are drooling at the chance to tax our current lifestyle into oblivion.

We're not going to turn into Venus, mmm'kay? The CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been far higher in the past, and the earth recovered. No reason why it won't again. IF the science is solid, AGW will be established/verified at some point. Right now it is just too politicized. The non-stop ideological war over this is destroying public trust in science. People will tune it all out, and when something really needs to be done, the people will ignore it.
 
2014-06-30 10:24:36 PM
I love how one graph shows the trend in a different unit than the other. The first one shows the trend as +1.24° per century, but the other shows it as +0.1° per decade.
 
2014-06-30 10:24:41 PM

Rindred: So, a statistical anomaly in fractions of a degree in one year that doesn't in any way disprove the increase in average temperature over the last 100 years suddenly disproves climate change? What is is, Fox News?


he NOAA trendline starts at 1900 and not 1914.  If it started at 1914, the trendline becomes even smaller as temps were cooler during the turn of the century than in the 1910-1915 range.  If you were to use the very warm 30s, you would probably get a line with a flat, or maybe even negative slope as the 30s were very warm.  Where you choose the start point makes all the difference in this analysis. Some points

 - Everyone agrees global temperatures change over time.  There is considerable debate over the cause
  - No one is doubting that global temperatures increased from the late 70s to the late 90s.
 - Most agree that temperatures have flattened since then.

In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment
 
2014-06-30 10:25:53 PM
Go home, article. You're drunk and incomprehensible.
 
2014-06-30 10:26:17 PM

austin_millbarge: SlothB77: The NOAA has been adjusting past temperatures down and recent temperatures up.

Did you read the article? They said 1936 was reinstated as the warmest year, not because 2012 numbers were moved down, but because 1936 numbers were moved up.

So tell me how this changes anything?


1936 was like 50 years ago man. I doubt last years temps changed what the temp were then. Unless we're affecting the past past dude.
 
2014-06-30 10:26:38 PM
We're the government, we'll tell you what tge facts are.

When we change the facts, you'll simply accept it, citizen.

/pick up that can
 
2014-06-30 10:33:24 PM

Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment


97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus.  Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate.  The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done.  Notice the deniers never do the science themselves.  Funny how that shiat works.
 
2014-06-30 10:36:14 PM
 
2014-06-30 10:36:15 PM

DarthBart: thefonz37: Time to sell the Prius and go buy a big gas guzzling v8 I guess? Seems legit.

Nah, gas guzzling V8 is so a year or two ago.  Now the Real Men(tm) mod their diesels to "roll coal" and belch out huge clouds of black smoke.


Nah, real men mod their diesels to run at 50% power over stock, and get 52 mpg.

/VW TDI
//slashies
///kneel before the god of Torque, biatches
////thank you, Rocketchip
 
2014-06-30 10:37:59 PM

Cpl.D: Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus.  Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate.  The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done.  Notice the deniers never do the science themselves.  Funny how that shiat works.


The 97% thing was debunked ages ago. But even if true all it would mean is that 97% of scientists receiving money to study man made climate change believe it exists to continue the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.
 
2014-06-30 10:38:59 PM
Does the university drop-out weatherman explain why such an allegedly dishonest organization would bother updating a past temperature. All it would accomplish is giving the anti-science crowd something else to rant on and on about. Which is exactly what is happening.
 Can any of the anti-science crowd explain what their motivation would be? If they are dishonest they could have just left the number alone. Why update it???
 
2014-06-30 10:40:07 PM

leadmetal: The temperature record is garbage due to undocumented changes that seem to be done on pretty much a daily basis.


http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/luling-keeps -c hanging/

Then there is the infilling, the gridding, the zombie stations, the stations where estimated data is used even when real data is available....  but let's just look at one plot showing how NOAA adjusts data... past cooler, present warmer.

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 650x502]



I'm always amused to how NOAA rounds to the nearest degree celsius when recording temperatures and then are like .... ZOMG!!!! 2 degree Fahrenheit anomaly!!!!!  It's more like "No shiat, sherlock".

Every day of June 2012 your max temperature is 29.4 celsius, you record it as 29.
Every day of June 2013, your max temp is 29.5 celsius you record it as 30.

Your pretty graph shows an increase of 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees fahrenheit.

When in reality your max temperature increased .18 degrees fahrenheit.

When you're talking about assertions like "Average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.31 to 0.48°F per decade)",  why let false precision stop you?
 
2014-06-30 10:40:53 PM

mark12A: Whatever is going on the difference so far is so slight people can sling this argument back and forth. So lets start building nukes, because pumping out all that CO2 indefinitely can't be good, and hold off seizing control of people's lives until we have something absolutely solid to go on. And stop hyping the goddam models. So far they've been useless. None of their predictions are happening. Storms are NOT getting more numerous and intense, and claiming that it will just hurts scientific credibility. A whole bunch of greedy government/socialist types are drooling at the chance to tax our current lifestyle into oblivion.

We're not going to turn into Venus, mmm'kay? The CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been far higher in the past, and the earth recovered. No reason why it won't again. IF the science is solid, AGW will be established/verified at some point. Right now it is just too politicized. The non-stop ideological war over this is destroying public trust in science. People will tune it all out, and when something really needs to be done, the people will ignore it.


So tell me, how are the species that existed when CO2 levels were far higher doing?

Yeah, nobody reputable is saying the whole world is gonna end. Life finds a way, and all that. But we may very well destroy ourselves (or at least drastically change our civilization) if we don't change our path. It's stupid that we're clinging to old, destructive forms of energy (let alone allowing corporations to get away with dumping their shiat in the air and water, with no more than a slap on the wrist if they do it TOO blatantly), because energy companies are too shortsighted and greedy to invest in the future, rather than maximizing profits *now*.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-30 10:41:12 PM

SphericalTime: Bets are that he's looking at two slightly different data sets and simply doesn't know how to tell the difference.


Acknowledging that this is a weather statistic and not climate, how many different data sets does NOAA keep, it total, if you include all of them?
 
2014-06-30 10:42:53 PM

MemeSlave: DarthBart: thefonz37: Time to sell the Prius and go buy a big gas guzzling v8 I guess? Seems legit.

Nah, gas guzzling V8 is so a year or two ago.  Now the Real Men(tm) mod their diesels to "roll coal" and belch out huge clouds of black smoke.

Nah, real men mod their diesels to run at 50% power over stock, and get 52 mpg.

/VW TDI
//slashies
///kneel before the god of Torque, biatches
////thank you, Rocketchip


I have a Jetta TDI with 214,000 miles on it, I must know more about your torque
 
2014-06-30 10:42:59 PM
Interesting Fact (or Boring Fact, you choose): The NOAA is one of 7 federal uniformed services in the United States.
 
2014-06-30 10:43:00 PM
leadmetal:The 97% thing was debunked ages ago. But even if true all it would mean is that 97% of scientists receiving money to study man made climate change believe it exists to continue the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

Sure it was.  I appreciate the proof you've offered.  And sure, scientists just love the glitsy lifestyles with all the glamor and fast cars and fancy women they get because all scientific grants also come with million dollar per diem giveaways, while those poor oil industry executives who have NO PAST HISTORY WHATSOEVER of doing anything slightly wrong in the interest or protecting their profits in the history of ever have to suffer with the small incomes they all probably make.
 
2014-06-30 10:43:26 PM

leadmetal: Cpl.D: Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus.  Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate.  The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done.  Notice the deniers never do the science themselves.  Funny how that shiat works.

The 97% thing was debunked ages ago.


[citation needed]

But even if true all it would mean is that 97% of scientists receiving money to study man made climate change believe it exists to continue the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

Yes, it's the vast majority of climate scientists whose motives are driven by money! Not the ones on the payroll of energy companies, THEIR motives are pure and just!
 
2014-06-30 10:45:48 PM

SlothB77: 98% of scientists agree, there is man-made global warming when using falsified data.

The NOAA has been adjusting past temperatures down and recent temperatures up.  They have been manipulating the data.  it isn't accurate.  It is falsified.

Wanna talk about unskewing the statisticals?  NOAA is the king of unskewing.


As versed in unskewing as you are, perhaps we should get another expert to help, so why don't we ask President Romney what he thinks about it?
 
2014-06-30 10:48:24 PM

LordJiro: leadmetal: Cpl.D: Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus.  Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate.  The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done.  Notice the deniers never do the science themselves.  Funny how that shiat works.

The 97% thing was debunked ages ago.

[citation needed]

But even if true all it would mean is that 97% of scientists receiving money to study man made climate change believe it exists to continue the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

Yes, it's the vast majority of climate scientists whose motives are driven by money! Not the ones on the payroll of energy companies, THEIR motives are pure and just!


Greedy people drive Camrys.
 
2014-06-30 10:48:29 PM
31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-30 10:50:06 PM

mark12A: IF the science is solid, AGW will be established/verified at some point.


It has been established and verified for a decade (or longer) now.

The anti-science crowd has been endless spewing propaganda to confuse the uneducated masses but anyone with a science background (who isn't blinded by politics) can see right through their lies. There is massive amounts of evidence from multiple different scientific fields that have all combined to give a very clear picture of what has happened and what is happening.

Cutting through the lies is easy ... look at the sources. Is it an ex-weather man who dropped out of university or is it 97% of the scientists actively working and publishing in the field. If it is the former then it is politically motivated propaganda. If it is the latter you can look at the papers they publish, you can see the evidence they've gathered, you can look into the methods they've used, you can replicated their calculations if you wish.

Real science has transparency ... it is not just blogs with unsubstantiated allegations and misinterpreted or intentionally distorted science.
 
2014-06-30 10:50:47 PM
pic60.picturetrail.com

/freedom
 
2014-06-30 10:51:48 PM
F(page 2 of)TFA:

"Many station observations that were confined to paper, especially from early in the 20th century, have been scanned and keyed and are now digitally available to inform these time series," Deke Arndt, chief of NOAA's Climate Monitoring Branch, told TheDCNF.

For the tl:dr crowd: NOAA scanned in and incorporated more historical data, which was on paper and not included in previous estimates, from old archives.  This new data raised the 1936 average by 0.2f.

NOAA has a more accurate data from the 1980s and on because it was all kept digitally.  The older data (From 1900 to the '80s, was on paper and gets added in as they get it scanned and processed.  This new data can change the graphs and models slightly as it is incorporated, but over all it doesn't necessarily negate or strengthen any climate change arguments.  Notice how the trend line (Taken over the same time period) didn't change.  This whole thing is a non-story.  It is the equivalent of a Pullitzer Prize winning author misspelling "there" as "thier" in 1 novel on page 387 and having people trying to claim he is illiterate.
 
2014-06-30 10:52:08 PM
Look at 1980 on the two graphs. One clearly shows the average temperature above 76 degrees, the other shows it below. There is also a really obvious discrepancy in 1900.

These are clearly two different data sets.
 
2014-06-30 10:53:10 PM

mark12A: The CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been far higher in the past, and the earth recovered. No reason why it won't again.


Citation needed.

Also, humans weren't around to continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere then.
 
2014-06-30 10:54:01 PM

mark12A: Whatever is going on the difference so far is so slight people can sling this argument back and forth. So lets start building nukes, because pumping out all that CO2 indefinitely can't be good, and hold off seizing control of people's lives until we have something absolutely solid to go on. And stop hyping the goddam models. So far they've been useless. None of their predictions are happening. Storms are NOT getting more numerous and intense, and claiming that it will just hurts scientific credibility. A whole bunch of greedy government/socialist types are drooling at the chance to tax our current lifestyle into oblivion.

We're not going to turn into Venus, mmm'kay? The CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been far higher in the past, and the earth recovered. No reason why it won't again. IF the science is solid, AGW will be established/verified at some point. Right now it is just too politicized. The non-stop ideological war over this is destroying public trust in science. People will tune it all out, and when something really needs to be done, the people will ignore it.


This ^^^^^
 
pla
2014-06-30 10:54:45 PM
SphericalTime : Bets are that he's looking at two slightly different data sets and simply doesn't know how to tell the difference.

DingDingDing, we have a winner!

Notice how one of those graphs has the word "average" in the title and the other doesn't?

If so, you've managed more than the "expert" climatologist that wrote TFA, congrats!


But seriously, quibbling over three hundredths of a degree? The "deniers" have waaaaay too much free time on their hands. Don't they have a gay christian abortion clinic to protest or something?
 
2014-06-30 10:55:51 PM

Cpl.D: leadmetal:The 97% thing was debunked ages ago. But even if true all it would mean is that 97% of scientists receiving money to study man made climate change believe it exists to continue the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

Sure it was.  I appreciate the proof you've offered.  And sure, scientists just love the glitsy lifestyles with all the glamor and fast cars and fancy women they get because all scientific grants also come with million dollar per diem giveaways, while those poor oil industry executives who have NO PAST HISTORY WHATSOEVER of doing anything slightly wrong in the interest or protecting their profits in the history of ever have to suffer with the small incomes they all probably make.


media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com
 
2014-06-30 10:56:07 PM

RedVentrue: This ^^^^^


Thank you for your valuable contribution to our discussion.

I'm going to take that to mean you believe the science is settled and humans are warming the earth.
 
2014-06-30 10:59:03 PM
Wow, we've got a BUNCH of new sleeper shills popping up in this thread.
 
2014-06-30 11:00:46 PM
Cripes! The Earth has been passing into a new ice age for decades now. That's just the Earth's cycle.There's nothing we can do about it. The nasty heat comes before the cold, then the cold gets worse: greenhouse effect, then "nuclear" winter. Earth Science 101. It's happened before.

Climate change folks are saying we are hastening the advance. Maybe we are, maybe not. But one thing is sure: it's inevitable. Perhaps not in all our lifetimes--maybe we all have a hundred years--or two. Or fifty. Or Twenty (a meteor or comet could take us all out any time). NOBODY knows.

What we do now can mean something. The here and now is permanent. What comes after is out of our control, even though we think it isn't. shiat happens. No belief or religion will save us from that.

Here's where you're expecting me to say something like "be good to one another." Fark that. Hell, I don't care, as long as you don't have my home address. Do what you want. But know that you are mere dust in life's scheme of things. Or not. Hell, I have no idea what the Universe wants from us--if anything. I merely suggest you cover your bases.

/if I owned a house I'd have solar
//have no idea how slashies work
///going to bed now
 
2014-06-30 11:01:35 PM
It's stupid that we're clinging to old, destructive forms of energy (let alone allowing corporations to get away with dumping their shiat in the air and water, with no more than a slap on the wrist if they do it TOO blatantly), because energy companies are too shortsighted and greedy to invest in the future, rather than maximizing profits *now*.

I am all for cleaning up energy production. I am NOT for demonizing capitalism, especially when it's being done to justify increasing government control of the economy, and trying to impose a socialist controlled economy.

Free markets and capitalism has VASTLY improved the world standard of living, and socialism will impoverish us all, as it already has where ever it's tried. Fark Scandinavia. They tried, saw it wasn't working, and backed away from nationalization, government control of production, etc. The counties that didn't see sense, didn't back away, went poor and collapsed or currently struggle along (USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.).

Ban the construction of new coal plants, and mandate all new power plants must be nuclear. Do things that actually reduce CO2, and stop pushing uneconomic "solutions" like wind and solar, which will never take the place of hydrocarbons unless an economic competitive means of storing electricity is found. The physics of that do not look promising. But the ideologues keep pushing wind/solar, simply not caring that it can't do the job, because they hold tight to their magical thinking that it will.
 
2014-06-30 11:03:45 PM

DarthBart: thefonz37: Time to sell the Prius and go buy a big gas guzzling v8 I guess? Seems legit.

Nah, gas guzzling V8 is so a year or two ago.  Now the Real Men(tm) mod their diesels to "roll coal" and belch out huge clouds of black smoke.


Everyone here uses DEF delete kits. DEF is a shiatty system.  It may work down south where it rarely gets below -25c, but up here it is a $1000+ repair bill EVERY time it gets below -25 and the DEF freezes cracking lines, injectors and breaking sensors.  Roll coal so you can have a reliable vehicle that will operate 12 months a year!  It is such a big problem that even commercial trucking companies are putting in DEF delete kits, despite the massive fines if caught. The fines are still cheaper than the repairs and downtime associated with DEF tanks.  The f550 i had last winter for work was a brand new vehicle. Between Nov - March the repair bills were over 50,000!!! We ended up driving an old f550 with a v10 for most the winter. The v10 got 4mpg but would turn over every morning.
 
Displayed 50 of 293 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report