Page 183 of 208 FirstFirst ... 83133173175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191193 ... LastLast
Results 4,551 to 4,575 of 5197
  1. #4551
    Member

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Last Online
    09-04-2017 @ 02:40 AM
    Posts
    288
    Id like to remind u bullshitnoob that he also said that the environmental movement has been hijacked bye cryptofascits and Marxists. Which one are u and hairy and landreth and the others who constantly push openly false twisted info. None of you fall into the environmentalist category your all from the extreme psycho Stalinist left. And to many have forgotten just what stalin did.

    Secondly id like to point out the bottom graph nemo put out which show that co2 and the worlds temperature are actually now at historical lows, drastically low, not high. These historical lows are warnings of extreme danger and how we can slip back into another ice age all too easily which is magnitudes more dangerous to life then 2 degrees of warming which is screamed about but never seen. And none of you say a word about how he reveals the real danger the very opposite of what you say. Another real danger is that he calls you cryptofascists and Marxists and that is no exoneration of any of you but an open condemnation.

    Of course mans pollution affects the world no one denies that, exactly what is the amount of change created bye man is the real question. For example 3 times now the present head of the epa has been before congress and questioned, there are videos on utube of her answering questions. In all 3 senators openly state that if the us does everything the epa asks for it will only reduce temps bye .1 degree in 100 years and then why should they destroy the us economy putting tens of millions out of work, destroying tens of millions of lives, in effect destroying the us. Her answer is always a variety of symbolism or we must lead the way. Lead the way to what? poverty, desperation, hopelessness. That is all you and your kind offer. To me that reveals clearly that it is all politics, power, and wealth transfer to yourselves. You and your kind will prosper while all others will sink into desperation. It almost fits to a t with paranoid Marxist conspiracy theories of the future destruction of the us and its way of life doesn't it.

    Marxist or cryptofascist which are you?
    Last edited by pulvarien; 28-12-2016 at 08:37 PM.

  2. #4552
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
    It is also correct to say that human industrial activity has added input into the system and changed the climate further.
    I rest my case.
    What case? How is it your case, you head case?! You're citing me as an authority and trying to call me a moron? How does that work?! That's like a Christian embracing Lucifer

    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
    you can be pro-Trump and pro-environment
    That would be like a Christian embracing Lucifer. Get real.
    ...but they do... it's in the bible, silly.
    Last edited by CaptainNemo; 28-12-2016 at 11:07 PM.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1F2i0rYMj8

    we are all figments of our own imagination.

  3. #4553
    POTUS HOCUS
    david44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    03-12-2018 @ 01:21 PM
    Location
    Inner Wrongholia
    Posts
    13,668
    Seems to be getting moist in my pants , is this due to CO2?

  4. #4554
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    19-04-2019 @ 09:38 AM
    Posts
    4,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Cow View Post
    Doubling CO2 and basic physics | Clive Best

    Try this if it works. It helps explain how C02 effects global warming. some may find it interesting.
    Best link on this thread.

  5. #4555
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    Quote Originally Posted by longway View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Cow View Post
    Doubling CO2 and basic physics | Clive Best

    Try this if it works. It helps explain how C02 effects global warming. some may find it interesting.
    Best link on this thread.
    Some of the comments in response to that article are worth a read.

  6. #4556
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    02-02-2019 @ 08:41 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,353
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by longway View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Cow View Post
    Doubling CO2 and basic physics | Clive Best

    Try this if it works. It helps explain how C02 effects global warming. some may find it interesting.
    Best link on this thread.
    Some of the comments in response to that article are worth a read.
    I had a look
    its like saying a chip pan on fire will heat the kitchen up.
    well it will, until the water sprinklers kick in

    if the earth warms up variables also come into play too
    the earth cracks more and volcanoes pump our coolants !!


    hopefully ...

  7. #4557
    Member

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Last Online
    09-04-2017 @ 02:40 AM
    Posts
    288
    The simple truth is we don't know, we cant predict the weather a few days in advance, how can we predict it years. We have theories, ideas, hopes and fears. I fear a mini or worse Yuge ice age not global warming, that would be wonderful, to return to the days of roman empires weather. When Hannibal could ride elephants across the alps...... The warming periods ushered in centuries of growth and prosperity for the world, of course there some losers, there will always be winners and losers.

  8. #4558
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,705
    Quote Originally Posted by longway View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh Cow View Post
    Doubling CO2 and basic physics | Clive Best

    Try this if it works. It helps explain how C02 effects global warming. some may find it interesting.
    Best link on this thread.

    Not really his methodology is flawed. Explained here;

    first a word of caution. Clive Best is an AGW 'skeptic', and while he is more mathematically sophisticated than most AGW 'skeptics', he still breathlessly writes about the lack of warming over the last twelve years, and predicts cooling temperatures for the next decade because the lower uncertainty bound of the HadCM2 model short term climate forecast permits it. Any recommendation of one blog post by Clive Best should not be construed as a recommendation of any other blog post by Best, or the quality of his blog in general.

    More importantly, Clive Best's attempt to calculate the effective altitude of radiation clearly fails on empirical grounds. Specifically, this is his calculated "effective altitude of radiation":





    Clearly he shows the effective altitude of radiation on either sides of the spikes at 620 and 720 cm-1 as being between zero and 1000 meters. In contrast, as can be seen in the real spectrum he shows, at those wave numbers, the effective altitude of radiation is closer to 6000 meters {calculated as (ground temperature - brightness temperature)/lapse rate}:





    As can be seen from his graph of the predicted IR spectra, he clearly gets the 660 cm-1 spike wrong as well, showing it as a dip (?!) for 300 ppmv, and as a barely discernable spike at 600 ppmv. That is so different from the obvious spike in the real world spectrum (at approx 390 ppmv) that you know (and he should have known) that he has got something significantly wrong.


    Before addressing that specifically, I will note two minor things he omitted (perhaps for simplicity). The first is that he has not included a number of factors that broaden the absorption lines. Broadening increases the width of the lines, but also reduces the peak absorbance of the lines. In any event, he has not included doppler broadening, possibly does not include collissional broadening, and probably does not include some of the other minor forms of broadening.


    The second factor is that he has not allowed for the difference in atmospheric profiles between the US Standard atmosphere and actual tropical conditions. Specifically, the atmosphere is thicker at the equator due to centrifugal "force", and also has a higher tropopause due to the greater strength of convective circulation. That later should reduce CO2 density, and might be accepted as the cause of the discrepancy except that mid latitude and even polar spectra show the same reduce absorbance relative to his calculated values (and hence higher effective altitude of radiation in the wings, and for the central spike).
    Although these factors are sources of inaccuracy, they do not account for the major error in calculation. That is probably a product of his definition of effective altitude of radiation, which he defines as the highest altitude at which "... the absorption of photons of that wave length within a 100m thick slice of the atmosphere becomes greater than the transmission of photons". That is, it is the altitude of the highest layer at which less than half of the upward IR flux at the top of that altitude comes from that layer.


    This definition is superficially similar to another common definition, ie, the lowest altitude from which at least half of the photons emitted upward from that altitude reach space. Importantly, however, this later definition is determined by the integrated absorption of all layers above the defined layer. Specifically, it is the layer such that the integrated absorption of all layers above it = 0.5. I think the layer picked out by Best's method is consistently biased low relative to that picked out by this later definition.


    There are two other common definitions of the effective layer of radiation around.



    The most common is:
    "Here the effective emission level is defined as the level at which the climatological annual mean tropospheric temperature is equal to the emission temperature: (OLR/σ)1/4, where σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant."
    (Source, h/t to Science of Doom)


    That definition can be generalized to specific wave numbers, or spectral lines, and is used by Best in an earlier blog post specifically on the subject. It also needs to be modified slightly to allow for the central spike (which comes from the stratosphere). The difficulty of such a modification, plus a certain circularity in this definition makes others preferable. The third definition is the one I give above of "the temperature weighted mean altitude from which the radiation comes". I take it that the three common definitions pick out the same altitude, at least to a first order approximation. In contrast, Best's definition in the blog post to which you refer is of by (in some portions of the spectrum) at least 6 kms.


    Despite this flaw, Best's blog post does give a good idea of the methods used in radiative models. However, his detailed results are inaccurate, in a way that does not reflect the inaccuracy of the radiative models used by scientists. This also applies to the graph shown by scaddenp @55 above, which was also created by Best. It is very indicative of the type of profiles likely to be seen, but should not be considered an accurate source. I discuss the accuracy of actual models briefly here, and in more detail in the comments.
    https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2414&p=2

  9. #4559
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    19-04-2019 @ 09:38 AM
    Posts
    4,218
    ^ well its getting well beyond my ability to follow, but what you have posted has nothing to do with the link. In the link he is trying to follow the derivation of an increase of 1.2 degrees C for every doubling of the concentration of CO2.

    It turns out that it is based on the assumption that the temperature increase of 0.6 degrees C since 1790 is entirely due to the increase in CO2. So it is a circular argument!

  10. #4560
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,705
    Quote Originally Posted by longway
    well its getting well beyond my ability to follow, but what you have posted has nothing to do with the link.
    It is in the comments below. My point was that he uses a flawed methodology.
    Last edited by bsnub; 29-12-2016 at 10:53 AM.

  11. #4561
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    19-04-2019 @ 09:38 AM
    Posts
    4,218
    ^ yeah i found it, but he is rebutting this The CO2 GHE demystified | Clive Best

    Not the link that was posted by hugh cow.

    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169


    It doesnt deal with:
    If it is really true that this formula has been derived only by assuming that all “observed” temperature rise since 1750 is caused only by CO2 increases, then I fear this is a circular argument !
    In main body of your link it points out the the way CO2 increases temperature is by pushing the radiative leaking of IR bands higher, so reducing the leakage, that is exactly what Best says in the link.

    I never knew that, it has always been shown that the more CO2 the more heat is reflected back. So what we are commonly told about the way CO2 increases temperature, is not a simplification, but a lie.
    Last edited by longway; 29-12-2016 at 11:47 AM.

  12. #4562
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,705
    ^ Regardless the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more the earth warms.

  13. #4563
    Member

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Last Online
    09-04-2017 @ 02:40 AM
    Posts
    288
    Much of the Marxists strategy on all arguments is to just outlast your oponents. Keep endlessly putting out gibberish with pretty pictures, graphs, with the truth buried in the details of details on page 745, index F. Knowing very well that less then 1 in a million can ever find the flaws. Graphs, pictures, smiling faces all look so great, photo ops everyone. Like hillarys boasts of flying to 138? countries. Wow flying to 138 countries [all on the tax payer dime] is rock solid proof of her credentials to be elected president??? REALLY siting in an airplane that often qualifies someone to be president? I guess that's why all those polluting, govt all expenses paid holidays all over the world to top tourist hotspots are so critical to study global pollution. And not just another corrupt tax dollar squandering rip off of the system bye the left.

    If any of it were true they would walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. It is greener to keep minorly polluting industries here then forcefully export them to the 3rd world where the pollution they put out explodes. It is greener to have all climate scientists forgo any international travel, [skype is available] whether work or holiday related to reduce global warming gas production. It is greener to have independent study groups confirm that all govt initiatives will actually have a measureable and significant effect that isn't bankrupting in the end. It is greener to force all govt officials scientists to have financial skin in the game in case it all turns out to be a scam. They must bear financial penalities to themselves in case its all a lie. Oh they will squeal over that one. What me take responsibility for destroying billions in wealth because I lied!!! But my fellow Marxists promised me theyd rig the system so that no matter what id never take the fall! And now TRiUMPh has been elected and I'm afraid, very afraid.
    Last edited by pulvarien; 29-12-2016 at 08:17 PM.

  14. #4564
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    The simple truth is we don't know, we cant predict the weather a few days in advance, how can we predict it years. We have theories, ideas, hopes and fears. I fear a mini or worse Yuge ice age not global warming, that would be wonderful, to return to the days of roman empires weather. When Hannibal could ride elephants across the alps...... The warming periods ushered in centuries of growth and prosperity for the world, of course there some losers, there will always be winners and losers.
    There's not knowing, and there's not knowing the future with absolute certainty. Everything is about probabilities, and there's world of difference between not knowing at all, and extrapolating based on a mixture of sources.
    It's right to be sceptical about models, in a similar way you might be about political polls, because although models are derived from real data, that data is never complete, and has both irregular and much lower spatial and temporal resolution: it's a best guess.

  15. #4565
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by longway
    well its getting well beyond my ability to follow, but what you have posted has nothing to do with the link.
    It is in the comments below. My point was that he uses a flawed methodology.
    It wasn't your point - it was someone elses...
    This is what I was saying about bsnub reading someone else's comments, and parroting them as though they were his own to blind you with science and try to sound like he knows much more about it than he actually does.

  16. #4566
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    Much of the Marxists strategy on all arguments is to just outlast your oponents. Keep endlessly putting out gibberish with pretty pictures, graphs, with the truth buried in the details of details on page 745, index F. Knowing very well that less then 1 in a million can ever find the flaws. Graphs, pictures, smiling faces all look so great, photo ops everyone.
    I'm a long way from being a Marxist, and I have much greater staying power... I once deployed a programme that generated replies to a leftard's comments every time he replied... there's no knowing how many years he was there thrashing away at his keyboard, whilst I was paying no attention at all and living life... now that's trolling gold, baby

  17. #4567
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    ^ Regardless the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more the earth warms.
    That's not strictly true... the safer statement would be "the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more the earth's climate changes".
    It certainly isn't even or fixed, like stacking blankets, it's quite dynamic, and without definining the window you're looking at with this statement, it's a bit meaningless... do you suppose the CO2 just sits there in the sky accumulating until the Earth turns into Venus?

    Here's an accessible-to-all primer:
    Carbon dioxide causes about 20 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect; water vapor accounts for about 50 percent; and clouds account for 25 percent. The rest is caused by small particles (aerosols) and minor greenhouse gases like methane.
    Water vapor concentrations in the air are controlled by Earth’s temperature. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, expand air masses, and lead to higher humidity. Cooling causes water vapor to condense and fall out as rain, sleet, or snow.
    Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, remains a gas at a wider range of atmospheric temperatures than water. Carbon dioxide molecules provide the initial greenhouse heating needed to maintain water vapor concentrations. When carbon dioxide concentrations drop, Earth cools, some water vapor falls out of the atmosphere, and the greenhouse warming caused by water vapor drops. Likewise, when carbon dioxide concentrations rise, air temperatures go up, and more water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere—which then amplifies greenhouse heating.
    So while carbon dioxide contributes less to the overall greenhouse effect than water vapor, scientists have found that carbon dioxide is the gas that sets the temperature. Carbon dioxide controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and thus the size of the greenhouse effect.
    The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

  18. #4568
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    The CO2 also has other effects:
    PMEL CO2 - Carbon Dioxide Program

  19. #4569
    Member

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Last Online
    09-04-2017 @ 02:40 AM
    Posts
    288
    The very fact that the greens use such devious, convoluted, deceptive ways to push global warming puts the lie to it. If the science was overwhelming theyd not need to resort to devious, deceptive, bullying, slandering, insulting and out and out lying to convince us. The fact that they do screams the its all a lie in our faces. TRUTH and SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY.

    Sadly most people are totally overwhelmed with real life and take little notice except what their tv news tells them and the left knows this, so they bought up all the tv news networks. And then fox started one up damn them!

    But now the majority of the population knows the media is feeding them lies and no longer trusts them. But the media is so locked into its lying ways that they continue the lies of the left and Obama on the latest Israel for example and keep revealing themselves to growing numbers who see this and no longer trust them. The left is locked into their strategy and cannot seem to break the pattern that is destroying themselves. The wave is building, it has not crested and the lying left is on the losing end.

  20. #4570
    Fresh Seaman CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-02-2018 @ 04:17 AM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,408
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    The very fact that the greens use such devious, convoluted, deceptive ways to push global warming puts the lie to it. If the science was overwhelming theyd not need to resort to devious, deceptive, bullying, slandering, insulting and out and out lying to convince us. The fact that they do screams the its all a lie in our faces. TRUTH and SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY.
    No... this is just the politics of the left-lib cryptofascists, and it is their approach to everything.
    DELINGPOLE: 'Moronic, Self-Righteous, Disgusting Losers' Tried to Turn the Berlin Attack on Nigel Farage - Breitbart

    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    Sadly most people are totally overwhelmed with real life and take little notice except what their tv news tells them and the left knows this, so they bought up all the tv news networks. And then fox started one up damn them!

    But now the majority of the population knows the media is feeding them lies and no longer trusts them. But the media is so locked into its lying ways that they continue the lies of the left and Obama on the latest Israel for example and keep revealing themselves to growing numbers who see this and no longer trust them. The left is locked into their strategy and cannot seem to break the pattern that is destroying themselves. The wave is building, it has not crested and the lying left is on the losing end.
    ..as you kind of describe. It's a cult. Group-think gone mad. What Orwell warned us about... but it does not mean that the scientific facts of anthropogenic climate change and pollution aren't real... the task is to wrest control of the pro-conservation agenda from the left, so that it doesn't get polluted itself by leftist ideas, nor conflated with leftist causes.

  21. #4571
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    The simple truth is we don't know, we cant predict the weather a few days in advance, how can we predict it years.
    who the fvck is we

    Climate models,.....



    the models are skillful

  22. #4572
    Member

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Last Online
    09-04-2017 @ 02:40 AM
    Posts
    288
    The artful dodger was skillful too.

  23. #4573
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,705
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
    This is what I was saying about bsnub reading someone else's comments, and parroting them as though they were his own
    You spastic I never claimed they were my comments.




    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien
    The artful dodger was skillful too.
    A fitting title for yourself and the many falsehoods you try to post up in this thread. remember when you claimed that the arctic was frozen solid and I pointed out to you that a massive luxury liner was in the process of circumnavigating it?

    You right wing lemmings have your heads so buried in tin foil conspiracy theories that your fail to pay attention to the most obvious reality's.
    Last edited by bsnub; 30-12-2016 at 06:52 AM.

  24. #4574
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    7,765
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien
    The artful dodger was skillful too.
    A fitting title for yourself and the many falsehoods you try to post up in this thread. remember when you claimed that the arctic was frozen solid and I pointed out to you that a massive luxury liner was in the process of circumnavigating it?

    You right wing lemmings have your heads so buried in tin foil conspiracy theories that your fail to pay attention to the most obvious reality's.
    I’m still waiting on it to respond to,......

    Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    lie often, keep on repeating it
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    This is right out of Nazi propaganda page 1, when you lie, lie big, people tend to believe big lies more and lie often, keep on repeating it, people tend to think there must be something to it when its brought up so often.
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    On notrickszone.com is an article about how eu companies have scammed the co2 trading emmisions scheme for 25 billion euros. Its detailed read it. No wonder so many companies and lefties and greens, corrupt all! have jumped onto the green bandwagon. Look at the money to be scammed from the little people.

    The article comes from derspiegel the german newspaper and the first link was from the site that cannot be mentioned climatedepot.com.
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    and now with the revelation bye der Spiegel of the green/leftist/bigbusiness on the side of the greens and lefts!!!! scam of 25 billion euros in the carbon trading scheme.
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    The 25 billion euro scam proves the whole thing was created to milk people of their money, the greens have been corrupted, everything they do and say is to retain power and credibility while they milk us of more billions.
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    The 25 billion euro scam revealed bye der spiegle proves everything ive been saying. All the hard core green supporters here are either like the Nazi leaders, complicit/guilty in everything or like the SS soldiers willing to give their lives for der fuhrer who never lies, who is going to lead them to a better world [for them only]
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    Notice how the greens here run from the revelation of the 25 billion euro scam
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    And once again you refuse to answer about Der Spiegles article on the 25 billion euros
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    They don't want to talk about der spiegels article about how the greens and left with crooked big business scammed 25 billion euros.
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    der spiegels article last week about how the green/leftwingers/business companies scammed 25 billion euros using the carbon trading scheme.
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    And we are now approaching 2 weeks and the greens here are still running away from der spiegels story on massive green left wing corruption in Europe that has scammed 25 billion euros from the common people. That is one of the real reasons for the global scare, a scam to milk us.
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    der speigel and the 25 billion euro scam bye the greens and left wing.
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    But I wont let it go away here ill keep bringing it up every week just to remind everyone of the lies, corruption and evil that make up present days green left wing alliance.
    We haven’t heard anything from you in a while about the subject. Is there a reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    the greens here are still running away from der spiegels story on massive green left wing corruption in Europe that has scammed 25 billion euros from the common people.
    You might want to start your own thread so everyone can follow it, as I once did:

    http://teakdoor.com/world-news/68796...on-6-dead.html (West Virginia Mine Explosion: 6 Dead, 21 Missing)

    Keep us all posted

    Quote Originally Posted by pulvarien View Post
    go to notrickszone.com and scroll down past all the articles on global warming till wayyy down now you come to the one on der speigel and the 25 billion euro scam bye the greens and left wing
    Industry windfall profits from Europe’s carbon market 2008-2015

    HOW ENERGY-INTENSIVE COMPANIES CASH IN ON THEIR POLLUTION AT TAXPAYERS’ EXPENSE
    A closer look at one example country (not the highest taker on the list) to see who these industries/companies might be.



    Looking above, the companies/industries I have circled don’t look like the companies/industries that green left wing groups would support. In fact I know environmentalists support another type of action to show their disapproval of the companies I have circled.

    Maybe I should threaten to bring this up every week until pulvarien admits he misled everyone about the article he referenced.
    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  25. #4575
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,705
    ^ Good luck with that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •