Australian Politics Forum - UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #90 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:21pm

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation?

You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere.

Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation?

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

avoid if you must

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #91 - Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:23pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 2:18pm:

You still arent answering why you now disagree with the IPCC in saying there has been a 17year pause in GW. I thought their word was gospel to you?

Where did the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"?

Can you show us evidence?

Or did you just make that up?

Can you explain exactly how there could possibly be a " 17year pause in GW" - when every single on of those 17 years has been warmer than the long term average?

In in those 17 years - global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm?

THe earth is continuing to warm - despite what a Daily Mail columnist has told you.

Can you explain to us why global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm if - as you and David Rose say - there has been a " 17year pause in GW" ?

The late comer tool. If you are going to come late, be daft as usual, then first check the whole thread. Then come back and ask a question. If you ask the same question, then you can rightly be ignored for the ignorant doomsday cultist you are.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #92 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:26am

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 2:18pm:

You still arent answering why you now disagree with the IPCC in saying there has been a 17year pause in GW. I thought their word was gospel to you?

Where did the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"?

Can you show us evidence?

Or did you just make that up?

Can you explain exactly how there could possibly be a " 17year pause in GW" - when every single on of those 17 years has been warmer than the long term average?

In in those 17 years - global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm?

THe earth is continuing to warm - despite what a Daily Mail columnist has told you.

Can you explain to us why global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm if - as you and David Rose say - there has been a " 17year pause in GW" ?

The late comer tool. If you are going to come late, be daft as usual, then first check the whole thread. Then come back and ask a question. If you ask the same question, then you can rightly be ignored for the ignorant doomsday cultist you are.

I have checked the whole thread and nowhere can I see evidence that the IPCC has said that there has been a " 17year pause in GW"?

tHat is why I asked. Where did the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"?

Can you show us evidence? Or did you just make that up?

Can you explain exactly how there could possibly be a " 17year pause in GW" - when every single on of those 17 years has been warmer than the long term average?

In in those 17 years - global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm?

THe earth is continuing to warm - despite what a Daily Mail columnist has told you.

Can you explain to us why global glacial mass balance has continued to decline, the arctic ice cap has continued to decline and the oceans have continued to warm if - as you and David Rose say - there has been a " 17year pause in GW" ?

How about you answer the question?

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #93 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:16am

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation?

You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere.

Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation?

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

avoid if you must

Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it.

Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it.

Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm.

However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998.

This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #94 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:04am

MOTR wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:16am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation?

You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere.

Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation?

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

avoid if you must

Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it.

Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it.

Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm.

However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer.

Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you.

If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:23am by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation. Reply #95 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:09pm I'll think you'll find I've answered your question, progs. Now how about you answer mine. Do you accept the heat that accumulates in the ocean will eventually transfer to our atmosphere.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #96 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:21pm

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:04am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:16am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation?

You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere.

Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation?

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

avoid if you must

Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it.

Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it.

Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm.

However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer.

Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you.

If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north.

You are the only one avoiding answers Progs.

You claim that the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"

The IPCC clearly state in their most recent assessment report that:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level

Nothing about a " 17year pause in GW". You appear to be lying

And if there were this " 17year pause in GW" as you claim, why has global glacial mass balance continued to decline, the arctic ice cap continued to decline and the oceans continued to warm?

You appear to be talking complete bollocks.

And your inability to show us evidence of where the the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW" - clearly demonstrates this

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #97 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:27pm

MOTR wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

I'll think you'll find I've answered your question, progs. Now how about you answer mine. Do you accept the heat that accumulates in the ocean will eventually transfer to our atmosphere.

It is all cycles of course. There is nothing of concern in the heat content. If you think an atmosphere 0.5 degrees over some arbitrary number, with back radiation that penetrates the ocean by less than a human hair is going to cause the earth issues. Then it is a wonder the earth survived all those heat cycles of the past that were warmer than now.

What you seem to advocate is a runaway effect from a human hair penetration of the ocean. Just ridiculous.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #98 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:28pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:04am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:16am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation?

You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere.

Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation?

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

avoid if you must

Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it.

Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it.

Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm.

However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer.

Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you.

If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north.

You are the only one avoiding answers Progs.

You claim that the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"

The IPCC clearly state in their most recent assessment report that:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level

Nothing about a " 17year pause in GW". You appear to be lying

And if there were this " 17year pause in GW" as you claim, why has global glacial mass balance continued to decline, the arctic ice cap continued to decline and the oceans continued to warm?

You appear to be talking complete bollocks.

And your inability to show us evidence of where the the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW" - clearly demonstrates this

I dont answer you because you ask the wrong question. Take out GW, replace it with warming and then ask again.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #99 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:33pm

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:04am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:16am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation?

You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere.

Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation?

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

avoid if you must

Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it.

Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it.

Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm.

However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer.

Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you.

If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north.

You are the only one avoiding answers Progs.

You claim that the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"

The IPCC clearly state in their most recent assessment report that:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level

Nothing about a " 17year pause in GW". You appear to be lying

And if there were this " 17year pause in GW" as you claim, why has global glacial mass balance continued to decline, the arctic ice cap continued to decline and the oceans continued to warm?

You appear to be talking complete bollocks.

And your inability to show us evidence of where the the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW" - clearly demonstrates this

I dont answer you because you ask the wrong question. Take out GW, replace it with warming and then ask again.

So - you acknowledge that the earth has continued to warm for the past 17 years - despite what the Daily Mail columnist says!

You seem to be making progress.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #100 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:20pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:04am:

MOTR wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:16am:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works, progs? Why are you asking me about short wave radiation?

You still haven't answered my question, do you accept that heat accumulating in the oceans will eventually warm the atmosphere.

Perhaps this is why you want to talk about short wave radiation?

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

avoid if you must

Annoying, isn't it, progs. Next time rather than beating about the bush how about you state your position and then have a go at justifying it.

Firstly, if you are just asking about the direct effects of CO2, or the green-house gas induced warming of the oceans, then it's silly to be talking about short wave radiation. It is long wave radiation, not short wave radiation, that is trapped and reflected back to the earth by green-house gasses. What it does do is warm the surface layer, or the cool skin layer of the ocean. It's called the cool skin layer because it is the interface where ocean heat is lost to the ocean, and is therefore cooler than the water immediately below it.

Warming the top of the cool skin layer reduces the heat gradient of the interface. The warmer the top of the cool skin layer the slower the rate at which heat is lost to the atmosphere through conduction. This allows the oceans to slowly warm.

However, if you want to include the indirect effects of CO2, we can start talking about short wave radiation. As we all well know the Arctic minimum has shrunk considerably since 1998.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/arctic-sea-ice-min-volume-co...

This means that more of the short wave radiation coming directly from the sun is hitting our oceans during the Northern summer.

Not annoying. You want to avoid and dont answer, thats up to you.

If you are going to go with more short wave raditation hitting the ocean because of ice melt, then you would have to take global sea ice extent. The south canceling out the north.

You are the only one avoiding answers Progs.

You claim that the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW"

The IPCC clearly state in their most recent assessment report that:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level

Nothing about a " 17year pause in GW". You appear to be lying

And if there were this " 17year pause in GW" as you claim, why has global glacial mass balance continued to decline, the arctic ice cap continued to decline and the oceans continued to warm?

You appear to be talking complete bollocks.

And your inability to show us evidence of where the the IPCC say thare has been a " 17year pause in GW" - clearly demonstrates this

I dont answer you because you ask the wrong question. Take out GW, replace it with warming and then ask again.

So - you acknowledge that the earth has continued to warm for the past 17 years - despite what the Daily Mail columnist says!

You seem to be making progress.

No, I agree that you asked the wrong question.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #101 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:50pm

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

I'll think you'll find I've answered your question, progs. Now how about you answer mine. Do you accept the heat that accumulates in the ocean will eventually transfer to our atmosphere.

It is all cycles of course. There is nothing of concern in the heat content. If you think an atmosphere 0.5 degrees over some arbitrary number, with back radiation that penetrates the ocean by less than a human hair is going to cause the earth issues. Then it is a wonder

the earth survived

all those heat cycles of the past that were warmer than now.

What you seem to advocate is a runaway effect from a human hair penetration of the ocean. Just ridiculous.

This guy is fruity loopy and I've seen some drug casualties in my time let me tell you!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #102 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:51pm

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:27pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

I'll think you'll find I've answered your question, progs. Now how about you answer mine. Do you accept the heat that accumulates in the ocean will eventually transfer to our atmosphere.

It is all cycles of course. There is nothing of concern in the heat content. If you think an atmosphere 0.5 degrees over some arbitrary number, with back radiation that penetrates the ocean by less than a human hair is going to cause the earth issues. Then it is a wonder

the earth survived

all those heat cycles of the past that were warmer than now.

What you seem to advocate is a runaway effect from a human hair penetration of the ocean. Just ridiculous.

I say again,..

Cheesy

This guy is fruity loopy and I've seen some drug casualties in my time let me tell you!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #103 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 3:00pm

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

I dont answer you because you ask the wrong question. Take out GW, replace it with warming and then ask again.

Science is all definitions! This is how the free-market scamming liars argue black is white : by changing definitions and comparing apples with oranges. It's simple mis-communicatin that comes down to arrogance on behalf of those who wish to keep the status quo.

Those same free-market scamming liars didn't like 9-11 when the same trick was playe don them.... Cheesy

The free-market scamming liars lean on socialism when it suits them and then pretend that profits are private when they finally turn a profit.

They rely on the tolerance of the average person to get away with sugar coated intolerant behaviour!

Cheesy

THEY DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY, THEY SIMPLY IDOLISE THOSE RICHER THAN THEMSELVES AND FORGET ABOUT THEIR FAMILY GENERATIONS HENCE FORTH!

THE FREE-MARKET SCAMMERS ALL HATE THEMSELVES. THEY BUILD FORTRESSES AROUND THEIR HOUSES TO HIDE THEIR SHAME!!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: UN Climate Chief critical of misrepresentation.
Reply #104 - Feb 25^th, 2013 at 3:04pm

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

No, I agree that you asked the wrong question.

Progs lol can't look at himself in the mirror!

WHAT DOES HE TELL THE KIDS AT CHRISTMAS WHEN THEY SAY THEY LOVE HIM? DOES HE LIE AND SAY HE LOVES THEM BACK??

OF COURSE HE DOES, EVEN THOUGH HE DOESN'T!

Grin

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged