Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 11:56:48 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

And it's not like he can inist NASA is wrong, because according to him, they've already admitted their mistake XD

quote:


I've said that even the IPCC and NASA have admitted that their modelling of absorption by CO2 is incorrect - and their model of aerosol contribution to global temperatures .. is wrong.


Sadly he didn't provide a link to where they admitted this, but I'm not too surprised, he continues to have troubles with this so I've learned not to expect too much from him.


Yes actually I have. Sorry, but as outnumbered as I am I don't have time to look it up for you.
Tell you what though. Why don't you go back and review the posts from the earlier threads. And if you find I haven't (Bullshit) - I'll admit *you're* right.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 11:59:57 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
Maybe because I have a life and have work to do. You're the one who posted it, clearly you know where it is. So why waste my time or yours when someone who "knows his stuff" can easily point me in the right direction

Not to mention it's like asking "if you can't find a unicorn in the entire world, I'll admit they aren't real" You could spend your entire life searching and never come up with anything, but still the person would have no reason to deny unicorns aren't real because you haven't looked hard enough. If you're so adamant you posted it, you go find it.

Also lets not detract from the original conversation here, I'm still waiting on those papers. The terms are all laid out for you to see and follow. You can take as much time as you want, I'll wait

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 1/21/2014 12:09:02 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 12:19:51 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

we are now on post 93 and you have misrepresented what he said twice in 15 posts, and or not read either of them or just changing goalposts again.



Tk: In post 74 you said " Find me the proper papers that show I was wrong and I will admit you have been right the entire time."

In post 75, I said: "So lets set the terms.What will meet your requirements of a peer reviewed paper? (Don't want to spend the effort to have you back out and say it doesn't qualify."

In post 89, you have now changed the terms. You define "proper" as: And as to what "proper" means, I answered that as well: "any peer reviewed scientific papers published in reputable journals that reach a conclusions that climate change is a farce

So you are weaseling out.

I am willing to provide peer reviewed papers that show facts that are not explained by your consensus held AGW. (ie, that it, and you are wrong.) But asking me to find provide a peer reviewed paper that proves climate change is a farce - is changing the goal posts. And is a waste of time. I'm willing to provide science, not try to dance to what your definition of a farce is.

Let me know when you're willing to honor the terms of: " Find me the proper papers that show I was wrong and I will admit you have been right the entire time."


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 12:23:04 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
LOL, talk about your weasels, should we begin with post #1 and continue to this present day? this entire thread is lying 'conservative' horseshit.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 12:31:57 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
WHAT?? XD OMG you are hilarious man. I restated in post 89 what I said in post 76 XD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Well, to start you could supply the papers from which you got your graphs that supposedly support your points. In addition to that, any peer reviewed scientific papers published in reputable journals that reach a conclusions that climate change is a farce. No news pages, no articles, no conservative or liberal sites, real hard scientific research.

If you have trouble figuring out what you're looking for, an example would be something along the lines of this:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00383.x/abstract;jsessionid=71A8F7F125872E37DB90FD24950A3086.f03t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false


Except of course it won't be "drivel" because your almighty brain can clearly tell the difference XD

A good place to start looking would be google scholar, have fun ;)

http://scholar.google.ca


These were the terms that I set! The ones you asked for XD Why do conservatives always narrow down their argument to a sentence or word of their opponent and argue that?? Use google and find the word farce. Farce means: a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations. <-- This seems to work as a pretty good definition, but I really don't see how it's that relevant to argue your point. What could you mistake it as? Farce: Something completely true? I mean come on man, you have to do better than that.

And those "terms" as you call them were BEFORE you asked to set them XD I said that in post 74, you responded asking for terms in 75, and I gave you the terms in 76 XD If you had said in post 75: "okay, I will search for papers based on those parameters you just said" then I would have been fine with that. But since you asked me to set terms, I DID! XD

Man this isn't even frustrating, I just find it hilarious XD Thanks for the good laugh bud, I'm sick and was in dire need of it

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 1/21/2014 12:37:39 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 12:36:56 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
Also, when the pressure is on you to provide scientific papers, I don't see how I can weasel out. You haven't posted anything substantial yet. I haven't said "this is over, we're done," I'm staying the course. I'm not the one looking for excuses not to search for the papers, thats weaselling out.

The definition of weaselling out is: To back out of a situation or commitment in a sneaky or cowardly manner.

I'm not backing out at all, I'm committed, are you?

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 12:40:58 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

WHAT?? XD OMG you are hilarious man. I restated in post 89 what I said in post 76 XD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Well, to start you could supply the papers from which you got your graphs that supposedly support your points. In addition to that, any peer reviewed scientific papers published in reputable journals that reach a conclusions that climate change is a farce. No news pages, no articles, no conservative or liberal sites, real hard scientific research.

If you have trouble figuring out what you're looking for, an example would be something along the lines of this:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00383.x/abstract;jsessionid=71A8F7F125872E37DB90FD24950A3086.f03t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false


Except of course it won't be "drivel" because your almighty brain can clearly tell the difference XD

A good place to start looking would be google scholar, have fun ;)

http://scholar.google.ca


These were the terms that I set! The ones you asked for XD Why do conservatives always narrow down their argument to a sentence or word of their opponent and argue that?? Use google and find the word farce. Farce means: a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations. <-- This seems to work as a pretty good definition, but I really don't see how it's that relevant to argue your point. What could you mistake it as? Farce: Something completely true? I mean come on man, you have to do better than that.

And those "terms" as you call them were BEFORE you asked to set them XD I said that in post 74, you responded asking for terms in 75, and I gave you the terms in 76 XD If you had said: "okay, I will search for papers based on those parameters you just said" then I would have been fine with that. But since you asked me to set terms, I DID! XD

Man this isn't even frustrating, I just find it hilarious XD Thanks for the good laugh bud, I'm sick and was in dire need of it


No, I didn't ask for you to define a new wager. I didn't ask you to set new terms for a bet.

I asked for the terms of what "proper" was.

You then changed a proper paper - which normally might be one published in a reputable journal to.. a paper that shows climate warming is a farce.

I really don't think "proper" means what you say it means. For example when one gets a proper burial - I don't think its a burial that shows climate change is a farce.

When one gets a "proper" dress - I dont think its a dress that defines climate warming as a farce.

Prim & proper does not refer to climate change.

Not interested in those terms. As I predicted - you would weasel out of the original terms, which I was happy to accept.
Peer reviewed science, proving facts that are not explained by your AGW. And the offer is still open any time you want.



(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 12:46:04 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Oh.. and any answer on the dragas/boreal transition?

Just curious you know because DomKen maintains that global warming that is going on is unprecedented in the history of the world. You know - we've seen what a degree in 41 years.

Whereas during that dragas / boreal transisition temperature increased 15C in 50 years. The entire age has had 25+transitions, often rapid and sharp. Some papers referring to these oscillations:

van der Plicht et.al 2004
Martrat et. al 2004
So Bjork 1996.
Stuiver and Braziunas 1993
Lehman & keigwin 1992
Haflidason 1995
Taylor 1993.
Alley et.al (2005)
Alley, et. al (2003)
Alley, Richard B. (2000).
Alley, Richard B. et al. (1993).
Bond 2003
Sissons, J. B. (1979).
Dansgaard, W. et al. (1989
Bar-Matthews et. al. 1999
Severingaus & Brook 1999
Andres et. al 2003
Fawcet 1997
Geyh 1994


Try looking at Dye 3 ice cores.



< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/21/2014 1:45:43 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 12:47:34 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
LOL

Thats all I can really say my friend, it's literally like arguing with a wall XD

Fine then, go ahead and post your peer reviewed articles. Because this whole situation has been about arguing over semantics. Pretty wasteful. These words are capable of being used in other sentences bud, proper does not just work in reference to climate change. You haven't demonstrated any intellectual might over these last few pages, it's just been whining about what words I used. Be my guest and present your papers, I'd very much like to see them. Although, I did say before the "terms" you wanted me to set that I wanted to see the papers where you found those previous graphs, so I'd still like to see those. And thats not changing the terms, thats just keeping in line with the terms that existed well before, according to your logic, correct?

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 12:48:57 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Oh.. and any answer on the dragas/boreal transition?

Just curious you know because DomKen maintains that global warming that is going on is unprecedented in the history of the world. You know - we've seen what a degree in 41 years.

Whereas during that dragas / boreal transisition temperature increased 15C in 50 years.





I apologize for the misconception, I'm in the class this semester but not physically there. I'm sick and at home today, not to mention the class doesn't run until tomorrow morning. I'll see if I can talk to the prof after class, but only if you can post some honest to god peer reviewed papers like you said ;)

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 1/21/2014 12:51:44 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 12:51:44 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
I looked back at the past posts and found that you, unsurprisingly, lied. You never asked what the terms were for the word PROPER, I saw no such question when you stated this:

quote:


Ok. This is too good to pass up - not to win the argument, but the actual chance to educate a brainwashed lemming.

So lets set the terms.

What will meet your requirements of a peer reviewed paper? (Don't want to spend the effort to have you back out and say it doesn't qualify).

Just want you to formalize it.


You asked for MY requirements of a peer reviewed paper, nothing else. I supplied those terms as requested.

Also, this:
quote:


I asked for the terms of what "proper" was.

You then changed a proper paper - which normally might be one published in a reputable journal to.. a paper that shows climate warming is a farce.


Is another lie. I said in the SAME sentence:
quote:


In addition to that, any peer reviewed scientific papers published in reputable journals that reach a conclusions that climate change is a farce.

So I did not change the definition, the two parts of the sentence supported each other. Or do you not understand proper grammar? Or is it that you know that scientific papers don't prove climate change is a farce? Is that your issue? That you know without a doubt that there are almost NO papers that show this? Because here I was under the assumption that this is what this issue was all about, that there ARE scientific papers that deny climate change. Otherwise what's the point of it all? A paper published in a reputable paper from your side of the line would deny climate change occurring, wouldn't it? Or is this just another attempt to find a paper which DOES accept climate change as fact and provides you another opportunity to argue semantics over THAT article? Because that's the only outcome I can see, and to be honest, it's very sad if that was your original plan. If there is contrary data, please show it, but don't argue every little word and sentence others post, it doesn't show how intelligent you are...on the other hand, I'm pretty sure it does

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 1/21/2014 1:17:22 PM >

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 1:14:29 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
But by all means, go ahead and post your papers, there's nothing stopping you. I'm very interested to see what you have

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 2:29:06 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
Also, I'm hoping for some LINKS to the papers so I can read the information for myself. I don't believe things just because people say it, I need to see the data for myself, and I can assume many others do as well.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 2:31:15 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
Posted in post 107. Have at it.

So there are several portions of AGW that I find interesting.

A theory which purports to be global and universal, can't really be either can it when it doesn't hold true for large regions.
Might it better be described as "local warming due to co2 emissions" - why, it might. And honestly, there is tons of records that support that Interstadials may be local phenomenon. Might this explain variations between the anarctic and the equator?

We have had thousands of temperature changes - and they are frequent and sharp. So I'll quote from one such paper
Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary,by Jonathan Adams (1.), Mark Maslin (2.) & Ellen Thomas (3.)

The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions, most of them on time scales of centuries to decades or even less. The most detailed information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11,500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades.

Less intensive, but significant rapid climate changes also occurred during the present (Holocene) interglacial, with cold and dry phases occurring on a 1500-year cycle, and with climate transitions on a decade-to-century timescale. In the past few centuries, smaller transitions (such as the ending of the Little Ice Age at about 1650 AD) probably occurred over only a few decades at most. All the evidence indicates that most long-term climate change occurs in sudden jumps rather than incremental changes.

Climatic variability on the timescale of tens of thousands of years has turned out to be a predominant pattern in earth history. The last two and a half million years have been marked by many global climate oscillations, between warmer and cooler conditions. This trend of oscillations appears to be merely the continuation of a pattern of variability extending back well into the Tertiary period and possibly beyond (e.g., Kennett 1995). During the last few million years, the length and the amplitude of these climate cycles has increased (e.g., Crowley & North, 1991; Hodell and Venz, 1992).

Large global interglacial-glacial-interglacial climate oscillations have been recurring at approximately a 100,000 year periodicity for the last 900,000 years

The Younger Dryas cold event at about 12,900-11,500 years ago seems to have had the general features of a Heinrich Event, and may in fact be regarded as the most recent of these (Severinghaus et al. 1998). The sudden onset and ending of the Younger Dryas has been studied in particular detail in the ice core and sediment records on land and in the sea (e.g., Bjoerck et al., 1996), and it might be respresentative of other Heinrich events. A detailed study of two Greenland ice cores (GRIP and GISP2; Taylor et al. 1997), suggests that the main Younger Dryas-to-Holocene warming took several decades in the Arctic, but was marked by a series of warming steps, each taking less than 5 years. About half of the warming was concentrated into a single period of less than 15 years.

Speaking of DO events:
At least in the North Atlantic region, these changes seem to have been paced according to approximately the same 1500-year rhythm as that found for the last glacial and earlier glacial periods, according to Atlantic sediment records (Bond et al. 1997; Campbell et al., 1998). Generally, at the coldest point of each 1500-year cycle surface temperatures of the North Atlantic were about 2 deg.C cooler than at the warmest part, representing a fairly substantial change in climate. Regional or global fluctuations of this order would be major events if they were to suddenly affect the present-day world with its high population and finely balanced food production. It is uncertain whether these climate cycles indeed extended around the world or were generally confined to the region around the North Atlantic, but the 8,200 ka event (see below) (which fits in as one of the more extreme cold events of this 1500-year pattern) does seem to have been widespread.

III. The mechanisms behind sudden climate transitions.

It is still unclear how the climate on a regional or even global scale can change as rapidly as present evidence suggests. It appears that the climate system is more delicately balanced than had previously been thought, linked by a cascade of powerful mechanisms that can amplify a small initial change into a much larger shift in temperature and aridity (e.g., Rind and Overpeck, 1993). At present, the thinking of climatologists tends to emphasize several key components:

III.1. North Atlantic circulation as a trigger or an amplifier in rapid climate changes.
II.2 Carbon dioxide and methane concentration as a feedback in sudden changes.

The actual importance of carbon dioxide in terms of the climate system is unknown, though computer climate simulations tend to suggest that it directly cooled the world by less than 1 deg.C on average, but due to amplification of this change by various factors within the climate system such as the water vapour content, the resulting change in global climate could have been more than 2 deg.C (e.g., Houghton et al., 1995).

A problem with invoking atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as a causal factor in sudden climate changes is that they seems to have varied too slowly, following on the timescale of millennia what often occurred on the timescale of decades- but the resolution of our records may not be good enough to resolve this question now. Methane, a less important greenhouse gas, was also 50% lower during glacial phases (e.g., Sowers et al., 1993), probably due to reduced biological activity on the colder, drier land surfaces (Meeker et al., 1997)

III.3 Surface reflectivity (albedo) of ice, snow and vegetation.
III.4 Water vapour as a feedback in sudden changes.
III.5. Dust and particulates as a feedback in sudden changes.
III.6. Seasonal sunlight intensity as a background to sudden changes.

These big glacial-interglacial transitions roughly follow the 100,000-year timescale during the last 900 kyr, when the three different rhythms (and possibly the poorly understood factors such as the internal structure of ice-sheets; MacAyeal, 1993a, b) line up to give a big increase in northern summer warmth. However the lesser individual rhythms can also be detected in the temperature record on the 19,000 and 42,000-year timescales, and in fact the timing of interglacial onset tends to more closely follow multiples of the 19,000 year cycle than an exact correspondence to the 100,000 year cycle (Imbrie et al. 1992, 1993).

So a few points:

Carbon contribution is around 1 degree.
Its causality cannot be established due to low correlation between concentrations and temperature.

Further, its important to note the distinction: The paper notes *thousands* of occurences of global warming and global cooling. Carbon dioxide, and methane may be contributing factors. However, IF they contributed they contributed as part of a natural cycle, not anthomorphic - ie., human caused.
As Kent said: This trend of oscillations appears to be merely the continuation of a pattern of variability extending back well into the Tertiary period and possibly beyond (e.g., Kennett 1995). Ie. If we have a trend how do you know the current climate change isn't a reflection of the already established trend?

And carbon is indicated as only one of several forcing behaviors. Not the only one. Not even the predominant one.

Might we be going through a D-O Event, characterized by a 2 degree temperature variation occurring on a cycle of roughly 1500 years? Yes? No? I don't know. But I haven't seen proof either way, and I've looked.

A brief side note about the IPCC climate models. Concentrations of CO2 are well known back about 12000 years. If you plug CO2 concentrations into the models they do not accurately predict either the Roman or the Medieval warming. If they don't model previous data - how do you expect them to predict data?



Oasis or Mirage? Assessing the Role of Abrupt Climate
Change in the Prehistory of the Southern Levant

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 2:36:11 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
I don't care what your opinions are about climate change bud, where are the links, where is the data? where are your sources? Please don't take me for a amateur, I may still be university, but at least I know how to reference my sources. And so far, the way you wrote your "information" would have resulted in you getting a 0 and failing an assignment. Come on, first years can do better. You can't reference the paper if you don't have the source of the paper. Provide a link please.

While I commend you on using a proper referencing format, people need to be able to find the information themselves.

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 1/21/2014 2:43:47 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 2:47:02 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I don't care what your opinions are about climate change bud, where are the links, where is the data? where are your sources? Please don't take me for a amateur, I may still be university, but at least I know how to reference my sources. And so far, the way you wrote your "information" would have resulted in you getting a 0 and failing an assignment. Come on, first years can do better. You can't reference the paper if you don't have the source of the paper. Provide a link please.


Please don't take you for an amateur.. what?
Whatever word you were looking for - I don't. Lazy perhaps. I gave you a list 20 papers. So sad that they don't have links, they come from books.

So grumble all you want. But be intellectually honest. You asked for references to papers. I gave them to you. I spent the time - now you do.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 1/21/2014 2:49:07 PM >

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 2:51:54 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
You do realize there is a difference between a scientific paper and a book...books aren't published in scientific journals or go through peer review. Anyone can write and publish a book given enough money and connections, but it does not go through any process to determine its validity. A good example being: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/91202.Chariots_of_the_Gods

You wasted your time, try again.

I say again, if you can't play in the big leagues, then go and sit on the side lines and let the big boys play.

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 1/21/2014 2:54:29 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 4:57:06 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, they weren't at all cited, they were spun into saying shit that wasn't there and misrepresenting what was.




Thanks Ron....Saved me a post.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 8:18:31 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Oh.. and any answer on the dragas/boreal transition?

Just curious you know because DomKen maintains that global warming that is going on is unprecedented in the history of the world. You know - we've seen what a degree in 41 years.

Whereas during that dragas / boreal transisition temperature increased 15C in 50 years. The entire age has had 25+transitions, often rapid and sharp. Some papers referring to these oscillations:

van der Plicht et.al 2004


Just for shits I looked up the first paper on your list.
Here it is:
link
It is dealing with a major shift in solar output and makes no claims that temps changed by 15C in 50 years. I think it is safe to assume all the other papers in your list are also misrepresented.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies - 1/21/2014 9:39:42 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
And this is why he never posted the links. Misinformation and lies, I'm not even surprised at this point. He can't even win a fair argument with actual data, so he stoops to this level and tries to deceive people. the interesting thing is that in his effort to prove me wrong, he himself accidentally exposed what it means to be an conservative extremist. And for the likes of me, I can't see a reason why anyone would buy into the BS he's spewed.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Germany cutting Green Energy subsidies Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109