Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
mrplunkey
New member
Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, study says | Reuters
But the research is Canadian -- so all bets are off.
But the research is Canadian -- so all bets are off.
Say It Ain't So: CFCs, Not CO2 May Be to Blame for Global Warming Patterns
- Thread starter mrplunkey
- Start date
mrplunkey
New member
CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo's Faculty of Science. "In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."
"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined - matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."
The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.
"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said. "But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays - energy particles originating in space - play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."
Lu's theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. "CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling," said Professor Lu. "After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere."
By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.
"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."
Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002.
The analyses indicate the dominance of Lu's CRE theory and the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
"We've known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we've taken measures to reduce their emissions," Professor Lu said. "We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground."
"This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change," said Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science. "This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate."
Professor Lu's paper, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change, also predicts that the global sea level will continue to rise for some years as the hole in the ozone recovers increasing ice melting in the polar regions.
"Only when the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar ozone hole recovery, will both temperature and polar ice melting drop concurrently," says Lu.
The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models.
"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo's Faculty of Science. "In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."
"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined - matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."
The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.
"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said. "But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays - energy particles originating in space - play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."
Lu's theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. "CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling," said Professor Lu. "After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere."
By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.
"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."
Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002.
The analyses indicate the dominance of Lu's CRE theory and the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
"We've known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we've taken measures to reduce their emissions," Professor Lu said. "We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground."
"This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change," said Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science. "This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate."
Professor Lu's paper, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change, also predicts that the global sea level will continue to rise for some years as the hole in the ozone recovers increasing ice melting in the polar regions.
"Only when the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar ozone hole recovery, will both temperature and polar ice melting drop concurrently," says Lu.
The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models.
redsamurai
Banned
This is stone old news that CFC's are at least partially responsible for climate change. Hippy's have been yammering at people about aerosol cans since the 80's and likely before too. The study just appears to solidify the case for another factor in the man made global warming debate.
mrplunkey
New member
Try reading the article next time.
In case you missed it:
That part isn't old news.
redsamurai
Banned
Reread my post. What was I claiming was stone old news in my original post? You kind of acknowledged it with that last sentence in any case.
Extremely interesting but...
My eye sees a rise in average global temperature from 1950 to 1970. Not sure what the "solar effect" is he is referring to.
A correlation coefficient of 0.97 is suspect itself. I've never seen one that high in any of the much less complicated data I work with.
Lastly, CO2 is known to cause the "greenhouse effect". If increased CO2 in the atmosphere isn't causing the temperature to rise, then we need to explain why.
Headholio
New member
Interesting.
I need to read up on this, but in my initial search Dr. Lu from Waterloo (yes), has been on the CFC kick for years now and I read one paper debunking his theories from 2005.
There is not much debate on this theory on the internets right now, but in general, he has looked at a very small sample of recent years, and did some curve fitting to show correlation, but not causation.
He doesn't explain how CFC's control climate, or of how CO2 can have no effect. I think its safe to say that his comment that CO2 has had no impact is very much on the fringe, and I doubt that many climate scientists are buying into that.
I need to read up on this, but in my initial search Dr. Lu from Waterloo (yes), has been on the CFC kick for years now and I read one paper debunking his theories from 2005.
There is not much debate on this theory on the internets right now, but in general, he has looked at a very small sample of recent years, and did some curve fitting to show correlation, but not causation.
He doesn't explain how CFC's control climate, or of how CO2 can have no effect. I think its safe to say that his comment that CO2 has had no impact is very much on the fringe, and I doubt that many climate scientists are buying into that.
redsamurai
Banned
Headholio
New member
Here you go:
"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."
redsamurai
Banned
eh..yeah that's suspect. I thought the whole thing was CFC's contributed more to the pie than originally thought.
Headholio
New member
Here is some 2011 commentary about Dr. Lu from Warerloo (yes!), saying how his theories of CFC's and cosmic rays causing climate change have been debunked. These criticisms came before Lu from Waterloo's latest paper, so it will be interesting to see how much discussion, if any, his new paper generates.
RealClimate: Lu: from ‘interesting but incorrect’ to just wrong
RealClimate: Lu: from ‘interesting but incorrect’ to just wrong
redsamurai
Banned
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't the Ozone layer protect us from cosmic rays? And has been doing so for millions and millions of years?
Headholio
New member
Ozone absorbs ultraviolet light. Which is a good thing. Lu has hypothesized that CFC's depletion of ozone is dependent on Cosmic rays, which fluctuate over time, but his predictions of more ozone depletion during higher cosmic ray levels have not panned out.
How this relates to his latest paper I don't know. It's just an example of his theories being off base.
redsamurai
Banned
mrplunkey
New member
I like how they're picking at Lu's work and asking critical questions. That's how scientific review is supposed to work.
But the CO2 community's theories don't add up either: Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown | Reuters
And with the latter group, we're dealing with people who haven't hesitated to "adjust" their data in the past.
But the CO2 community's theories don't add up either: Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown | Reuters
And with the latter group, we're dealing with people who haven't hesitated to "adjust" their data in the past.
headholio is right; the accompanying article does not justify the extremely biased headline.
I can't accept that as evidence that the "CO2 community's theories don't add up."
billfred
New member
Global warming...not so much?? Shit is too complicated for me to understand and I am too busy to try, but thought I would let you fags debate it anyway
STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means « Roy Spencer, PhD
Climate modeling EPIC FAIL – Spencer: ‘the day of reckoning has arrived’ | Watts Up With That?
STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means « Roy Spencer, PhD
Climate modeling EPIC FAIL – Spencer: ‘the day of reckoning has arrived’ | Watts Up With That?
mrplunkey
New member
Sounds like Roy Spencer is gonna be fucked for public research funding forever.
I do appreciate a research funding mechanism that will forgive you for faking a little data, but crucifies you for disagreeing. It just seems so mean-spirited, capitalist and conservative that I have no choice but to like it.
This is much better evidence to demonstrate Plunkey's point.
Sent from my DROID4 using EliteFitness
fuck this bullshit, like we have any effect on the weather lmao, there have been cycles of weather throughout time its just a bullshit idea to bring everything global, just like when our dollar fails well be on global money, or how the navy is a "global" force for good, open ur eyes ppl the weather isnt gonna be changed by us and theres nothing we can do to stop it, im gonna go drive V8's for the rest of my life and never recycle
redsamurai
Banned
I'm sorry but the ramifications of global weather change are such that we have to try.
Headholio
New member
Roy Spencer is a right wing Alabama hillbilly AGW denier.
It is funny that these debates always end up being with completely ignorant people (gladiator), or debunking the one or two fringies who are always popping up with misleading articles. Lu and Spencer are those fringies, and their angles are pretty solidly debunked.
Why focus on these clowns and not on the thousands of far more credible scientists who make up the consensus? You've just got to face the facts that man made climate change is scientific fact, proven a thousand times over. Its completely settled and a solid fact.
It is funny that these debates always end up being with completely ignorant people (gladiator), or debunking the one or two fringies who are always popping up with misleading articles. Lu and Spencer are those fringies, and their angles are pretty solidly debunked.
Why focus on these clowns and not on the thousands of far more credible scientists who make up the consensus? You've just got to face the facts that man made climate change is scientific fact, proven a thousand times over. Its completely settled and a solid fact.
Roy Spencer’s Latest Silver Bullet | Climate Asylum
Last edited:
mrplunkey
New member
I agree.
Politics and science have been co-mingled for a very, very long time.
Public money funds lots of science which in turn produces results that support public policy decisions. But there's huge money at stake in public policy which makes the politicization of science a very profitable effort.
You'd think peer review could fix the situation, but in some ways it makes it worse. Grant reviewers are almost always directly or indirectly supported by similar grants, and they're not going to go thermonuclear on each others' applications. Also, research is like the fashion industry, but longer-term. Once an idea becomes vogue, those guys get the research dollars which in turn fund more graduate students which in turn produce more post-docs and research professors that apply for more grants. And no researcher who has been publishing since grad school wants to recant their own research and change directions.
And no, I don't know how to fix it.
PICK3
New member
redsamurai
Banned
I just nearly fell out of my chair. The Boracle is stumped? GTFO!!
We depend daily on your wisdom, keen insights and glib homosexual banter. Whatever shall we do?
redsamurai
Banned
^This.
mrplunkey
New member
I just nearly fell out of my chair. The Boracle is stumped? GTFO!!
We depend daily on your wisdom, keen insights and glib homosexual banter. Whatever shall we do?
Well since you asked, I'd say put down the game controller, put down the joint, get the hell out of your mom's basement and go get a job.
PICK3
New member
Well since you asked, I'd say put down the game controller, put down the joint, get the hell out of your mom's basement and go get a job.
knot happening
mrplunkey
New member
Your chances of getting killed by a stray meteor are greater than the chances of him getting a job.
redsamurai
Banned
but it's been years since I had a game controller in my hand. Dude I don't play video games hardly anymore, certainly not console games. I'm lucky if I have time to play a good one or two PC games a year. Sorry to have to shit on one of your core preconceived notions.
mrplunkey
New member
but it's been years since I had a game controller in my hand. Dude I don't play video games hardly anymore, certainly not console games. I'm lucky if I have time to play a good one or two PC games a year. Sorry to have to shit on one of your core preconceived notions.
Yeah, we know. You just "demo" them.
I disagree. Environmentalist causes always imply restrictions to free enterprise and are therefore resisted by the right.
The right was already firmly anti-global warming and they were winning the PR battle in the media. Al Gore put together his Powerpoint presentation and went around the country lecturing to shift the focus to a science based debate.
I thought he did an excellent job of sticking to the science while keeping "An Inconvenient Truth" entertaining (or at least tolerable) to watch.
Denier or not, I think Roy Spencer did demonstrate that the current climate models SEEM to overestimate the effect of CO2 in warming the atmosphere.
Of course, he also confirmed that there is an upward trend in Global Temperature and we are headed in a bad direction even if it is at a slower rate than some estimate.
Headholio
New member
His demonstration is based on faulty modeling.
Overall the guy is NOT well respected in climate science. He is a propagandist.
Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
mrplunkey
New member
Plenty of ostracized scientists turned out to be correct.
And of course he's not going to be well respected. If the researchers who believe in climate change are well-funded and produce hoards of Ph.D.s and post-docs who then apply for more funding which in turn crank-out more Ph.D.'s and post-docs, what else would you expect?
Here's something to consider: The climate community has engaged in self-perpetuating groupthink since the 1970's. Isn't it amazing that there's even anyone left in science to disagree with them?
U
UA_Iron
Guest
The problem now is the all the companies who profit from "GREEN" products/services/processes etc etc. Funding causes that push the global warming propaganda is in their best $$$ interest.
redsamurai
Banned
It's funny how you turn this very same argument around to suit yourself when you feel like it. The problem in this case is that the money shelled out by industry over the past few decades to get researchers to at least shed some doubt on other positively correlated research as it pertains to man and his effect on the climate, is quite substantial. In fact this debate would have been over in the early 80's if not for said lobbying efforts.
mrplunkey
New member
jackangel
New member
Headholio
New member
It doesn't work on the buddy system. A theory can either be backed up or not. Unlike talk radio, you don't just get to choose an idea, and teach it.
When I say Spencer isn't well respected, its not because he isn't in the cool kids club, its simply because he chooses to ignore facts, and cherry picks information to paint the picture he wants, without considering all the data.
There's nothing wrong with having an incorrect theory. Spencer apparently had some unique ideas about ozone, cosmic rays etc. They were checked out and were discredited. That's ok, but that's not Spencer's problem. He's a propagandist.
Again, AGW is settled science. There is no debate.
mrplunkey
New member
It's most definitely a buddy systems, but in practice is looks more like the fashion industry. As a matter of fact, research is more like the fashion industry than the fashion industry.
Health care and computing are too.
I personally believe that the more degrees of freedom an industry has, the more fashion-like it becomes. Once we lose our grasp on the handful of metrics we can measure and our brains process, the more we fall back on emotional (and usually irrational ) decision-making tools.
I'll be back later to chat. Gotta put all my data into the cloud, order some emu oil, learn how to do proximal one-third nailing of a tibia and complete a research grant application to study big data.
It's what all the cool kids are doing.
redsamurai
Banned
It's funny that when scientists studying pure raw data come to a conclusion that doesn't fit your eye...they're clearly straying from the scientific process, despite the fact you have "zero" standing to judge their work because you're not one of their peers. You make ankle braces, you don't nor ever have studied and researched global climatology. Therefore nothing you have to say is of any consequence whatsoever. In reality I can corner the raccoon in my backyard who raids my trash every night and put the screws to him about the science of global warming. ANd you know, his educated guess would carry as much weight as yours huh?
So youre gonna screw a raccoon in your backyard?
mrplunkey
New member
Interesting argument.
You have never experienced a job, a woman, living outside your mother's basement, education, science, health care, fitness, business, economics or any type of intellectual endeavor whatsoever.
So according to this (il)logic, you have no standing to judge others' work in these areas. Therefore nothing you have to say is of any consequence in these areas.
So stick to the stuff you know: Mooching government benefits, jerking off to pictures of me (or BBT or nan), smoking pot and "demoing" video games.
Yeah, and LOL @ you having a back yard. That was funny too.
PICK3
New member
redsamurai
Banned
In any case my argument still stands. You have zero experience in any kind of climatology, know nothing about it academically. It's the same thing as going to CERN and telling those guys how to run their experiments....you're not qualified to do it. You can have an opinion on anything you want but you pass it off constantly as truth, because your ego is the size of TN.
Still not the size of TX
mrplunkey
New member
Hmmmm.... So much misinformation. Which one should I pick on?
I know!
Your blathering on physical fitness amused me. This is an exercise and fitness site, so wouldn't it make sense to post-up a lifting video or two? I'll choose the challenge, you match or exceed the feat.
Are you in, or is it time to retreat back to your mom's basement with a pussy excuse?
redsamurai
Banned
Hmmmm.... So much misinformation. Which one should I pick on?
I know!
Your blathering on physical fitness amused me. This is an exercise and fitness site, so wouldn't it make sense to post-up a lifting video or two? I'll choose the challenge, you match or exceed the feat.
Are you in, or is it time to retreat back to your mom's basement with a pussy excuse?
You wouldn't be able to follow me past the 80lbers let alone the 100lbers and up on PP's and Inc DB presses resting only 45 seconds, never less than 5 reps on any set. That's the supplemental work to BJJ training. "That" would give you a heart attack 1:30 in. We would need paramedics on standby
Why dont you just fucking do it then
mrplunkey
New member
So we're on then?
You did say "every aspect of physical fitness" -- so I pick the aspect.
Don't pussy out on me now. You in?
I think most research scientists are interested primarily in finding the truth. Human nature dictates that all people will defend their own theories from an emotional standpoint.
The problem is that good, objective scientists have exactly the wrong skill set to be good politicians. And since public funding comes through politicians, grants go to the scientists with the most popular theory, not the best research methods.
mrplunkey
New member
The well-funded ones are outstanding politicians.
redsamurai
Banned
I forgot to mention it's all on an empty stomach. I've been talking for months now about being on the IF diet. Obviously there's no way I could prove I hadn't eaten anything all day but I wonder what your wkt would look like with only the cream and sugar from a coffee in your stomach.
mrplunkey
New member
I forgot to mention it's all on an empty stomach. I've been talking for months now about being on the IF diet. Obviously there's no way I could prove I hadn't eaten anything all day but I wonder what your wkt would look like with only the cream and sugar from a coffee in your stomach.
Yes or no neckbeard? -- you gonna back up your claim or fold?
1) racist
2) thief
3) liar
This would be the lair part.
mrplunkey
New member
You've been called out. It's time to put-up or slither away.
Are you up for the challenge? And since you claim "every aspect", I pick the test.
Don't pussy out on me now. I've been waiting for you to shoot your mouth off so I can embarrass you -- It's my thing, remember?
redsamurai
Banned
PICK3
New member
mrplunkey
New member
Go ahead, embarrass me.
So is the bet on?
Or are you just rambling and distracting trying to avoid more embarrassment?
redsamurai
Banned
You can do whatever you want nobody's stopping you. My reluctance to look like a meme tool should in no way preclude or influence you from looking like one.
mrplunkey
New member
You can do whatever you want nobody's stopping you. My reluctance to look like a meme tool should in no way preclude or influence you from looking like one.
There you go... I knew you'd back down.
You ran your mouth and know you can't back it up. Well done RedScam(TM) the EF Cuckold and Stunned Cunt.
I love making you my bitch. Now blather on about something else you aren't capable of backing up. It entertains me.
mrplunkey
New member
I completely agree. I'm all in.
We've both posted our faces here, so that's nothing new.
It would be simple: flash a current newspaper, do the lift and post it to tinypic. We could have this wrapped up in a few days.
All we need is redscam(TM) signing up.
Let's hear his excuse now.
Fuck yes I have been waiting on this faggot to prove anything he says.
RnchScam if you don't come through you will never live this down. And don't try to change the subject, this is real talk.
Lifting vids or gtfo
RnchScam if you don't come through you will never live this down. And don't try to change the subject, this is real talk.
Lifting vids or gtfo
Approaching java status rapidly
mrplunkey
New member
He loves to talk out of his ass and then slither away when he gets called out.
kx250rider
New member
Whatever new idea pays the most government grant money in climate change research, is what's going to be "discovered" and "proven" by way of hypothetical variables and theoretical scenarios. I'm going to exhale (C02) and fart (CFCs) after reading this whole thread 
Charles
Charles
Is the approach asymptotic or linear?
mrplunkey
New member
Vertical ass-ymptote
redsamurai
Banned
There you go... I knew you'd back down.
You ran your mouth and know you can't back it up. Well done RedScam(TM) the EF Cuckold and Stunned Cunt.
I love making you my bitch. Now blather on about something else you aren't capable of backing up. It entertains me.
Again nothing in all these years has ever been in your way of putting up pics/vids whatever. You know I won't do it we've been over this before. I'm not putting "anything' up on the internet especially here. I did all that here years ago and furthermore you've seen my old photo's. I showed my pics at 285 and I looked less bloated and fat than you with over 20lbs on you. . We've already done this before. You just count on the fact that most people now weren't here in 06-07.
redsamurai
Banned
I would have no idea who would remember but I "know" Plunkey does.
Oh thank God. I was starting to think redsamurai was a real person. LOL!
mrplunkey
New member
You've already posted pics here and you look like a mongoloid retard fuck. I've still got the pictures, because I find them hilarious.
So now that we both agree you've already posted pictures, what's your pussy excuse for not taking me up on the challenge?
jackangel
New member
but other than that, how do you feel about it?
redsamurai
Banned
Oh you remember the full pictures I posted, don't be coy little bitch I put you to shame. That was the last time I put any pictures or vids or whatever on the internet, that's my excuse. It's not happening, not here or anywhere else on the internet period.
I am curious though as to what you had in mind for a challenge. You seemed to be eager to "choose it yourself" since I stated anything fitness related. So was it a racquetball challenge? Perhaps we could bear witness to your tremendous badminton serve?
opcorn:
Oh you remember the full pictures I posted, don't be coy little bitch I put you to shame. That was the last time I put any pictures or vids or whatever on the internet, that's my excuse. It's not happening, not here or anywhere else on the internet period.
I am curious though as to what you had in mind for a challenge. You seemed to be eager to "choose it yourself" since I stated anything fitness related. So was it a racquetball challenge? Perhaps we could bear witness to your tremendous badminton serve?
You act like youre above posting an internet vid or something. Are you afraid obama and eric holder will come knocking on your door
redsamurai
Banned
Of course I'm not worried about the govt cause i'm not doing anything anymore like getting packages from mexico in the mail..lol. I'm still not doing it though. It's just a personal thing. It wsa stupid to do in the first place and just the product of ego.
redsamurai
Banned
mrplunkey
New member
He's a total retard. The pictures he posted were freakishly retarded-looking. I'm almost certain he has some sort of abnormality.
But the most pathetic thing is how he blathers on endlessly, then refuses to answer a call out.
RedScam(TM):
You are being called out. Don't pussy out for the thousandth time.
It's a simple question. Are you in or are you out?
redsamurai
Banned
bwwaaahahaha, how convenient. I embarrassed you before. You badgered me for months cause you said "I doubt you workout". Then I posted the pic AND me and AAP posted up certain pics that you cried to the mods to have us take down. You remember that fgt? Even in my most bloated roid days I was diesel next to you.
mrplunkey
New member
Well mongoloid-boy, let's do those competitive videos and you'll get a chance to set the record straight.
No one believes anything you say right now. Let's do this. If what you are saying is true, why would you ever pass on such a great opportunity?
1) Racist
2) Thief
3) Liar
4) Coward
Similar threads
