Wind.

[Birdbrain]

From The Bible ... Must be true ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver ... Only 4 more years before Britain becomes the new Siberia

[Guest pelmetman]

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 6:23 AM

 

From The Bible ... Must be true ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver ... Only 4 more years before Britain becomes the new Siberia

 

Its 2020 in four more days Birdy 8-) ............

 

"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020."

 

Let me know if the permafrost reaches Dorset next week? ;-) ............

 

So I can extend my booking out here in Spain :D ........

 

Dontcha just love an expert prediction (lol) (lol) (lol) ...........

 

 

[jumpstart]

Going back to wind (mainly from the rear of Trump) the reason he spewed out his rubbish was because he fought a planning battle with Scottish councils to stop a wind farm being built off shore within sight of his golf coarse. He lost and it cost him $200,000. So he hates them.....no science in that.

[Fast Pat]

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 6:23 AM

 

From The Bible ... Must be true ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver ... Only 4 more years before Britain becomes the new Siberia

 

From the article......Must be true.....

 

"The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current

research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United

States national security.

 

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and

reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this

project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,

they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather

than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

 

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and

would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered

immediately."

 

So a scenario planning paper exploring

 

" an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario patterned after the 100-year event that occurred about 8,200 years ago. This abrupt change scenario is characterized by the following conditions:

• Annual average temperatures drop by up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over Asia and North America and 6 degrees Fahrenheit in northern Europe

• Annual average temperatures increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.

• Drought persists for most of the decade in critical agricultural regions and in the water resource regions for major population centers in Europe and eastern North America.

• Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impacts of the changes. Western Europe and the North Pacific experience enhanced winds.

 

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:

1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production

2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts

3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess"

 

Surely even you and Pelmethead can understand the difference between scenario planning and scientific predictions?

[Guest pelmetman]

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 9:50 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 6:23 AM

 

From The Bible ... Must be true ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver ... Only 4 more years before Britain becomes the new Siberia

 

From the article......Must be true.....

 

"The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current

research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United

States national security.

 

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and

reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this

project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,

they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather

than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

 

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and

would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered

immediately."

 

So a scenario planning paper exploring

 

" an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario patterned after the 100-year event that occurred about 8,200 years ago. This abrupt change scenario is characterized by the following conditions:

• Annual average temperatures drop by up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over Asia and North America and 6 degrees Fahrenheit in northern Europe

• Annual average temperatures increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.

• Drought persists for most of the decade in critical agricultural regions and in the water resource regions for major population centers in Europe and eastern North America.

• Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impacts of the changes. Western Europe and the North Pacific experience enhanced winds.

 

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:

1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production

2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts

3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess"

 

Surely even you and Pelmethead can understand the difference between scenario planning and scientific predictions?

 

Didn't the experts you prefer to believe predict a hung Parliament too? :D ...........

 

Personally I prefer to rely on my Mystic Gut ;-) ...........

 

It's proving to be far more accurate than your preferred "Experts" (lol) (lol) (lol) .........

[Birdbrain]

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 9:50 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 6:23 AM

 

From The Bible ... Must be true ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver ... Only 4 more years before Britain becomes the new Siberia

 

From the article......Must be true.....

 

"The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current

research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United

States national security.

 

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and

reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this

project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,

they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather

than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

 

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and

would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered

immediately."

 

So a scenario planning paper exploring

 

" an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario patterned after the 100-year event that occurred about 8,200 years ago. This abrupt change scenario is characterized by the following conditions:

• Annual average temperatures drop by up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over Asia and North America and 6 degrees Fahrenheit in northern Europe

• Annual average temperatures increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.

• Drought persists for most of the decade in critical agricultural regions and in the water resource regions for major population centers in Europe and eastern North America.

• Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impacts of the changes. Western Europe and the North Pacific experience enhanced winds.

 

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:

1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production

2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts

3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess"

 

Surely even you and Pelmethead can understand the difference between scenario planning and scientific predictions?

 

"An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately they conclude" ... "As early as next year (2005 , 15 years ago) widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions" ... Just leave this here wit'ya ...KAGA ... Copyright The Guardian

[Fast Pat]

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 10:24 AM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 9:50 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 6:23 AM

 

From The Bible ... Must be true ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver ... Only 4 more years before Britain becomes the new Siberia

 

From the article......Must be true.....

 

"The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current

research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United

States national security.

 

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and

reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this

project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,

they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather

than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

 

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and

would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered

immediately."

 

So a scenario planning paper exploring

 

" an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario patterned after the 100-year event that occurred about 8,200 years ago. This abrupt change scenario is characterized by the following conditions:

• Annual average temperatures drop by up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over Asia and North America and 6 degrees Fahrenheit in northern Europe

• Annual average temperatures increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.

• Drought persists for most of the decade in critical agricultural regions and in the water resource regions for major population centers in Europe and eastern North America.

• Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impacts of the changes. Western Europe and the North Pacific experience enhanced winds.

 

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:

1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production

2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts

3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess"

 

Surely even you and Pelmethead can understand the difference between scenario planning and scientific predictions?

 

"An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately they conclude" ... "As early as next year (2005 , 15 years ago) widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions" ... Just leave this here wit'ya ...KAGA ... Copyright The Guardian

 

So you are that thick that you don't understand what scenario planning is?

 

By the way, copyright is the CIA who prepared the report, Guardian just revealed it's existence.

[Guest pelmetman]

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 10:39 AM

 

So you are that thick that you don't understand what scenario planning is?

 

 

Yeah it's a term self interested experts use for their scaremongering propaganda :D ..........

 

Have you got your thermal Tennerman pants ready for when the next Ice age hits Blighty in 4 days time? 8-) ........

[Birdbrain]

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 10:39 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 10:24 AM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 9:50 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 6:23 AM

 

From The Bible ... Must be true ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver ... Only 4 more years before Britain becomes the new Siberia

 

From the article......Must be true.....

 

"The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current

research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United

States national security.

 

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and

reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this

project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,

they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather

than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

 

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and

would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered

immediately."

 

So a scenario planning paper exploring

 

" an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario patterned after the 100-year event that occurred about 8,200 years ago. This abrupt change scenario is characterized by the following conditions:

• Annual average temperatures drop by up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over Asia and North America and 6 degrees Fahrenheit in northern Europe

• Annual average temperatures increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.

• Drought persists for most of the decade in critical agricultural regions and in the water resource regions for major population centers in Europe and eastern North America.

• Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impacts of the changes. Western Europe and the North Pacific experience enhanced winds.

 

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:

1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production

2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts

3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess"

 

Surely even you and Pelmethead can understand the difference between scenario planning and scientific predictions?

 

"An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately they conclude" ... "As early as next year (2005 , 15 years ago) widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions" ... Just leave this here wit'ya ...KAGA ... Copyright The Guardian

 

So you are that thick that you don't understand what scenario planning is?

 

By the way, copyright is the CIA who prepared the report, Guardian just revealed it's existence.

 

Your that thick and angry your unable to read the link correctly sweet cheeks ... The CIA didn't prepare the report and it was The Observer that revealed the reports existence not The Guardian ... Now rub the hate out of your liccle peepies and read it again and again until it clicks ... Chuckle

[Fast Pat]

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 11:37 AM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 10:39 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 10:24 AM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 9:50 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 6:23 AM

 

From The Bible ... Must be true ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver ... Only 4 more years before Britain becomes the new Siberia

 

From the article......Must be true.....

 

"The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current

research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United

States national security.

 

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and

reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this

project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,

they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather

than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

 

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and

would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered

immediately."

 

So a scenario planning paper exploring

 

" an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario patterned after the 100-year event that occurred about 8,200 years ago. This abrupt change scenario is characterized by the following conditions:

• Annual average temperatures drop by up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over Asia and North America and 6 degrees Fahrenheit in northern Europe

• Annual average temperatures increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.

• Drought persists for most of the decade in critical agricultural regions and in the water resource regions for major population centers in Europe and eastern North America.

• Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impacts of the changes. Western Europe and the North Pacific experience enhanced winds.

 

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:

1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production

2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts

3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess"

 

Surely even you and Pelmethead can understand the difference between scenario planning and scientific predictions?

 

"An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately they conclude" ... "As early as next year (2005 , 15 years ago) widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions" ... Just leave this here wit'ya ...KAGA ... Copyright The Guardian

 

So you are that thick that you don't understand what scenario planning is?

 

By the way, copyright is the CIA who prepared the report, Guardian just revealed it's existence.

 

Your that thick and angry your unable to read the link correctly sweet cheeks ... The CIA didn't prepare the report and it was The Observer that revealed the reports existence not The Guardian ... Now rub the hate out of your liccle peepies and read it again and again until it clicks ... Chuckle

 

So just to prove how thick you are you demonstrate it by not recognising that the Observer and the Guardian is the same paper, the Observer being the Sunday version. A bit like saying the Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph are two different papers.

 

An "ex" CIA agent (if there is such a thing) prepared the report for the Pentagon, full report is here. And note it was published in 2003 a full year before the Observer "revealed" its existence.

 

https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/readings/Pentagon.pdf

[Birdbrain]

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 11:48 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 11:37 AM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 10:39 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 10:24 AM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 9:50 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 6:23 AM

 

From The Bible ... Must be true ... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver ... Only 4 more years before Britain becomes the new Siberia

 

From the article......Must be true.....

 

"The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current

research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United

States national security.

 

We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and

reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this

project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First,

they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather

than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.

 

We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and

would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered

immediately."

 

So a scenario planning paper exploring

 

" an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario patterned after the 100-year event that occurred about 8,200 years ago. This abrupt change scenario is characterized by the following conditions:

• Annual average temperatures drop by up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over Asia and North America and 6 degrees Fahrenheit in northern Europe

• Annual average temperatures increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.

• Drought persists for most of the decade in critical agricultural regions and in the water resource regions for major population centers in Europe and eastern North America.

• Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impacts of the changes. Western Europe and the North Pacific experience enhanced winds.

 

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as:

1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production

2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts

3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess"

 

Surely even you and Pelmethead can understand the difference between scenario planning and scientific predictions?

 

"An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately they conclude" ... "As early as next year (2005 , 15 years ago) widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions" ... Just leave this here wit'ya ...KAGA ... Copyright The Guardian

 

So you are that thick that you don't understand what scenario planning is?

 

By the way, copyright is the CIA who prepared the report, Guardian just revealed it's existence.

 

Your that thick and angry your unable to read the link correctly sweet cheeks ... The CIA didn't prepare the report and it was The Observer that revealed the reports existence not The Guardian ... Now rub the hate out of your liccle peepies and read it again and again until it clicks ... Chuckle

 

So just to prove how thick you are you demonstrate it by not recognising that the Observer and the Guardian is the same paper, the Observer being the Sunday version. A bit like saying the Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph are two different papers.

 

An "ex" CIA agent (if there is such a thing) prepared the report for the Pentagon, full report is here. And note it was published in 2003 a full year before the Observer "revealed" its existence.

 

https://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/readings/Pentagon.pdf

 

Thicko ... Your making yaself look stupider than normal , The Observer is the sister paper of The Guardian just as The News of the World was to The Sun ... An ex-CIA agent prepared the report with another fella sweet cheeks , it wasn't the CIA as you falsely claimed ... Now off you pop and apply the Anusol to the sore areas , your arse and mouth and come back later in less pain and with some fact based argument

[Fast Pat]

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 1:01 PM

 

Thicko ... Your making yaself look stupider than normal , The Observer is the sister paper of The Guardian just as The News of the World was to The Sun ... An ex-CIA agent prepared the report with another fella sweet cheeks , it wasn't the CIA as you falsely claimed ... Now off you pop and apply the Anusol to the sore areas , your arse and mouth and come back later in less pain and with some fact based argument

 

By there is a lot of hate in that post.

 

Do you understand what scenario planning is yet?

[747]

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 1:03 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 1:01 PM

 

Thicko ... Your making yaself look stupider than normal , The Observer is the sister paper of The Guardian just as The News of the World was to The Sun ... An ex-CIA agent prepared the report with another fella sweet cheeks , it wasn't the CIA as you falsely claimed ... Now off you pop and apply the Anusol to the sore areas , your arse and mouth and come back later in less pain and with some fact based argument

 

By there is a lot of hate in that post.

 

Do you understand what scenario planning is yet?

 

I do.

 

It's done by vested interests to get a bigger slice of the US Federal Budget. It's link to reality is often nonexistent.

[Fast Pat]

747 - 2019-12-27 1:19 PM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 1:03 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 1:01 PM

 

Thicko ... Your making yaself look stupider than normal , The Observer is the sister paper of The Guardian just as The News of the World was to The Sun ... An ex-CIA agent prepared the report with another fella sweet cheeks , it wasn't the CIA as you falsely claimed ... Now off you pop and apply the Anusol to the sore areas , your arse and mouth and come back later in less pain and with some fact based argument

 

By there is a lot of hate in that post.

 

Do you understand what scenario planning is yet?

 

I do.

 

It's done by vested interests to get a bigger slice of the US Federal Budget. It's link to reality is often nonexistent.

 

Quite ironic that the first company to employ full time Scenario Planners was Shell then?

 

https://www.strategy-business.com/article/8220?gko=4447f

 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2307/41166329?journalCode=cmra

 

Still engage in it as a useful business tool.

 

https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios.html

[Birdbrain]

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 1:03 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 1:01 PM

 

Thicko ... Your making yaself look stupider than normal , The Observer is the sister paper of The Guardian just as The News of the World was to The Sun ... An ex-CIA agent prepared the report with another fella sweet cheeks , it wasn't the CIA as you falsely claimed ... Now off you pop and apply the Anusol to the sore areas , your arse and mouth and come back later in less pain and with some fact based argument

 

By there is a lot of hate in that post.

 

Do you understand what scenario planning is yet?

 

I'll translate ... Your a beaten man and thats all you have left ... You've lied and tried to spin the facts to suit your purpose but youve been brought down by a serial winner ... Who's won yet again ... Watch me breathe it in ... Yummy

[Birdbrain]

747 - 2019-12-27 1:19 PM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 1:03 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 1:01 PM

 

Thicko ... Your making yaself look stupider than normal , The Observer is the sister paper of The Guardian just as The News of the World was to The Sun ... An ex-CIA agent prepared the report with another fella sweet cheeks , it wasn't the CIA as you falsely claimed ... Now off you pop and apply the Anusol to the sore areas , your arse and mouth and come back later in less pain and with some fact based argument

 

By there is a lot of hate in that post.

 

Do you understand what scenario planning is yet?

 

I do.

 

It's done by vested interests to get a bigger slice of the US Federal Budget. It's link to reality is often nonexistent.

 

"Its link to reality is often non existent" ... FlacidPart described perfectly

[Fast Pat]

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 1:25 PM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 1:03 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 1:01 PM

 

Thicko ... Your making yaself look stupider than normal , The Observer is the sister paper of The Guardian just as The News of the World was to The Sun ... An ex-CIA agent prepared the report with another fella sweet cheeks , it wasn't the CIA as you falsely claimed ... Now off you pop and apply the Anusol to the sore areas , your arse and mouth and come back later in less pain and with some fact based argument

 

By there is a lot of hate in that post.

 

Do you understand what scenario planning is yet?

 

I'll translate ... Your a beaten man and thats all you have left ... You've lied and tried to spin the facts to suit your purpose but youve been brought down by a serial winner ... Who's won yet again ... Watch me breathe it in ... Yummy

 

If that's your idea of winning then you must have had a very sad life.

 

Still it does explains all the hate that you carry.

[Birdbrain]

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 1:36 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 1:25 PM

 

Fast Pat - 2019-12-27 1:03 PM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-27 1:01 PM

 

Thicko ... Your making yaself look stupider than normal , The Observer is the sister paper of The Guardian just as The News of the World was to The Sun ... An ex-CIA agent prepared the report with another fella sweet cheeks , it wasn't the CIA as you falsely claimed ... Now off you pop and apply the Anusol to the sore areas , your arse and mouth and come back later in less pain and with some fact based argument

 

By there is a lot of hate in that post.

 

Do you understand what scenario planning is yet?

 

I'll translate ... Your a beaten man and thats all you have left ... You've lied and tried to spin the facts to suit your purpose but youve been brought down by a serial winner ... Who's won yet again ... Watch me breathe it in ... Yummy

 

If that's your idea of winning then you must have had a very sad life.

 

Still it does explains all the hate that you carry.

 

Chuckle ... How could you possibly know what a winner carries princess ??? ... KAGA 2020

[Birdbrain]

For the easily fooled ... Radio 4 ...

... Kiddies hour , should be good

[jumpstart]

Quotes from winner Trump..

 

I know windmills very much.

 

I’ve been told by our attorneys that we can bring a very large lawsuit based on the harm that these horrible things will do to Scotland..( He lost)

 

They say the noise causes cancer.

 

I never understood wind.

 

All hail the chief.

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

jumpstart - 2019-12-27 3:46 PM

 

Quotes from winner Trump..

 

I know windmills very much.

 

I’ve been told by our attorneys that we can bring a very large lawsuit based on the harm that these horrible things will do to Scotland..( He lost)

 

They say the noise causes cancer.

 

I never understood wind.

 

All hail the chief.

 

 

 

Seems to me if Trump wants to win ;-) .........

 

All he has to do is annoy Lefty Losers :D .........

 

"US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ODDS 2020 WEEKLY RUNDOWN: IMPEACHMENT BOOSTS TRUMP"

 

https://bookies.com/news/us-presidential-election-odds-2020-weekly-rundown-impeachment-boosts-trump

 

[jumpstart]

Couldn’t give a tos if he wins ,ain’t my President.

[Birdbrain]

jumpstart - 2019-12-27 8:41 PM

 

Couldn’t give a tos if he wins ,ain’t my President.

 

Yet your posts prove you do give a toss and he very much is your POTUS ... KAGA

[jumpstart]

Birdbrain - 2019-12-28 9:09 AM

 

jumpstart - 2019-12-27 8:41 PM

 

Couldn’t give a tos if he wins ,ain’t my President.

 

Yet your posts prove you do give a toss and he very much is your POTUS ... KAGA

 

Eh! I think you’ll find he’s American,look it up. He’s a laughingstock,get it.

[Barryd999]

jumpstart - 2019-12-28 9:36 AM

 

Birdbrain - 2019-12-28 9:09 AM

 

jumpstart - 2019-12-27 8:41 PM

 

Couldn’t give a tos if he wins ,ain’t my President.

 

Yet your posts prove you do give a toss and he very much is your POTUS ... KAGA

 

Eh! I think you’ll find he’s American,look it up. He’s a laughingstock,get it.

 

Shhhh! Mr Birdbrain thinks we are in America and are the 51st state. He just thinks Boris Johnson is Trumps deputy. He walks around all day in a cowboy hat and white fluffy chaps.