How to Debate a Climate Alarmists

[mamooth]

If you will read my op in environment under the title of, This puts it to rest for me, you will find all the information I am relying on, not from me, but from a scientist.

That was a political rant. The topic is science.

I would further suggest you watch the whole segment from the life liberty and levin episode

That's another political rant. The topic is science.

We get it. Like every denier here, you can't or won't discuss the science, because it's inconvenient to your politics, which is the only thing that drives you.

 

[mamooth]

Someone should appraise this dunce that the baby is not part of her body.

Two points here.

Deniers go through such interesting logical contortions to avoid talking about the science.

Denialism isn't the actual cult. Right-wing-fringe-authoritarianism is the cult. Denialism is just one of many bizarre reality-defying positions that cultists are required to embrace.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Someone should appraise this dunce that the baby is not part of her body.

Two points here.

Deniers go through such interesting logical contortions to avoid talking about the science.

Denialism isn't the actual cult. Right-wing-fringe-authoritarianism is the cult. Denialism is just one of many bizarre reality-defying positions that cultists are required to embrace.

The only point of yours is hidden under your hat.



You linked to this...."Someone should appraise this dunce that the baby is not part of her body."

....but could find no way to dispute it.

In effect, agreeing with the post.




Learn to focus like a laser, you dolt.

 

[mamooth]

You linked to this...."Someone should appraise this dunce that the baby is not part of her body."

If you'd like to be humiliated on that topic again, start a thread in the proper folder.

However, you're wildly off-topic here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You linked to this...."Someone should appraise this dunce that the baby is not part of her body."

If you'd like to be humiliated on that topic again, start a thread in the proper folder.

However, you're wildly off-topic here.

Let's review:

You linked to this statement of mine...."Someone should appraise this dunce that the baby is not part of her body."

....and now I've embarrassed you because you realize you've put your hoof in your mouth....you can't dispute it......so you'd rather change the subject.


Excellent.


It's too bad stupidity isn't painful.

 

[Pilot1]

This is the way of the left. I am right, you are wrong. End of debate.

Feel free to bring up your mountain of evidence that falsifies some critical aspect of AGW. When you can't and you can't even bring up evidence that would tend to support any of your panoply of propositions, its entirely reasonable to say "you're wrong".

Anyone? Anyone?... Anyone?

Some of us have a life outside of the internet. The science is settled and the debate is over are BOTH FALSE.

 

[jc456]

Is this the thread where you guys slap yourselves on the back and pretend you're actually winning all the other threads out there?

It's another thread where you present either no argument or a fallacious argument to support your position.

maybe he can post a link and say, there that's my evidence. totally hilarious. A link is his evidence always.

 

[Votto]

View attachment 247859

Which one is which?

 

[mamooth]

Let's review:

Sure.

You went wildly off topic because you couldn't address the actual issue.

I pointed that out. You had a meltdown.

Next time, when you can't address the actual topic, try just saying nothing. Allow people to merely suspect you're dishonest and stupid, instead of proving it to everyone.

 

[otto105]

Yeah, still won't work. Then again if you use that technique. Just look at Bill Nye getting destroyed.

Does this video include any facts?


No.

 

[jc456]

If you will read my op in environment under the title of, This puts it to rest for me, you will find all the information I am relying on, not from me, but from a scientist.

That was a political rant. The topic is science.

I would further suggest you watch the whole segment from the life liberty and levin episode

That's another political rant. The topic is science.

We get it. Like every denier here, you can't or won't discuss the science, because it's inconvenient to your politics, which is the only thing that drives you.

when is it you will post something science based?

 

[jc456]

Yeah, still won't work. Then again if you use that technique. Just look at Bill Nye getting destroyed.

Does this video include any facts?


No.

do any of yours? NO

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's review:

Sure.

You went wildly off topic because you couldn't address the actual issue.

I pointed that out. You had a meltdown.

Next time, when you can't address the actual topic, try just saying nothing. Allow people to merely suspect you're dishonest and stupid, instead of proving it to everyone.

Then....why did you quote/link to this????

"Someone should appraise this dunce that the baby is not part of her body."


Here's what actually occurred.....you were incensed that someone would post the truth, truth that insults your jejune worldview.....and so, with the usual lack of thinking that we find in Liberals......you posted my statement....before realizing you couldn't dispute it.


In short, verifying Rule #1

Rule #1

Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.



And once again we find a Liberal whose entire makeup is equal parts stupidity and dishonesty.


Write soon, y'hear!

 

[Crick]

Your statement that "Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.." is irrational and, of course, false.

 

[Shrimpbox]

If you will read my op in environment under the title of, This puts it to rest for me, you will find all the information I am relying on, not from me, but from a scientist.

That was a political rant. The topic is science.

I would further suggest you watch the whole segment from the life liberty and levin episode

That's another political rant. The topic is science.

We get it. Like every denier here, you can't or won't discuss the science, because it's inconvenient to your politics, which is the only thing that drives you.

Ah yes, a political rant. Here we have a scientist of accomplishment and stature and mamoothcrick calls it a political rant. Not one fact does she present but she is adamant that she is the well of truth, and people like me are the springs of ignorance. I’ve tried, but obviously I can’t help you with your hate. Here’s the Wikipedia lowdown on my scientist, warts and all. What you can’t claim is that this man is not a scientist.

Patrick Michaels - Wikipedia

 

[mamooth]

Ah yes, a political rant. Here we have a scientist of accomplishment and stature and mamoothcrick calls it a political rant.

I was being kind by not pointing out your reliance on a shyster like Patrick Michaels. But since you insist, let's discuss your hero.

Patrick Michaels lies a lot. This source lists 15 of his public lies.

Climate misinformation by source: Patrick Michaels

He's on the payroll of CATO and other fossil fuel organizations. That is, he gratefully lies in return for bribe money.

And his "science" stinks.

Patrick Michaels: Cato’s Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong

So, he's incompetent, he takes bribes and he lies a lot. Thus, he's a perfect representative of deniers.

 

[Shrimpbox]

So first of all you say I don’t provide any science. Then when I show you I have provided a lot of science you say he is no good.(because he refutes your position). Now at least I am honest enough to put all aspects of mine up for all to see. I know your scientists are perfect and unquestionable. Like I have said. Your conceit is always right and my skepticism is always wrong. End of story.

Michaels received praise for his book, Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (2009) from University of Alabama-Huntsville Principal Research Scientist Roy Spencer, who wrote, "Michaels and [Co-Author Robert] Balling have provided a treasure trove of the latest global warming science."[35] Will Happer, Professor of Physicsand Former Chairman of the University Research Board at Princeton University, also praised the book and wrote it "...provides important and honest information about climate change that is hard to find elsewhere."[36]

As far as what you posted, 15 lies by Patrick Michaels, close examination finds this to be mostly subjective, and obviously subject to interpretation. It is definitely not settled science except in your mind.

 

[Crick]

Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer and Will Happer are the Merry Morons of global warming denialism.

 

[skookerasbil]

Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer and Will Happer are the Merry Morons of global warming denialism.

Ooooops……..you forgot about the tens of millions of other people all across this great land who consider global warming to be the greatest hoax perpetuated on humankind. They matter more than Spencer or Happer by a mile.....because they ensure that the science of AGW is irrelevant.

 

[Crick]

Oooops, this is a democracy and a majority of Americans accept the IPCC conclusions, disagree with Trump's anti-environmentalism and think we need to be doing something about AGW.

So... YOU LOSE