Message to climate change alarmists. Stop ExaGGERATing!

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, I'll play:

- What have I failed to observe?

You have failed to observe that I am never the first person to be rude for example.

By the way did you realize your error in regards to your avatar? I have never commented on it.

 

[julianalexander745]

You have failed to observe that I am never the first person to be rude for example.

Yikes.

By the way did you realize your error in regards to your avatar? I have never commented on it.

Avatar = my account / posts on this forum. Jeez... semantics.

You're really reaching now. I'd suggest tapping out before your dignity is totally extinguished.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yikes.



Avatar = my account / posts on this forum. Jeez... semantics.

You're really reaching now. I'd suggest tapping out before your dignity is totally extinguished.

No, not "semantics". Your avatar is the image that you chose that is shown at the start of your posts. Once again you demonstrate that when you make a gross error you cannot admit it.

Try again.

 

[julianalexander745]

No, not "semantics". Your avatar is the image that you chose that is shown at the start of your posts. Once again you demonstrate that when you make a gross error you cannot admit it.

Yes - semantics. I actually clarified what I meant by what I said and you still insisted on addressing me in an aggressive way.

This has gone way beyond the OP. I don't know what your motivation is for the attitude you use in your posts but it's certainly unnecessary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes - semantics. I actually clarified what I meant by what I said and you still insisted on addressing me in an aggressive way.

This has gone way beyond the OP. I don't know what your motivation is for the attitude you use in your posts but it's certainly unnecessary.

Please, you start a personal attack and then wonder when people point out the hypocrisy of your posts.

The detour is yours. I offered a polite discussion some time ago. You kept up the attacks.

 

[julianalexander745]

Please, you start a personal attack and then wonder when people point out the hypocrisy of your posts.

The detour is yours. I offered a polite discussion some time ago. You kept up the attacks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, not a strawman, but nice try.

Do you want to get back to the topic of the thread or do you wish to continue the false personal attacks instead?

 

[Notanumber]

If a person has a history of being dishonest wise people will not debate with them. No one is afraid of a dishonest fool, but there is no point in giving him a platform.

De-platforming seems to be the modern day answer to everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

De-platforming seems to be the modern day answer to everything.

They have better uses of their time than to debate with a dishonest debater. One thing that I give credit to in Ken Ham's debate with Bill Nye was that Ham was not as dishonest as most creationists tend to be. He lost the debate badly as a result, even Christians thought so by a wide margin. I even remember when he irrevocably lost the debate. Your source does not appear to have the ability to debate honestly. So why should an honest person debate with him?

Debates between honest people can be productive. But just one person being dishonest will often make the debate a dumpster fire instead.

 

[Notanumber]

They have better uses of their time than to debate with a dishonest debater. One thing that I give credit to in Ken Ham's debate with Bill Nye was that Ham was not as dishonest as most creationists tend to be. He lost the debate badly as a result, even Christians thought so by a wide margin. I even remember when he irrevocably lost the debate. Your source does not appear to have the ability to debate honestly. So why should an honest person debate with him?

Debates between honest people can be productive. But just one person being dishonest will often make the debate a dumpster fire instead.

Those that refuse must have a great deal to hide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Notanumber , would you care to learn how the Greenhouse Effect works? I will gladly support any claims with valid links. It is not a difficult idea to understand. It will help you to understand what you are arguing against.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those that refuse must have a great deal to hide.

That is simply not true. Once again, if he was honest people would probably take him up on his offer. But he is far from honest. It would be a waste of their time. It is the same reason that very few people debate with Kent Hovind. He is a master at lying, but that is about it. Given time one can tear apart his debates and show lie after lie. But in a live debate one does not have that luxury. The liar often ends up looking as if he won. when in reality he had his backside handed to him.

 

[Notanumber]

That is simply not true. Once again, if he was honest people would probably take him up on his offer. But he is far from honest. It would be a waste of their time. It is the same reason that very few people debate with Kent Hovind. He is a master at lying, but that is about it. Given time one can tear apart his debates and show lie after lie. But in a live debate one does not have that luxury. The liar often ends up looking as if he won. when in reality he had his backside handed to him.

To be honest these days you have to agree with the consensus or you will be vilified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be honest these days you have to agree with the consensus or you will be vilified.

Not true. The fastest way to fame and fortune is to show that the consensus is wrong. But your hero can only seem to be right on live debates.

Here is what he could do if he was serious. He could challenge someone to a series of well structured video debates. That is he could make some claims and then his opponent would have plenty of time, weeks if necessary to respond. Kent Hovind tried this with Aron Ra and ended up looking like a complete fool. Very few science deniers will accept that sort of debate Why not suggest that to your hero?

 

[Notanumber]

Not true. The fastest way to fame and fortune is to show that the consensus is wrong. But your hero can only seem to be right on live debates.

Here is what he could do if he was serious. He could challenge someone to a series of well structured video debates. That is he could make some claims and then his opponent would have plenty of time, weeks if necessary to respond. Kent Hovind tried this with Aron Ra and ended up looking like a complete fool. Very few science deniers will accept that sort of debate Why not suggest that to your hero?

Universities used to be the bedrock of debate but those enlightened days are over.

Having watched this video, I can understand their reluctance to debate the likes of Piers Corbyn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Universities used to be the bedrock of debate but those enlightened days are over.

Having watched this video, I can understand their reluctance to debate the likes of Piers Corbyn.

Just another science denier that cannot support his claims with peer reviewed papers that he wrote. Look into his past. He is a denier because Gore attacked his father a long time ago. He used some strawman arguments and then made claims that have been falsified. But it is your video, what valid claims do you think that he made.

 

[Notanumber]

Just another science denier that cannot support his claims with peer reviewed papers that he wrote. Look into his past. He is a denier because Gore attacked his father a long time ago. He used some strawman arguments and then made claims that have been falsified. But it is your video, what valid claims do you think that he made.

European Parliament Told: There is No Climate Emergency


Professor Berkhout represents the Climate Intelligence Foundation (Clintel), a Dutch group who have collected signatures from over 700 prominent scientists and professionals in support of the basic statement: there is no climate emergency.


Signatories include Nobel laureate, Professor Ivar Giaever, who made important experimental discoveries regarding superconductors, and the influential mathematician and physicist Professor Freeman Dyson.

The Liberal Democrat MEP, Irina von Wiese, took umbrage at the declaration, and refused to believe IPCC statements about a lack of any global trends in extreme weather events.


The declaration was supported by an addendum, setting out the scientific justification for the statement:

European Parliament Told: There is No Climate Emergency | GWPF

 

[metis]

It's an old and disingenuous trick to take the exceptions and portray them as being the rule.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Given there are scientists on both sides of the table both with equal credentialing and reputations with their respective fields, it's not hard to discern that the bottom line answer to climate change is. ....

Nobody is really sure yet.

 

[julianalexander745]

Just another science denier that cannot support his claims with peer reviewed papers that he wrote. Look into his past. He is a denier because Gore attacked his father a long time ago. He used some strawman arguments and then made claims that have been falsified. But it is your video, what valid claims do you think that he made.

I got a chuckle out of this. The guy is pretty ****ing ugly too. Like a shrunken Harvey Weinstein.