| Amy Kloubuchar uses snow to prove there is climate change. Now that's top level Marxism.11-02-2019 16:12 |
Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
(1085) |
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) hit back at President Trump Sunday after he mocked her for launching her presidential campaign in wintry conditions, telling him over Twitter that she was "looking forward to debating you about climate change."
"Science is on my side, @realDonaldTrump. Looking forward to debating you about climate change (and many other issues)," Klobuchar tweeted.
"And I wonder how your hair would fare in a blizzard?" she added.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/429351-klobuchar-hits-back-at-trump-looking-forward-to-debating-you-about-climate
So what's her science? Gore's stupid chart that don't even work?
https://youtu.be/9tkDK2mZlOo |
| 11-02-2019 21:59 |
gfm7175 ★★★★★
(3314) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) hit back at President Trump Sunday after he mocked her for launching her presidential campaign in wintry conditions, telling him over Twitter that she was "looking forward to debating you about climate change."
I would first ask her to define the term in a non-circular manner.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
"Science is on my side, @realDonaldTrump. Looking forward to debating you about climate change (and many other issues)," Klobuchar tweeted.
I would tell her that Climate Change is not science. Science has no theories about circularly-defined buzzwords.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
"And I wonder how your hair would fare in a blizzard?" she added.
I would tell her that this is a non-sequitur and an insult fallacy.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
So what's her science? Gore's stupid chart that don't even work?
She doesn't have any, nor can she refer to any, because if she WOULD refer to any scientific theories/laws, then they would be in firm opposition to the religion she is trying to peddle...
Edited on 11-02-2019 22:38 |
| 12-02-2019 01:22 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21765) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) hit back at President Trump Sunday after he mocked her for launching her presidential campaign in wintry conditions, telling him over Twitter that she was "looking forward to debating you about climate change."
"Science is on my side, @realDonaldTrump. Looking forward to debating you about climate change (and many other issues)," Klobuchar tweeted.
"And I wonder how your hair would fare in a blizzard?" she added.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/429351-klobuchar-hits-back-at-trump-looking-forward-to-debating-you-about-climate
So what's her science? Gore's stupid chart that don't even work?
https://youtu.be/9tkDK2mZlOo
She has none. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There are no theories at all about 'global warming' or 'climate change', either scientific or otherwise. It is not possible to have a theory, or even a valid argument, based on a void argument. The phrases 'global warming' and 'climate change' remain undefined.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 13-02-2019 16:28 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
gfm7175 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) hit back at President Trump Sunday after he mocked her for launching her presidential campaign in wintry conditions, telling him over Twitter that she was "looking forward to debating you about climate change."
I would first ask her to define the term in a non-circular manner.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
"Science is on my side, @realDonaldTrump. Looking forward to debating you about climate change (and many other issues)," Klobuchar tweeted.
I would tell her that Climate Change is not science. Science has no theories about circularly-defined buzzwords.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
"And I wonder how your hair would fare in a blizzard?" she added.
I would tell her that this is a non-sequitur and an insult fallacy.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
So what's her science? Gore's stupid chart that don't even work?
She doesn't have any, nor can she refer to any, because if she WOULD refer to any scientific theories/laws, then they would be in firm opposition to the religion she is trying to peddle...
I'm still waiting for you to explain what you think "circular" means in this context. You don't WANT to define it because you are making no sense and are copying the exact verbage of Nightmare in virtually all of your postings.
Why don't YOU tell us that there is no such science as Spectometry as he has? That there are no long term records of climate or CO2? That satellites cannot measure surface heating? What about the insanity of talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and then saying that visible light doesn't heat surfaces? Or that the only thing that visible light does is cause chemical changes in the atmosphere? That the whole of science is a joke and the only ones that have the honest and true beliefs are you and Nightmare?
Between the two of you you totally deny science from beginning to end.
Edited on 13-02-2019 16:35 |
| 13-02-2019 21:50 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21765) |
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) hit back at President Trump Sunday after he mocked her for launching her presidential campaign in wintry conditions, telling him over Twitter that she was "looking forward to debating you about climate change."
I would first ask her to define the term in a non-circular manner.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
"Science is on my side, @realDonaldTrump. Looking forward to debating you about climate change (and many other issues)," Klobuchar tweeted.
I would tell her that Climate Change is not science. Science has no theories about circularly-defined buzzwords.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
"And I wonder how your hair would fare in a blizzard?" she added.
I would tell her that this is a non-sequitur and an insult fallacy.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
So what's her science? Gore's stupid chart that don't even work?
She doesn't have any, nor can she refer to any, because if she WOULD refer to any scientific theories/laws, then they would be in firm opposition to the religion she is trying to peddle...
I'm still waiting for you to explain what you think "circular" means in this context.
He has already done so, Wake. So have I. Pay attention. A circular definition is a definition that uses the word being defined itself as the definition. A circular argument is one that uses it's own predicate as the conclusion.
Wake wrote:
You don't WANT to define it We have defined it, Wake. Pay attention.
Wake wrote:
because you are making no sense He is making sense. Argument of the stone.
Wake wrote:
and are copying the exact verbage of Nightmare in virtually all of your postings. No, he isn't, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Why don't YOU tell us that there is no such science as Spectometry as he has? There is, but it is not a branch of science. It's just a few of theories that are part of physics.
Wake wrote:
That there are no long term records of climate or CO2? There aren't.
Wake wrote:
That satellites cannot measure surface heating? No, they can't, Wake. Satellites measure light. You cannot measure any heat with a satellite. You cannot measure any absolute temperature either.
Wake wrote:
What about the insanity of talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation An equation you deny. It applies, Wake. You can't just discard it.
Wake wrote:
and then saying that visible light doesn't heat surfaces? It doesn't. It may cause a chemical reaction if it is absorbed, but it generally doesn't.
Wake wrote:
Or that the only thing that visible light does is cause chemical changes in the atmosphere? More things are absorbing light than the atmosphere, Wake.
Wake wrote:
That the whole of science is a joke Apparently to YOU it is. You deny science. You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
and the only ones that have the honest and true beliefs are you and Nightmare?
Science isn't a religion, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Between the two of you you totally deny science from beginning to end.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU denying science, Wake. You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 13-02-2019 22:20 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) hit back at President Trump Sunday after he mocked her for launching her presidential campaign in wintry conditions, telling him over Twitter that she was "looking forward to debating you about climate change."
I would first ask her to define the term in a non-circular manner.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
"Science is on my side, @realDonaldTrump. Looking forward to debating you about climate change (and many other issues)," Klobuchar tweeted.
I would tell her that Climate Change is not science. Science has no theories about circularly-defined buzzwords.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
"And I wonder how your hair would fare in a blizzard?" she added.
I would tell her that this is a non-sequitur and an insult fallacy.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
So what's her science? Gore's stupid chart that don't even work?
She doesn't have any, nor can she refer to any, because if she WOULD refer to any scientific theories/laws, then they would be in firm opposition to the religion she is trying to peddle...
I'm still waiting for you to explain what you think "circular" means in this context.
He has already done so, Wake. So have I. Pay attention. A circular definition is a definition that uses the word being defined itself as the definition. A circular argument is one that uses it's own predicate as the conclusion.
Wake wrote:
You don't WANT to define it We have defined it, Wake. Pay attention.
Wake wrote:
because you are making no sense He is making sense. Argument of the stone.
Wake wrote:
and are copying the exact verbage of Nightmare in virtually all of your postings. No, he isn't, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Why don't YOU tell us that there is no such science as Spectometry as he has? There is, but it is not a branch of science. It's just a few of theories that are part of physics.
Wake wrote:
That there are no long term records of climate or CO2? There aren't.
Wake wrote:
That satellites cannot measure surface heating? No, they can't, Wake. Satellites measure light. You cannot measure any heat with a satellite. You cannot measure any absolute temperature either.
Wake wrote:
What about the insanity of talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation An equation you deny. It applies, Wake. You can't just discard it.
Wake wrote:
and then saying that visible light doesn't heat surfaces? It doesn't. It may cause a chemical reaction if it is absorbed, but it generally doesn't.
Wake wrote:
Or that the only thing that visible light does is cause chemical changes in the atmosphere? More things are absorbing light than the atmosphere, Wake.
Wake wrote:
That the whole of science is a joke Apparently to YOU it is. You deny science. You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
and the only ones that have the honest and true beliefs are you and Nightmare?
Science isn't a religion, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Between the two of you you totally deny science from beginning to end.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU denying science, Wake. You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
I don't know where you every learned the English language but circular in this context is defined as "an argument already containing an assumption of what is to be proved, and therefore fallacious."
Saying that the temperature changes or the rain pattern changes is not circular in standard English. Of course in Nightmare English who the hell knows what you mean?
The rest of your posting is the same denial of entire branches of science because they disprove you and every claim you make. |
| 13-02-2019 23:05 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21765) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) hit back at President Trump Sunday after he mocked her for launching her presidential campaign in wintry conditions, telling him over Twitter that she was "looking forward to debating you about climate change."
I would first ask her to define the term in a non-circular manner.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
"Science is on my side, @realDonaldTrump. Looking forward to debating you about climate change (and many other issues)," Klobuchar tweeted.
I would tell her that Climate Change is not science. Science has no theories about circularly-defined buzzwords.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
"And I wonder how your hair would fare in a blizzard?" she added.
I would tell her that this is a non-sequitur and an insult fallacy.
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
So what's her science? Gore's stupid chart that don't even work?
She doesn't have any, nor can she refer to any, because if she WOULD refer to any scientific theories/laws, then they would be in firm opposition to the religion she is trying to peddle...
I'm still waiting for you to explain what you think "circular" means in this context.
He has already done so, Wake. So have I. Pay attention. A circular definition is a definition that uses the word being defined itself as the definition. A circular argument is one that uses it's own predicate as the conclusion.
Wake wrote:
You don't WANT to define it We have defined it, Wake. Pay attention.
Wake wrote:
because you are making no sense He is making sense. Argument of the stone.
Wake wrote:
and are copying the exact verbage of Nightmare in virtually all of your postings. No, he isn't, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Why don't YOU tell us that there is no such science as Spectometry as he has? There is, but it is not a branch of science. It's just a few of theories that are part of physics.
Wake wrote:
That there are no long term records of climate or CO2? There aren't.
Wake wrote:
That satellites cannot measure surface heating? No, they can't, Wake. Satellites measure light. You cannot measure any heat with a satellite. You cannot measure any absolute temperature either.
Wake wrote:
What about the insanity of talking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation An equation you deny. It applies, Wake. You can't just discard it.
Wake wrote:
and then saying that visible light doesn't heat surfaces? It doesn't. It may cause a chemical reaction if it is absorbed, but it generally doesn't.
Wake wrote:
Or that the only thing that visible light does is cause chemical changes in the atmosphere? More things are absorbing light than the atmosphere, Wake.
Wake wrote:
That the whole of science is a joke Apparently to YOU it is. You deny science. You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
and the only ones that have the honest and true beliefs are you and Nightmare?
Science isn't a religion, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Between the two of you you totally deny science from beginning to end.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU denying science, Wake. You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
I don't know where you every learned the English language but circular in this context is defined as "an argument already containing an assumption of what is to be proved, and therefore fallacious." Contextomy. You seem to have lost context, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Saying that the temperature changes or the rain pattern changes is not circular in standard English. Yes it is. There is no 'standard English' either. No one owns the English language. Not even the English.
Wake wrote:
Of course in Nightmare English who the hell knows what you mean? I am not trying to define 'global warming' or 'climate change'. YOU are.
Wake wrote:
The rest of your posting is the same denial of entire branches of science because they disprove you and every claim you make.
I have denied no science, Wake. YOU deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |