no one can refute this argument from deniers

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > no one can refute this argument from deniers

no one can refute this argument from deniers17-01-2016 04:52
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Deniers say, the Earth's climate always changes, it is all natural. Miami has been under water before, so it is perfectly natural that Miami goes under water again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbPwNbzNTzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjAJT9ZkCWo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drd7sc5aAy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr4SaiRVf34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU72YAwI3Co Edited on 17-01-2016 05:30
17-01-2016 05:19
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	this one is hilarious from the Obama administration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMRVUWZrVjk
30-01-2016 16:21
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	"No one can refute ..." Try this one on for size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvzdd2tKqh4
30-01-2016 22:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	DRKTS wrote: "No one can refute ..." Try this one on for size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvzdd2tKqh4 Warmizombies, realizing that science runs counter to all their WACKY claims, have been relegated to claiming to speak for others, to include Global Warming critics. Warmizombies invent bogus/illogical arguments against Global Warming and then attack those bogus arguments claiming thus that Global Warming must be true. It's easy to win a debate when you bar your opponents and pretend to speak for them. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2016 01:44
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Looking up publications by KT Strong (aka DRKTS) in Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=10&q=KT+strong+&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Looking up publications by IBdaMann in Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=IBdaMann&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 For IBdaMann, there is only one 'almost match' with an article on Distal Proctocolitis - an inflammation in the rectum and colon. Considering the place where IBdaMann usually pulls his opinions from..... it's a hilarious coincidence Edited on 31-01-2016 01:44

31-01-2016 03:05
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	IBdaMann wrote: Warmizombies, realizing that science runs counter to all their WACKY claims, have been relegated to claiming to speak for others, to include Global Warming critics. Warmizombies invent bogus/illogical arguments against Global Warming and then attack those bogus arguments claiming thus that Global Warming must be true. It's easy to win a debate when you bar your opponents and pretend to speak for them. The problem is they refuse to debate in the only valid scientific forums - scientific journals and professional scientific meetings. Please go to that video on YT and in th ecomments section there try to point out any instances where 1) I try to "speak for others" 2) I invent "bogus or illogical arguments" 3) I claim GW to be true because those arguments are bogus
31-01-2016 03:22
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	DRKTS wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Warmizombies, realizing that science runs counter to all their WACKY claims, have been relegated to claiming to speak for others, to include Global Warming critics. Warmizombies invent bogus/illogical arguments against Global Warming and then attack those bogus arguments claiming thus that Global Warming must be true. It's easy to win a debate when you bar your opponents and pretend to speak for them. The problem is they refuse to debate in the only valid scientific forums - scientific journals and professional scientific meetings. Please go to that video on YT and in th ecomments section there try to point out any instances where 1) I try to "speak for others" 2) I invent "bogus or illogical arguments" 3) I claim GW to be true because those arguments are bogus Do you really want to invite a manipulative sociopath to your comments section?
31-01-2016 04:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	DRKTS wrote: The problem is they refuse to debate in the only valid scientific forums - scientific journals and professional scientific meetings. No one owns science, least of all you. No one gets to say what the only valid scientific forums are, least of all you. If a scientist wants to leverage comic books and People magazine then nobody else gets a say and no one gets a veto, least of all you. If you have a question then you are welcome to ask it here in this forum. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-02-2016 20:07
Earthling★☆☆☆☆ (107)	IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: The problem is they refuse to debate in the only valid scientific forums - scientific journals and professional scientific meetings. No one owns science, least of all you. No one gets to say what the only valid scientific forums are, least of all you. If a scientist wants to leverage comic books and People magazine then nobody else gets a say and no one gets a veto, least of all you. Explain why "least of all you" should apply to DRKTS for the gathered masses? You don't have a reasoned explanation? I'm not surprised. "We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
05-02-2016 20:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	Earthling wrote: You don't have a reasoned explanation? Sure I do. Earthling wrote: I'm not surprised. Would this be a case of you not understanding something, say, how message boards work? I'm not surprised. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-02-2016 20:22
Earthling★☆☆☆☆ (107)	IBdaMann wrote: Earthling wrote: You don't have a reasoned explanation? Sure I do. Earthling wrote: I'm not surprised. Would this be a case of you not understanding something, say, how message boards work? I'm not surprised. . QED "We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
05-02-2016 20:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14841)	Earthling wrote:QED It's easy to logically conclude something trivial and something that is obviously not what you think you're concluding. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist Edited on 05-02-2016 20:49
07-02-2016 12:44
Earthling★☆☆☆☆ (107)	IBdaMann wrote: Earthling wrote:QED It's easy to logically conclude something trivial and something that is obviously not what you think you're concluding. QED "We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
07-02-2016 21:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (22456)	Earthling wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Earthling wrote: You don't have a reasoned explanation? Sure I do. Earthling wrote: I'm not surprised. Would this be a case of you not understanding something, say, how message boards work? I'm not surprised. . QED What proof are you demonstrating here? 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

Join the debate no one can refute this argument from deniers:

Threads	Replies	Last post
A personal experience for climate change deniers	230	29-09-2023 14:37
Church of the Mask -- "Magick Mask Argument"	94	02-04-2021 05:36
There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them	133	17-02-2020 07:16
Argument against AGW science	3	14-08-2019 20:51
Naomi Klein: 'Big Green Groups Are More Damaging Than Climate Deniers'	3	13-08-2019 14:20