Remember me
▼ Content

no one can refute this argument from deniers


no one can refute this argument from deniers17-01-2016 04:52
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
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
★★★★☆
(1041)
this one is hilarious from the Obama administration


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMRVUWZrVjk
30-01-2016 16:21
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
"No one can refute ..."

Try this one on for size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvzdd2tKqh4
30-01-2016 22:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
★★☆☆☆
(166)
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
★★★★★
(4267)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(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
★★★★★
(4267)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(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
★★★★★
(4267)
Earthling wrote:QED

It's easy to logically conclude something trivial and something that is obviously not what you think you're concluding.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(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
★★★★★
(8642)
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




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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Naomi Klein: 'Big Green Groups Are More Damaging Than Climate Deniers'313-08-2019 14:20
Maxime Bernier believes in climate change, but defends argument that CO2 is just 'food for plants'124-02-2019 18:59
Global Warming Argument Simplified7813-12-2018 00:30
The Argument for AGW6415-01-2018 23:52
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact