Climate Change: You can deny, but you can't hide.

your posts show you did not

 

No, I am the one who has proved you cannot provide a quote from it that supports your claims.

 

everyone else reading knows you didn't read it as well.

 

As you know, I read it from beginning to end, which is how I know you won't be providing any quotes from it to support your claim.

 

you know this isn't true, and you also know that everyone knows you didn't read it.

If you did, you'd have seen this....................

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Then how did I learn that there is nothing in it that supports your claim, hmmmmm?

 

like most of the claims you make, you pulled it out of your ass.

 

Uh, it was your claim, champ, not mine.

 

It is also true that the earth goes thru extreme long term cooling and warming cycles all on its own.

 

Of course I saw it, because as you know, I read your link. As I pointed out before, it does not say what you claim it says, and does not support your claim. Perhaps you have lost your way, and no longer remember what that claim was.

 

which I proved, with citation. Your rebuttal was "nuh uh". you lose.

 

it quite literally says what I told you it says. The vast majority of scientists disagree with you, as I've proven to you, with citation.

 

No, it does not.

No, that is most certainly not what that quote says. Learn to read. It says (quite falsely, as it happens) that peer-reviewed studies have found that the vast majority of a small coterie of pal-reviewers who review and approve each other's climate papers for peer-reviewed journals on a quid pro quo basis disagree with me, and (more truthfully) that a small coterie of political operators have successfully corrupted some scientific organizations to the extent that they have issued official statements disagreeing with me -- but without actually consulting their members for their consent, let alone agreement.

Now, maybe you can't tell the difference between that and the vast majority of scientists disagreeing with me. But I can.

 

My rebuttal was pointing out that that citation does not in fact say what you claim it says.

 

well, you are certainly free to reject reality all you like. It remains the same regardless. You've been thoroughly refuted, with citation. sorry.

 

and then I quoted my citation directly saying what I told you it says.

 

No, I just proved to you that it did not say what you claimed it said.

 

OK, so you can't actually tell the difference between what that quote said and the vast majority of scientists disagreeing with me, even after I explained the difference to you very clearly and patiently. Fine. Such cognitive limitations on your part are not exactly unexpected. Nevertheless, I can tell the difference.

 

reality can be stubborn. I clearly quoted the portion of my citation showing you that the vast majority of scientists say you are wrong. You can reject reality all you want, but you will remain proven wrong regardless.

 

I directly quoted my citation telling you exactly that. I don't give a **** if you like that or not. But you remain completely proven wrong regardless.

 

No, your reading skills failed you again. In no way did the quote you offered support your claim that the majority of scientists disagree with me.

No, I have already explained to you in detail why your attempt to support your claim with that quote was unsuccessful.

 

As anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers are learning and will continue to learn by the proof of ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS, which continue to disprove their absurd and anti-scientific claims....

No. You are aware that I have proved it said no such thing. It only mentioned the small, incestuous coterie of a few dozen climate journal pal-reviewers and a handful of politically connected operatives with influence at scientific organizations.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

There’s no such thing as “irrefutable science”, that’s as stupid as saying “settled science “.
Go bone up on the Scientific Method, and get back to us.

 

Science is, of course, self-correcting, by its very nature.

If you need to refute any particular accepted scientific fact, please do.

(This should be fun!)

 

You obviously don’t know anything about the Scientific Method.

You’re right, it is fun watching someone gas lighting science, when they don’t have the first clue about it. Please do continue.