July, 2915 hottest on record

Meh..... Hard to debate someone like you that never debates. Try some actual science for a change.

 

I'd like to propose an alternative. We could massively dis-invest in carbon fuels which would then make renewables seem cheap in comparison. The government surely has picked the winners in this industry.

 

he did, you weren't able to handle it

 

So you think logical fallacies constitute debate? Hmmmm....

 

no i don't, i think you're on the losing side of the argument

 

Meh...who cares what you think. So far all you have presented is opinion.

 

Most people that pick up a hammer to drive a nail are trying to accomplish something. It could be building a house, a workbench, or anything else that is built. To build something correctly it should be square, plumb, and level. Unless you are a child and want to drive a nail just to pound it. And even children are usually trying to build something and need help.

And you can get a layman to represent you in court but I will hire a Lawyer.

There are tricks to any trade and that is where the education comes in.

 

we'll see what happens

 

What is hard for you is that you are stumped. You are not a scientist and I have documented on this thread that you plagiarized a oil company paid shill. That established that you are willing to represent the thinking of others as your own. Plagiarism also requires a lack of integrity. Therefore you have proven yourself both incapable and unworthy. You do provide an excellent poster child to use as an example of the type of mentality that will claim to be able to review and dismiss the findings of real experts. If there are people on the verge of becoming an ideologue denier, then your example might inspire them to step away from ignorance and re-engage thier brain.

 

Ah, more appeal to authority logical fallacy. I think you live by this.

 

Another canned response that doesn't address what was said. All that shows is that you are stumped. Besides the denier talking point about "appealing to authority" is based in ignorance. Of course any person with common sense is going defer to a person who is "an authority" on any subject. It has nothing to do with a position of authority. Every time you parrot that ignorant phrase it is a proclamation of ignorance of how the English language works.

 

Of course, there are the personal attacks. You seem to have a very limited play book.

 

Your post was a repeat of "appeal to a authority" talking point which is an attempt to blend two different meanings of the same word. I already explained that to you. It was an indicator of parroting and also a failure to recognize that the phrase being parroted is based on ignorance of the English language. One of the troll strategies you have used in your posts in this thread is to use repetitive personal attacks and then at the same time accuse others of making personal attacks. That is a troll tactic. See what I am doing? I am attacking your posts. When you plagerized the oil industry shill and I posted a link to source of the paragraph you ripped off, that wasn't a personal attack but just another case of someon exposing the fraudulent nature of your posts. You have trolled this thread and displayed rudeness and disrespect and now you are whining about getting exposed. If you are so certain about your ideological stance towards climate science then maybe it is time to ask yourself why you having to resort to the tactics you are using. A confident person is able to make thier case using facts and logic. The only logic you have presented is parroted talking points that assume that throughout the world, all of the scientists are corrupt are taking part in a conpiracy to defraud the public and in saying that you are implying that you, a non-scientist, have the scientific expertise to review the work of the scientists and proclaim they are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Still got your panties in a bunch eh? Not only that, continued personal attacks and logical fallacies. You are repetitive if not anything else.

 

I do agree that personal attacks are a sign of being stumped as far as actually responding to a post. Here are some examples of personal attacks:

See how it works, the post was directed at me personally.

That is kind of personal. Why are you interested in my panties anyway? Maybe you should look up Larry Craig.

Wait, you said that already. What was that about a "limited playbook"?

Wait, you already said that. OH, you added in the "LOL" I guess that means you didn't have a limited playbook, you optioned to the terminology oft used by geniuses "LOL" There is a beer commercial where the guy says "I don't usually type out LOL but when I do, I feel like a teenager".

Hey look, you said "LOL" again, did you get that out of your playbook? When you compared me to a sea slug, was that not a personal attack? Now it seems like you were denouncing personal attacks. What happened?

OK, this one is a personal attack because you attacked the intelligence of every member here when you plagiarized this statement from a denier funded website. It is not nice to plagiarize. However, if you want to debate if it is a personal attack or plagiarism, I will probably let you win either way.

See how you are talking about what I am personally full of? That is a personal attack and you have denounced personal attacks as a took of those with limited resources. How many times are you going to repeat the talking point you lifted from the denier websites?

On that one you are making a personal attack on a member here instead of addressing what they said. A troll tactic.

You already said that. That isn't a display of the non "limited playbook". But wait, you threw in another "LOL" to make it seem more juvenile. I will give you a pass on that one since you may be a teenager. LOL.

Now that wasn't nice and it seems like a personal attack. If you are such a strong debater, then why so many posts like this one?

Did you pay attention to what you said?

Thank you for proving your own point. You post a crap-load of personal attacks and then when you get stumped, you cry about personal attacks.

 

Ah, I see, you have your panties in a bunch because I pointed out your inability to debate. What would you expect after all of your attacks and logical fallacies? A reward?

 

Again with your interest in my panties. This isn't that kind of discussion board and I must decline your overture. I am sure you can find someone who is interested in discussing their underwear if you do some google searches. My suggestion is to look up Mark Foley or Larry Craig but please be discreet. It is funny that after I provide a long list of personal attack comments you made on this thread you come back saying that I am attacking you. Does that mean that you feel like you can make personal attacks and also plagiarize oil company funded deniers and anybody that points it out is attacking you? Now go grab a Kleenex and cry it out. Then maybe you can find a man who would like to discuss his panties with you.

 

You have yet to provide anything other than logical fallacies. You should try some debate about the actual issue instead.

 

It really wasn't a debate. I quoted you complaining about personal attacks and then quoted a list of personal attacks that you made. There is no debating facts. Or are you saying that I misquoted you? And please, no more comments asking about my panties. Thank you but I am not interested. Oh I forgot to say "LOL".

 

So far all you have provided to this thread is appeal to authority and your admission that you don't understand any of the science. So why are you here?

 

Oh no. "LOL". I provided the common sense concept that non-scientists and non-experts are not qualified to review the work of the real scientists and experts and then make a determination about which ones are correct. I used you as an example and provide factual proof that you were plagiarizing a oil company funded denier. Therefore I showed the how the mindset of a denier works and that they are simply parroting things that they read on blogs. There is no disputing this fact because I provided documentation to back up my claim. I again used you as an example and after you complained about supposed personal attacks, I posted a long list of personal attacks that you made on this thread. If you missed them, I can post them again and add some more. Basically I proved that the denier mentality depends upon not engaging in real debate but instead resorting to personal attacks and parroting things from the internet. I also stumped you by asking you why anybody should listen to you instead of a real scientist on the topic of climate science.

 

Yes, you keep claiming you can't possibly understand the science projecting your inability to others and rely on a logical fallacy as your defense and resort to defamation by calling anyone that does not believe as you do, 'deniers'. Typical.

 

No. That is what you say I am saying buy anybody who can read will be able to see it is not what I said. It is a troll strategy to try and claim someone said something they didn't say. You are wanting to debate with the strawman so you can match your canned answers up to what the strawman says. I am calling the non-scientests who deny the findings of the real scientists "deniers". They are not making a choice based on science because they are not qualified to review the work of scientists. It is based on ideology. As much as you want to claim you are an independent thinker, there are many right wing ideologues who make the same claims that you do. Just because you have made a proclamation that you are smart, that is not winning any points in the debate. All you have done is present the denier propaganda that you have swallowed when you drank the kool aid. Basically you are part of the rah rah section for the right wing. Good for you. I hope it makes you happy to be part of a group who all think the exact same way.

 

Well, you are in your proper place making this about politics instead of science which is also typical of the politicization of the science and the political meme of climate change.

 

Every time say "meme", it shows you are using a talking point. It is not a politicization of science to say that the scientists are the ones we should listen to. I am doing the opposite. I am saying we should ignore the non-scientist ideologues and listen to the scientists. How is it that you keep getting everything backwards?