"Best" climate change denial argument EVER....by Mark Levin

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thus proving point #10 beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The demonization of anyone who dares to challenge the science and findings.

But point #10 doesn't speak to the truth of the accepted theories, so who gives a shit. You are the one accusing the global scientific community of all being liars and thieves (demonizing all of them)... then you complain when someone DARES say anything which you might interpret as demonization of you. I see you have rigged the game quite nicely for yourself. Your demonization of others comes from devotion to truth, while everyone else's comes from devotion to lies. I think I'll pass on this con, thanks.

 

[ding]

Thus proving point #10 beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The demonization of anyone who dares to challenge the science and findings.

But point #10 doesn't speak to the truth of the accepted theories, so who gives a shit. You are the one accusing the global scientific community of all being liars and thieves (demonizing all of them)... then you complain when someone DARES say anything which you might interpret as demonization of you. I see you have rigged the game quite nicely for yourself. Your demonization of others comes from devotion to truth, while everyone else's comes from devotion to lies. I think I'll pass on this con, thanks.

Points 1-7 do challenge their theories. You say I am demonizing them. I say I am challenging their pseudo science.

And yes, the end result of their work is taxation, regardless what you believe or say.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thus proving point #10 beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The demonization of anyone who dares to challenge the science and findings.

But point #10 doesn't speak to the truth of the accepted theories, so who gives a shit. You are the one accusing the global scientific community of all being liars and thieves (demonizing all of them)... then you complain when someone DARES say anything which you might interpret as demonization of you. I see you have rigged the game quite nicely for yourself. Your demonization of others comes from devotion to truth, while everyone else's comes from devotion to lies. I think I'll pass on this con, thanks.

Points 1-7 do challenge their theories. You say I am demonizing them. I say I am challenging their pseudo science.

And yes, the end result of their work is taxation, regardless what you believe or say.

You clearly did demonize them as thieves and liars, and unapologetically so. And , no, a list of talking points does not "challenge" anything. Does it challenge the Threory of a Spheroid Earth to say, "The Earth is flat!"? Of course it doesn't. You are suffering from a delusion of grandeur, by thinking that an authoritative declaration challenges a scientific theory. To challenge a scientific theory would be to do science which produces evidence which undermines predictions of the theory or the accepted laws on which it is based. you have done NONE of those things, and neither has anyone else. You are lying to yourself to think you have challenged anything or anyone.

 

[ding]

Thus proving point #10 beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The demonization of anyone who dares to challenge the science and findings.

But point #10 doesn't speak to the truth of the accepted theories, so who gives a shit. You are the one accusing the global scientific community of all being liars and thieves (demonizing all of them)... then you complain when someone DARES say anything which you might interpret as demonization of you. I see you have rigged the game quite nicely for yourself. Your demonization of others comes from devotion to truth, while everyone else's comes from devotion to lies. I think I'll pass on this con, thanks.

Points 1-7 do challenge their theories. You say I am demonizing them. I say I am challenging their pseudo science.

And yes, the end result of their work is taxation, regardless what you believe or say.

You clearly did demonize them as thieves and liars, and unapologetically so.

Really? Prove it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your own words "prove" it. You are saying that the entire scientific community has lined up to deceive everyone. That's you calling them liars. When asked what the motives for this would be, you said money. That makes them thieves. Yes, it is just as absurd as it seems, and you discredit yourself with this nonsense.

 

[ding]

Your own words "prove" it. You are saying that the entire scientific community has lined up to deceive everyone. That's you calling them liars. When asked what the motives for this would be, you said money. That makes them thieves. Yes, it is just as absurd as it seems, and you discredit yourself with this nonsense.

Can you show me the words where I say, the entire scientific community has lined up to deceive everyone?

 

[ding]

Rather than showing my YOUR interpretation of my words, show me my actual words so I can show you what they mean. Fair enough?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your own words "prove" it. You are saying that the entire scientific community has lined up to deceive everyone. That's you calling them liars. When asked what the motives for this would be, you said money. That makes them thieves. Yes, it is just as absurd as it seems, and you discredit yourself with this nonsense.

Can you show me the words where I say, the entire scientific community has lined up to deceive everyone?

Wait, are you saying they are all, just coincidentally, performing bad science? Then you are accusing them all of being incompetent in their lifelong fields, while also implying you somehow enjoy more competence in their fields than they do.

You should have stuck with calling them all liars, as this makes you look even more ridiculous. You're not really doing yourself any favors here.

 

[ding]

Your own words "prove" it. You are saying that the entire scientific community has lined up to deceive everyone. That's you calling them liars. When asked what the motives for this would be, you said money. That makes them thieves. Yes, it is just as absurd as it seems, and you discredit yourself with this nonsense.

Can you show me the words where I say, the entire scientific community has lined up to deceive everyone?

Wait, are you saying they are all, just coincidentally, performing bad science? Then you are accusing them all of being incompetent in their lifelong fields, while also implying you somehow enjoy more competence in their fields than they do.

You should have stuck with calling them all liars, as this makes you look even more ridiculous. You're not really doing yourself any favors here.

You are failing miserably at putting words into my mouth. Why don't you just use my actual words instead of creating logical fallacy straw-men arguments, ok?

 

[ding]

Where did I call them liars? Can you show me the post # because the only person using that word is you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where did I call them liars? Can you show me the post # because the only person using that word is you.

I am using your words. You are at best calling them all incompetent, at worst all liars. And you are definitely calling them thieves. there's no way around it... the climate theories enjoy overwhelming consensus among the scientific community. You deny this consensus. You are left with two choices: they are all mistaken (thus all grossly incompetent), or they are all lying.

You are the one who chose your untenable, indefensible position. If you had thought it through, you would have realized how absurd your claims are right out of the gate. Normally, i would have just argued against the points you tried to make, but you had to go include your little shield, "#10", while doing exactly what you propose removes people's credibility. you are stepping in your own shit, brother. You are losing, by your own rules.

 

[ding]

Where did I call them liars? Can you show me the post # because the only person using that word is you.

I am using your words. You are at best calling them all incompetent, at worst all liars. And you are definitely calling them thieves. there's no way around it... the climate theories enjoy overwhelming consensus among the scientific community. You deny this consensus. You are left with two choices: they are all mistaken (thus all grossly incompetent), or they are all lying.

You are the one who chose your untenable, indefensible position. If you had thought it through, you would have realized how absurd your claims are right out of the gate. Normally, i would have just argued against the points you tried to make, but you had to go include your little shield, "#10", while doing exactly what you propose removes people's credibility. you are stepping in your own shit, brother. You are losing, by your own rules.

Post #'s please.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where did I call them liars? Can you show me the post # because the only person using that word is you.

I am using your words. You are at best calling them all incompetent, at worst all liars. And you are definitely calling them thieves. there's no way around it... the climate theories enjoy overwhelming consensus among the scientific community. You deny this consensus. You are left with two choices: they are all mistaken (thus all grossly incompetent), or they are all lying.

You are the one who chose your untenable, indefensible position. If you had thought it through, you would have realized how absurd your claims are right out of the gate. Normally, i would have just argued against the points you tried to make, but you had to go include your little shield, "#10", while doing exactly what you propose removes people's credibility. you are stepping in your own shit, brother. You are losing, by your own rules.

Post #'s please.

The implication is inherent in your denial. Right out of the gate. Assumed in your denial is that they are all mistaken (incompetent) or all liars. This is a simple concept.

 

[ding]

Where did I call them liars? Can you show me the post # because the only person using that word is you.

I am using your words. You are at best calling them all incompetent, at worst all liars. And you are definitely calling them thieves. there's no way around it... the climate theories enjoy overwhelming consensus among the scientific community. You deny this consensus. You are left with two choices: they are all mistaken (thus all grossly incompetent), or they are all lying.

You are the one who chose your untenable, indefensible position. If you had thought it through, you would have realized how absurd your claims are right out of the gate. Normally, i would have just argued against the points you tried to make, but you had to go include your little shield, "#10", while doing exactly what you propose removes people's credibility. you are stepping in your own shit, brother. You are losing, by your own rules.

Post #'s please.

The implication is inherent in your denial. Right out of the gate. Assumed in your denial is that they are all mistaken (incompetent) or all liars. This is a simple concept.

This is what I said in the first post you replied to:

It's called an interglacial cycle. It's been going on for over 20,000 years.

And from that you got that I called them liars?

 

[ding]

 

[Old Rocks]

Where did I call them liars? Can you show me the post # because the only person using that word is you.

I am using your words. You are at best calling them all incompetent, at worst all liars. And you are definitely calling them thieves. there's no way around it... the climate theories enjoy overwhelming consensus among the scientific community. You deny this consensus. You are left with two choices: they are all mistaken (thus all grossly incompetent), or they are all lying.

You are the one who chose your untenable, indefensible position. If you had thought it through, you would have realized how absurd your claims are right out of the gate. Normally, i would have just argued against the points you tried to make, but you had to go include your little shield, "#10", while doing exactly what you propose removes people's credibility. you are stepping in your own shit, brother. You are losing, by your own rules.

Post #'s please.

The implication is inherent in your denial. Right out of the gate. Assumed in your denial is that they are all mistaken (incompetent) or all liars. This is a simple concept.

This is what I said in the first post you replied to:

It's called an interglacial cycle. It's been going on for over 20,000 years.

And from that you got that I called them liars?

LOL, yes, we are presently in the downhill side of the cycle of short warm periods followed by long cold periods, followed by short warm periods. Known and the Milankovic Cycles, and by them, we should be getting colder, as we were until we started burning fossil fuels and loading the atmosphere with CO2 and CH4.

Assholes like you depend on everyone being as ignorant of science as you are. And you then start playing with semantics when put into a corner by your own ignorance and lies. Your whole spiel is calling the vast majority of scientists worldwide liars and incompetents.

 

[Old Rocks]

"The inability to show how CO2 has effected previous climates throughout the geologic record."

Now how fucking stupid is that statement? I will let Dr. Richard Alley answer that. He is one of the premier glaciologists in world.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Blaming global warming for natural events such as heat waves, droughts, blizzards, floods, hurricanes and forest fires".

If one looks carefully at what the scientists are saying, you will see that they say it is nearly impossible to blame any one event solely on global warming. However, we do know that a warmer ocean creates more energy for the development of stronger hurricanes. And warmer waters and a warmer atmosphere evaporates more water which comes out as larger precipitation events. Prolonged warm and dry spells create better conditions for forest fires, add a little wind, and you get what we are experiancing on the West Coast right now. That you are trying to deny all of this is simply an example of what a fool you are. You deny reality in favor of some silly ideological belief that you have.

 

[Aletheia4u]

With the destruction and misery caused by Harvey, NK's crazed threats with nukes,and an idiot sitting in the oval office (well, whenever he's not golfing)......We NEED a laugh....

Please follow the "logic" by Levin about WHY climate change does not exist....
(BTW, Levin, the favorite moron of the radio waves and a paragon of right wing "intelligence"....pronounces Archimedes as “Archie Meedeez”...something like a Mexican comic book character..

Just listen...its hilarious

.

The greater portion of Japan must go into the sea. The upper portion of Europe will be changed as in the twinkling of an eye. Land will appear off the east coast of America. There will be the upheavals in the Arctic and in the Antarctic that will make for the eruption of volcanoes in the Torrid areas [torrid is the region of earth between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn – which includes the area of the recent earthquake and tsunami], and there will be the shifting then of the poles [in 2003 scientists reported that a pole shift had begun] – so that where there has been those of a frigid or the semi-tropical will become the more tropical, and moss and fern will grow. Edgar Cayce A.R.E. Did Edgar Cayce Predict the 2004 Tsunami? | Edgar Cayce's A.R.E.

My favorite Doris Day song. But it sounds as if someone had accidentally press the slow mode button during recording.

 

[Aletheia4u]