Thomas Lindaman states:
Just when you think it couldn't get any sillier, Mr. Leftist Blogger keeps finding a new level of silliness. Not only can't he address the fact that AGW has been and is being debunked by climatologists (as quoted in the links I provided in a previous post),
Here's the people you've used as a source:
1. Andrew at populartechnology.net - Computer Analyst. Not a climatologist.
2. Dr. Atte Korhola - Not a climatologist, but he's a more acceptable source. Knows AGW is a reality.
3. Roger L. Simon - Not a climatologist.
4. Lionel Chetwynd - Not a climatologist.
5. Richard Muller - Not a climatologist. Knows AGW is a reality.
6. Dr. Tim Ball - Claimed to be a climatologist. He's not.
7. Steve McIntyre - Not a climatologist. Knows AGW is a reality.
8. Ross McKitrick - Not a climatologist. Knows AGW is a reality.
Where are your climatologists, liar?
he now has issue with the English language! Not only does he dodge the dictionary definition of "debunk", but he goes off on a rant that has nothing to do with the subject matter. Who's dodging it, liar? For those who didn't catch it the first time (and for Mr. Leftist Blogger who apparently uses words he doesn't understand in a vain attempt to appear smarter than he actually is),
Keep reaching, proven liar.
here is the definition of "debunk" from Dictionary.com that I posted previously: de·bunk (dē-bŭngk') tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug. de·bunk'er n.
And there's no falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims. Your point?
And here's another definition from Dictionary.com: de⋅bunk -verb (used with object) to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.
And there's no pretentious, false, or exaggerated claims. Your point?
And here's a definition from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary: Main Entry: de·bunk Pronunciation: \(ˌ)dē-ˈbəŋk\ Function: transitive verb Date: 1923 : to expose the sham or falseness of - de·bunk·er noun And there's no sham or falseness. Your point? Whoa. Three dictionary definitions, all of which apply to what scientists, skeptics, and I have been doing with the AGW myth all along.
Too bad you don't have any climatologists.
Once again, Mr. Leftist Blogger, you're wrong.
And the liar lies again.
And no matter how many times you repeat "97% of scientists say man is causing global warming" (with no links to back up the claim, something you've whined about me never doing and that you've used to "prove" that I'm not telling the truth), it doesn't make it so.
Two things, liar:
1. 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS, not just scientists. And not just any climatologists. Climatologists who are currently active in climate research.
2. I did post a link, liar. This link. The link was right here, toward the bottom. I'll even give you a second one: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
Now how are you going to squirm out of THOSE lies you made? Are you going to argue over the multiple dictionary terms of the word "link"?
By the way, Mr. Leftist Blogger, are you aware that a chunk of your "97% of scientists" aren't climatologists, either? I guess when you're so desperate to "prove" a myth, you'll cling to anybody with an impressive sounding title to give your lame argument intellectual heft. Of course, I'm sure you could show us all the hard-hitting climate research done by pediatricians and veterinarians, two groups of "scientists" who have signed onto AGW.
Not just "scientists", liar. Currently active climatologists.
And speaking of "resorting to semantics," your definition of "bunk" to "prove" that the hockey stick graph wasn't debunked was pathetic, yet completely hilarious. No wonder you're resorting to ad hominem attacks in your blog against me. (And, yes, contrary to what you posted in your blog, I do understand what the term means.
Now, maybe. lol
See, I actually understand the English language...which is more than I can say for you, given your aversion to the dictionary definition of "debunk.")
It wasn't "debunked." In order to debunk something, you have to have bunk first. WHY is this so difficult for you to understand? In all your various definitions, the bunk is the exaggeration/sham/falseness/nonsense. There's no exaggeration, no sham, no falseness, and no nonsense. All those things are the "bunk" that you're trying to debunk. There's no bunk to debunk. You just keep saying it's debunked. But it hasn't been debunked. You seem to think someone ridiculing things that they or someone else CLAIMS are false or exaggerated, is the same as their debunking it. A fake debunking is NOT a debunking. In order for it to be a REAL debunking, you have to have REAL bunk.
Enjoy your crow and your dessert of humble pie. You've earned it all, along with my well-deserved mockery of your humiliating ignorance.
Too bad you can't back it up with any science. The louder you scream, the funnier it gets. You revel in ignorance.
When you try to fight the science, you're always going to lose. This happens every time a company has to follow environmental regulations. They claim the science isn't true. But in the end, it's the science that always wins. But that doesn't matter to conservatives like you. You're just going to keep bullshitting in the hopes something will stick.
Again I ask: Why are all these climatologists in on a conspiracy, and what do these climatologists ALL have to gain?
Can't wait to hear the bullshit this time. And you'll probably find a typo (or pretend to find one) in this new entry, then run to your little AOL chatroom for some much-needed support and cry "HAW! I sure showed him! Because he made a typo and I called him out on it! :-) :-)" Then get props back from some guy that loves saying "Obamanigger's not a natural born citizen!"
