Thomas Lindaman ducks the question again and writes:
Once again, Mr. Leftist Blogger who hates me, but yet can't stop copying what I do, has relied on his "hockey stick graph has never been debunked" lie, in spite of the evidence I've already presented to the contrary.
"Evidence?" Cherry-picked emails and people who aren't climatologists?
He's clinging oh-so-tightly to the AGW myth that he's lost grip with something else. Reality.
Global Warming is the reality. Even you potato-fuckers are giving in on that one, finally. You're just switched from "Global Warming is a myth" to "Manmade Global Warming is a myth." You guys always hold out for as long as you can before you finally give in to the truth.
From our good friends at Dictionary.com: de·bunk (dē-bŭngk') /help/ahd4/pronkey.html/help/ahd4/pronkey.html 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. Hmmm...some of Mr. Leftist's own sources have said the hockey stick graph has been exaggerated...
MOST of your sources say manmade global warming is real. Does that mean you agree with them?
and since I'm mocking that...wouldn't that mean, according to the definition of the word in question, I am debunking it? A word of advice, Mr. Leftist Blogger. Learn the big words you throw around. Then you won't look so foolish when you get smacked down. Oh, and one more thing. How's that crow tasting?
Tastes like you side-stepping yet again. Out of all that's been shown to you, from actual climatologists, THAT is all you got from it?
As far "big words" I remember in The Podium when someone said all you guys do is resort to Ad Hominem attacks. You and all the other inbreds in there didn't even know what it meant. It was pretty funny. "What's that? Is that the new liberal talking point now?" lol
"Bunk" means "nonsense". There's no nonsense in the Hockey Stick. The only nonsense is using non-climatologists to try to confuse people. So just like when you cherry-pick emails or one graph, you have to resort to semantic issues now.
Considering modern conservatism thrives on ignorance and anti-intellectualism, you're the last one to try the intelligence route. Again I ask: Why are 97% of all climatologists in on a conspiracy, and what would they ALL have to gain?