Motifake
politics
epic fail
military funny
stupid human
ufo
MAD
politifake

Latest comments




PREV PAGE

rebeccaolsen - Apr 4, 2015 1:32pm, #74463

Popular technology is a popular contrarian website for contrarian's, nothing more. T

rebeccaolsen - Apr 4, 2015 1:30pm, #74462

The problem, denier, is you are guilty of a passive-aggressive use of an appeal to authority - you really on internet links the way a highschool debater would. You pretend to be an authority on logical fallacy - you are not, but you are good at it :)

rebeccaolsen - Apr 4, 2015 1:28pm, #74461

Your link to those conflicting abstracts proves nothing, denier. Other than your political agenda to push confuse others with a debate of political opinion over that of scientific debate which is no longer.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 1:21pm, #74460

And of course, http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/media-matters-all-hands-on-deck-for-bill-oreilly-203178.html Basically there is w witch hunt in progress because of differing political beliefs.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 1:19pm, #74459

Actually I do not share the same political beliefs as Bill, but thanks for the a**umption. The truth is I do not know which why he meant it and the claim that he lied requires that it is not reasonable to interpreted in a innocent manner.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 1:09pm, #74458

Why do you still keep pointing to NASA after I showed them blatently misrepresenting a study in order to produce a false narrative? It's like when they call 2014 the warmest year, and then said they where only 38% sure it was/ They manipulate the data.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 1:05pm, #74457

So basically you when into refuting something i didn't say and Ad Hominem attacks because I pointed out you argument allowes you to reject whatever you wish with regard to it being true, thus us fallacious. This shows you are not debating honestly.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 1:01pm, #74456

Ignoring the actual underlying facts given in favor of excuses not to even listen to the argument, let alone attempt to show it is flawed. Ad Hominem indeed.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 12:55pm, #74455

http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

calron - Apr 4, 2015 12:53pm, #74454

Let's see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/14/a-new-study-shows-climate-skeptics-have-more-knowledge-on-climate-science-than-alarmists/ Nope, looks like stereotyping over truth.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 12:46pm, #74453

Because the told them that there was a consensus. If you look at the actual "consensus" studies, non of them say what the media says they did. Even with that they also has big flaws in them as well.

calron - Apr 4, 2015 12:39pm, #74452

Here's a possible explaination, http://www.cato.org/blog/you-ought-have-look-climate-sensitivity-environmental-worries-are-trending-downward

ipaprime - Apr 4, 2015 10:33am, #74451

MMCC relying on the biggest pile of unscientific evidence ever.

OTC - Apr 3, 2015 5:08pm, #74450

one condition to the cause of the original problem, and its usually not what I was told. Anyways, enjoy ur day mate. cheers

OTC - Apr 3, 2015 5:05pm, #74449

As a tech for several years, whenever I was called to a machine I never accepted what I was told about the problem because 99% of the time they were wrong. I guess it's my nature to question, doesn't mean I'm always right, just that there's more than

fauxnews - Apr 3, 2015 4:51pm, #74448

Fair enough. I can acknowledge that, mate. Good point....Ok, got my mountain BIKE ;-) Almost forgot it. Another beautiful sunny day! On my way back to the lab. Have a good one, OTC! Cheers =)

OTC - Apr 3, 2015 2:27pm, #74447

Faux, there numerous articles about the climate models being wrong, many by scientists, as well as many scientific studies about other events that effect climate change.

fauxnews - Apr 3, 2015 12:28pm, #74446

In any case, have a good weekend, mate. I'm back to work. nice debating with you. See you around maybe next week. :-) Cheers! =)

fauxnews - Apr 3, 2015 12:26pm, #74445

...but the consensus of scientific FACTS and finding - not opinions - is that manmade climate change is unequivocally true. Public opinion doesn't say it is true or false (it says it's undecided) but science says it IS true. Hence the difference.

fauxnews - Apr 3, 2015 12:19pm, #74444

Mate.....as Rebecca pointed out, the WSJ link you posted points to someone's opinion, nothing more. The WSJ thing you shared is proof that a POLITICAL DEBATE rages on. Yeah, public OPINION is divided on this. Stop confusing politics with science...

fauxnews - Apr 3, 2015 10:31am, #74443

Paul Simon "FTW" ;-)

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 8:48am, #74442

Normally I add lotsa sugar to this coffee I'm holding, but today I'm making an exception. PWNing you this morning has been sweet enough :)

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 8:40am, #74441

So another #biasfail FTW. Let's see,ShoOTCer - two #biasfails + one OPINION piece you sneakily tried to pass off as proof against the generally acknowledged scientific consensus VS. 10000+peer-reviewed FACT-FOUND-BASED studies(read:non-opinion) OTC FTL :(

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 8:33am, #74440

The Telegraph piece doesn't say what you want it to say.It comments on uncertainty, though in a sloppy way - commits slippery slope fallacy.Why? Because the Telegraph doesnt pretend to be a true news source.It's a right wing outlet known for its influence

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 8:27am, #74439

The Daily Caller is well known as a politically conservative news and opinion tabloid website. Not that was necessary, hun. The ad hominem picture of Al Gore was a dead-giveway :) #Biasfail FTW

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 8:24am, #74438

Sure. "Wall Street Journal" is professional. Problem is that this was not an article. It was an OPINION piece, as stated in the upper left hand corner - and that nice disclaimer warning about its veracity. PWNed

OTC - Apr 3, 2015 8:01am, #74437

or this professional site interestingly referring to the consensus that the "science is settle", which is often repeated here- http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

OTC - Apr 3, 2015 7:47am, #74436

or this one that cites other factors to changes in climate - http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/

OTC - Apr 3, 2015 7:40am, #74435

you forgot this link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html and all the others that dispute the climate models based on continue research

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 7:00am, #74434

In the event anyone would like to contact this 'reputable' major science organization -er- I meant, minor denier fanpage,here's C3headline's OFFICIAL 'professional' email address: [email protected] Now,excuse ME while I "roll on the floor" LAUGHING :)

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 6:54am, #74433

The blog confesses to being a biased "climate conservative consumer". The funniest part? C3Headline claims to have an actual Publisher/Editor but lists as the site's "official" company email address a gmail account - http://postimg.org/image/sj8wrlt3t/

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 6:53am, #74432

The site confesses to be a biased "climate conservative consumer".The funniest part? C3Headline claims to have an actual Publisher/Editor but lists as the site's "official" company email address a gmail account - http://postimg.org/image/sj8wrlt3t/

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 6:35am, #74431

I noticed you forgot to provide the link to this fabulous article - I'm sorry - I meant OPINION blog http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/02/2014-nasa-hansen-climate-model-output-vs-climate-reality-failure-its-still-ugly.html

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 6:33am, #74430

That website, c3headlines, deliberately misrepresenting facts in its OPINION PIECE on both Hansen and climate models(both of which have been vetted as accurate in peer review) have a lot of fundamentalist anti-science deniers choking on their Jesus juice

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 6:25am, #74429

I thought you were going to finish this,ShoOTCer? Don't worry. I got this... This opinion about Hansen, a cut and pasted quote, from a cheaply maintained rightwing blogger site anti-science site called c3headlines http://www.c3headlines.com/

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 6:14am, #74428

As to why "denier" offends you horribly - guilt much? You have no problem labeling everyone under the sun who disagrees with YOU a "liberal".You want to call us alarmists? I like the ring of that :) You can call me AL www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-gYOrU8bA

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 6:04am, #74427

You harmlessly presented a classic climate change denial myth. It would appear that Faux offered you a proper reb***al. But you lost your **** and used it as an excuse to lash out against many of us. How that is our problem, and not yours, is beyond me.

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 5:56am, #74426

If you don't like the way we argue, then why did you join this forum in the first place? No one is making you stay. If you are a previously banned member trying to sneak back in, then you've lost all credibility to start with.

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 5:47am, #74425

And the viewer might think that half the world’s scientists are equally split between both sides of the “debate” regarding ACC. However, the real balance would give us 97% scientists supporting anthropogenic climate change and 2-3% against.

rebeccaolsen - Apr 3, 2015 5:46am, #74424

There is a political debate going on about MMCC. However, the debate is settled within the scientific community. That is all anyone is saying hun. But that hasn't stopped you from using logical fallacies and manipulated data to make a point.

NEXT PAGE


Skip to page

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 720 730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1130 1140 1150 1160 1170 1180 1190 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350 1360 1370 1380 1390 1400 1410 1420 1430 1440 1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550 1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1610 1620 1630 1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990