
Originally Posted by
KC
So MrCombust, I note that you haven’t apologized for your misquote and then your attempt to put that one on me. Very interesting, and insightful.
Notice the raging arrogance of the climate change advocates. KC posts fake science, cartoons, he can't find the quote on the very page I provided a link for, he makes up gobbledy-gook about "trends", he ignores my post debunking John Cook's consensus then posts John Cook's consensus, he doesn't "have the time or desire to look at this for more than a minute", then he asks me for an apology.
What a hoot these unflinching faithful's are. This is why I don't wish to engage them. They will ask questions I already posted about, they will make points unrelated to my posts, they will argue without researching, they will point to their favourite liar blogs and expect me to be crushed by their fake science.
If I do not respond to their posts it's not because I can't, it's because climate change discussions quickly end up being a quagmire of semantics as the faithful make one error after another and/or use liar blogs to support their position.
And the all time favourite tactic of climate change advocates..........switch definitions of "climate change" from one sentence to the next. I will address the numerous mix'n'match definitions of "climate change" in a future post. If "climate change" is sometimes confusing to you, it's because it's intentionally confusing. I will apply a proper, rigorous, scientific analysis of different definitions of "climate change" as they frequently use it erroneously, and interchangeably. Once you understand the frequent misuse of the term "climate change" it will clarify things a great deal, and you will see how poor their arguments really are. You can see how the term was misused in the "consensus" statements....... "97% of scientists believe climate change is happening". Well, no kidding!
Bookmarks