Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.



DERP
Derp

Ad Hominem would be if I shirked your argument in light of some claim true or untrue which attacks your character instead. I explicated your argument AND insulted you.

Dumb ass.
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Derp

Ad Hominem would be if I shirked your argument in light of some claim true or untrue which attacks your character instead. I explicated your argument AND insulted you.

Dumb ass.
Someone cites a dictionary's definition and you think you're smarter than the dictionary. Only problem with that is, everyone else sees right through you.

You make claims you cannot backup, then go on attack mode to deflect.
Still waiting for that proof that "All of the counter arguments have been shown to be flawed"

I won't insult you AC, you do that for me.
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
I know you thought that it was a sound argument when you cited the weather guy from KUSI San Diego channel 51 NEWS but it was just another fail attempt by a denier to resist the findings of science.
It was and is a very sound argument.
You and a few other alarmists made fools of yourselves, that's sound enough for me..
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
The only thing that makes sense in any of your posts is my quote in your sig.
but the weather guy from kusi San Diego is much more of an authority on the subject than yourself, so why should we take your word over his?

hell, you wont even explain what you mean by "Libertatian Socialist", despite everyone saying "WTF IZZAT?" when they hear it.

if you cant be up front and honest on that, why should we accept your smug non-rebuttals of "The Weather Guy" in his field of expertise?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
it only makes sense as long as you don't mind the fact that it isn't rue, not even a little bit.
but but but... wikipedia says it is so!! (kinda)

but wikipedia also says the commercial ship SS Manhattan passed through the northwest passage in 1969, shortly before declaring that "Due to Arctic shrinkage, the Beluga group of Bremen, Germany, sent the first Western commercial vessels through the Northern Sea Route (Northeast Passage) in 2009"

somewhere in the weasel words the truth and lies mixed. but as usual with the wikipedos, you cant sort fact from fiction.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
The NW passage was open from 1903-1906, about the time that all those chevys were plying the roads and making everything look like LA on a calm day. oops wait, there were no cars in 1903, guess I must be wrong then.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
The NW passage was open from 1903-1906, about the time that all those chevys were plying the roads and making everything look like LA on a calm day. oops wait, there were no cars in 1903, guess I must be wrong then.
LIES!!
"The year 1886 is regarded as the birth year of the modern car. In that year, German inventor Karl Benz built the Benz Patent-Motorwagen." ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car

this proves that the automobile caused that global warming too!
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
The NW passage was open from 1903-1906, about the time that all those chevys were plying the roads and making everything look like LA on a calm day. oops wait, there were no cars in 1903, guess I must be wrong then.
even in the winter huh?

There was no multiyear ice in the passage over a century ago?

You sure bout that?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
none of your business.

The OP is an utter failure no matter what my background.
so when one group of scientists assert X, supported by hypothesis, projections, secret data and dire predictions which have failed over and over again, they are right

but another group of scientists assert Y, and actually shows their data, they must be wrong because they are all unqualified.

and the scientific debate is solved by your shrill cries of "Deniers!", "Koch Brothers" and "Smash Capitalism!!"

i'll make a note.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
so when one group of scientists assert X, supported by hypothesis, projections, secret data and dire predictions which have failed over and over again, they are right

but another group of scientists assert Y, and actually shows their data, they must be wrong because they are all unqualified.

and the scientific debate is solved by your shrill cries of "Deniers!", "Koch Brothers" and "Smash Capitalism!!"

i'll make a note.
Show your note to NASA too.
 
Top