Climate Change is a fad.

Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
I did not call you a name, I just stated the obvious, that you are ignorant, which you are.


I've repeatedly pointed it out already. Why does it bear repeating?


Not true at all, we are at record levels of CO2 right now and it keeps getting worse.


You are the one posting silliness, all I'm doing is refuting it.

You're arguing seven points at a time. I refuted it, yet you feel the need to keep up the back and forth.


What kind of engineer are you?
You certainly are not a chemical engineer.

Do you engineer a train?


WTF difference does it make as long as I am posting pertinent formation?

You don't even understand basic heat dissipation.


Because they deny MGW? Should I call you something else, would that hurt your feelings as much?
Now that you are resorting to name calling, I will accept this one as your concession speech.

Get a science book or two, maybe you'll figure out how you bought into a set of lies.
 

Blues63

Moderator
Dec 2014
14,438
12,200
Mustafa
Yes, the cultists are unqualified repeaters of flat earth theory combined with malthusian catastrophism.

All hope of rational discussion IS lost with people so hopelessly illiterate as to aspire to willing ignorance of the subject.
Can you ever respond without attacking people? This is exactly what I was talking about: politicising a subject without actually being qualified to make judgments, and posting from an emotional and partisan level, as opposed to being scientific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Puzzling Evidence
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
Can you ever respond without attacking people? This is exactly what I was talking about: politicising a subject without actually being qualified to make judgments, and posting from an emotional and partisan level, as opposed to being scientific.
Can you frame a response to me without making it a directed personal attack?

Or are you going to call others out too like someone with integrity would do?

I guess discussing thermodynamics, psychometry, physics in general is "politicising things" now?
 
Mar 2015
30,349
15,753
Mad Prophet
Now that you are resorting to name calling, I will accept this one as your concession speech.

Get a science book or two, maybe you'll figure out how you bought into a set of lies.
Like I said - you are ignorant; not a "name" just a fact. You called me a "cultist," whatever, I proved you don't know jack.
 

Blues63

Moderator
Dec 2014
14,438
12,200
Mustafa
Can you frame a response to me without making it a directed personal attack?
I just did.

Or are you going to call others out too like someone with integrity would do?
You replied to me. Have you forgotten that fact?

I guess discussing thermodynamics, psychometry, physics in general is "politicising things" now?
No, your response politicised the issue with ad hominem attacks. Do you not understand the term ad hominem?
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
Like I said - you are ignorant; not a "name" just a fact. You called me a "cultist," whatever, I proved you don't know jack.
Then correct any error that I've made, not shift to some side issue, not veiling insults, make your correction so that someone could look at what was said and objectively see that it's false.

You cannot because the science is NOT on your side here.
 
Mar 2015
30,349
15,753
Mad Prophet
Now that you are resorting to name calling, I will accept this one as your concession speech.

Get a science book or two, maybe you'll figure out how you bought into a set of lies.
I call you ignorant and you tell me to read 'science books' so that I know what I'm talking about. Only real difference is that I'm not whining about it.
 
Last edited: