How dare you question climate change propaganda!!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why? Why would she put that out there when this stuff is easily searchable in a few seconds? Why single out one among hundreds?

It's a bit immature to do that type of mudslinging and she has 10 points to get through. If she wanted to give a presentation only on 1, they already exist and people present on it. Multiple exist if you're interested where those papers and prediction are taken apart, piece by piece.

Very few people have been as directly and overtly wrong as Jaden and I caught him moving the goalposts: it's obvious.

This is not debatable. But I think you're doing that troll thing you do to Surtur because he's stupid enough to respond for pages where no meaningful conversation takes place.

Fact remains that she had no problem pointing out AOC's "12 years" claim, she did this twice in less than 2 mins to prove her point. She could have easily spent and extra 20 seconds to give even a single valid name and example; it's telling that she didn't.

You only asked me to watch her 1st point and give my POV of the situation; that's what I did. She was shifty, dishonest and outright lied in her 1st point.

I disagree and I noted why previously. Jaden's position on her #1 point has not shifted.

If you want to brush this off as "trolling", go ahead; that's on you. But it's clear I watched that part of the vid as you requested and I gave reasons to my stances.

Also I'm gonna ask: I know he has a degree in mechanical engineering, but what scientific research has Nye conducted in regards to climate science?

Originally posted by Robtard
Fact remains that she had no problem pointing out AOC's "12 years" claim, she did this twice in less than 2 mins to prove her point. She could have easily spent and extra 20 seconds to give even a single valid name and example; it's telling that she didn't.

You only asked me to watch her 1st point and give my POV of the situation; that's what I did. She was shifty, dishonest and outright lied in her 1st point.

I disagree and I noted why previously. Jaden's position on her #1 point has not shifted.

If you want to brush this off as "trolling", go ahead; that's on you. But it's clear I watched that part of the vid as you requested and I gave reasons to my stances.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, so that the goalposts are not moved inappropriately away from where the power is, it doesn't matter if scientists are making wrong predictions.

What matters is if the people who have the power are making the wrong predictions and are using false information or false ideas to make policy decisions.

Let's not move the goalposts to something completely stupid just to win a minor internet argument. If the people in power are making wrong predictions and are trying to get policies made or changed based on their ideas, that's the biggest problem.

If these same people in power are making policy recommendations and decisions based on incorrect scientific information, that's also a problem. But that's almost never the actual situation as almost no person in power makes science-based policy decisions. We do not live in a technocracy or anything close to it. 🙂

How dare you contradict the narrative. How dare you.

Do you not care about how many dreams and childhoods you kill?

Won't somebody worry about the dreams?!

Originally posted by dadudemon

Very few people have been as directly and overtly wrong as Jaden and I caught him moving the goalposts: it's obvious.

This is not debatable. But I think you're doing that troll thing you do to Surtur because he's stupid enough to respond for pages where no meaningful conversation takes place.

I'm right, you're wrong. Simple as that.

She did exactly as I claimed and I pointed out why her claims are wrong. I debunked her video.

No one has done the courtesy of even attempting to do the same with the videos I posted. I would be willing to bet no one even watched them. I wonder why.

U gonna pretend like u watched the original video in this thread? Please don't.

Odd statement given I specifically addressed her points by number.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I'm right, you're wrong. Simple as that.

Oh really?

🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you're saying you only looked for one example of something that doesn't fit exactly into your strawman position so you can be right? 🙂

Yes. You should review every single example and more.

And you should then admit your point was wrong when you said:

This is wrong and very easy to disprove, as I have done. 👆

And don't stop there! There's more!!!

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=failed+climate+change+predictions+&iie=1

Originally posted by dadudemon
And many claims that are false or didn't happen were made by scientists. Some of those claims were by non-fringe Climatologists.

I posted one link that shows many scientists making wrong predictions along with politicians.

Since I only need one example to prove you wrong, behold, the very first entry where a scientist is making a proven-false claim:

🙂

And this is one of the funnier exchanges I've had on KMC (I rank it the #2 of all conversations where I thoroughly and completely handed someone's ass to them):

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Paul R Elhrich didn't conduct research into or publish scientific papers on climate change and it's predictions. So it's not a scientific prediction.

Really don't see why this is difficult to get.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Firstly, you are changing your position. You originally said this...

lol

Secondly, he did publish scientific papers on climate change:

https://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.short

And here is a longlist:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=paul+r+ehrlich+climate+research+scholarly+articles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Obviously you can't read because I didn't address 1. I addressed several. All of which proved my point. They were all news articles, not scientific papers. 1 was a quote from Al Gore (not a climate scientist). 1 was a quote from Prince Charles (not a climate scientist) and 2 were from Paul Elhrich (a scientist but not a climate scientist and from his book, not a scientific study or paper)

You. Literally. Proved. My. Point.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Obviously you can't read because I didn't address 1. I addressed several. All of which proved my point. They were all news articles, not scientific papers. 1 was a quote from Al Gore (not a climate scientist). 1 was a quote from Prince Charles (not a climate scientist) and 2 were from Paul Elhrich (a scientist but not a climate scientist and from his book, not a scientific study or paper)

You. Literally. Proved. My. Point.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Obviously you can't read because I didn't address 1. I addressed several. All of which proved my point. They were all news articles, not scientific papers. 1 was a quote from Al Gore (not a climate scientist). 1 was a quote from Prince Charles (not a climate scientist) and 2 were from Paul Elhrich (a scientist but not a climate scientist and from his book, not a scientific study or paper)

You. Literally. Proved. My. Point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Firstly, you are changing your position. You originally said this...

lol

Secondly, he did publish scientific papers on climate change:

https://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.short

And here is a longlist:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=paul+r+ehrlich+climate+research+scholarly+articles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you're saying you only looked for one example of something that doesn't fit exactly into your strawman position so you can be right? 🙂

Yes. You should review every single example and more.

And you should then admit your point was wrong when you said:

This is wrong and very easy to disprove, as I have done. 👆

And don't stop there! There's more!!!

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=failed+climate+change+predictions+&iie=1

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I honestly don't see why DDM is choosing not to understand you.

Because whenever he is wrong, he doubles-down. He just tries to exhaust the other person so he does not have to admit he made a mistake.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because whenever he is wrong, he doubles-down. He just tries to exhaust the other person so he does not have to admit he made a mistake.

Please do point out where I am wrong. Quote the exact posts and the exact posts of Jaden's, too. And articulate specifically where and why I am wrong.

smile1

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Surtur, be honest, am I missing something Jaden said? Or was Jaden wrong in addition to trying to move the goalposts?

I don't think so and I feel like he is gas lighting you. For example, when you note that a scientific paper was indeed published he responds that no a scientific paper wasn't published it was just a "news article". As if it was some op-ed from the Washington Post or something.

Sigh. This is getting tedious.

Until someone can show me she isn't doing the exact same tactic I showed in my videos (which still no one has addressed) then I'll still be right.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Sigh. This is getting tedious.

Indeed... just admit you're wrong and it'll be the end of it. 😉

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Indeed... just admit you're wrong and it'll be the end of it. 😉

^triggered wittle pooty can't handle the truth.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
This guy being in your corner DDM should be an indicator where you are. 😂

lol

Hey, now, he's right a majority of the time.

Originally posted by Surtur
I don't think so and I feel like he is gas lighting you. For example, when you note that a scientific paper was indeed published he responds that no a scientific paper wasn't published it was just a "news article". As if it was some op-ed from the Washington Post or something.

Thanks, I appreciate your input.

I know I did nothing wrong and Jaden and I agree on most of his points anyway. It is not controversial, even in the climate change community, to admit the predictions by the climatologists themselves, are often wrong. It's extremely difficult to make accurate predictions and those that get it right sometimes are right for the wrong reasons (wrong model that just so happened to get it right).