How dare you question climate change propaganda!!

Started by Flyattractor7 pages

When you Can't Attack the Source. Attack the Messenger.

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

I also believe that Jaden has been blatantly moved the goalposts in his reply.

It went from “claim by a scientist” to a “scientific claim” w/c are both very different from one another (I am paraphrasing of course). Essentially an act by a specific type of person to a specific type of action. Again, very distinct from one another.

Of course, if you think I am wrong, feel free to point out how as I am interested to learn why you think no goalposts were moved here.

I didn’t really watch the video nor read the rest of the arguments, so I cannot argue on the correctness of his argument but this stuck out to me.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]When you Can't Attack the Source. Attack the Messenger. [/B]

Well done on inadvertently proving my point. Because that's exactly what she does.

DDM just compounded that point with his link.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol

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

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).

The only paper she refers to in her video is the 97% consensus one. Her criticism of the way it's portrayed is correct but she clearly tried to also attack the paper itself and she was wrong because it doesn't say there's a 97% consensus regarding human caused climate change. It states that 62% of the studies don't give any attribution.


quote: (post)

Originally posted by Putinbot1_
This guy being in your corner DDM should be an indicator where you are._

I also believe that Jaden has been blatantly moved the goalposts in his reply.

It went from “claim by a scientist” to a “scientific claim” w/c are both very different from one another (I am paraphrasing of course). Essentially an act by a specific type of person to a specific type of action. Again, very distinct from one another.

Of course, if you think I am wrong, feel free to point out how as I am interested to learn why you think no goalposts were moved here.

I didn’t really watch the video nor read the rest of the arguments, so I cannot argue on the correctness of his argument but this stuck out to me.

Other people being more concerned with semantics and pedantry isn't me moving the goalposts.

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

^
Poisoning the well

Originally posted by Silent Master
^
Poisoning the well

Remember the El Paso shooter believed climate change was a huge threat too.

I wonder if that guy being in their corner is an indicator of where they are...