Over 59322
politifake

Denial Politics


SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL - Yeah, that's republicans for you...


TAGS: denial blindness politics
Rating: 1/5

More politifakes by Brawler

simplegenius - October 10, 2012, 7:39 pm
actually that sounds like Holder and the many scandals that have rocked the white house during his tenure.


MAXINE WATERS - With the IQ of a dinner fork, how can anything be her fault?




OBAMACARE DEATH PANELS - A second transplant patient has died as a result of Medicaid cutbacks last October (required by Obamacare) Liberals cry that its Gov Jan Brewer and not Obamacare cuts.




Global Warming Denial -


TAGS: climate change denial snow man
Rating: 3.22/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

Zeitguy - July 19, 2014, 6:27 pm
That's a little bit funny.


You can have your own set of opinions... -




Global Warming Denial -




AL QAEDA'S FAVORITE ANCHOR - That should tell liberals something, but denial is a wonderful psychological protective mechanism


TAGS: denial
Rating: 4.67/5

More politifakes by JGalt



REALITY - consists of facts. Liberals are in denial.




LIBERALS FACED WITH TRUTH -




blame-game -


TAGS: denial
Rating: 4.75/5

More politifakes by JGalt



DEMOCRATS - always good at blame and denial! (Bush's fault)


TAGS: denial
Rating: 4.6/5

More politifakes by JGalt



SHEER COINCIDENCE -




ACUTE TELEPROMPTER DEPENDENCY - ATD no longer has to be a crippling malady. But first, you have to admit you have a problem!


TAGS: atd in denial
Rating: 3.62/5

More politifakes by JGalt



DENIAL - Liberals can deny it all they want, but when you can't tolerate anyone having a different viewpoint, its easy to surround yourself with fantasy.




Heliocentric theory -


TAGS: global warming denial
Rating: 3.29/5

More politifakes by Zeitguy

JGalt - July 26, 2014, 8:48 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T3dHkEKE-k


If science is the art of questioning everything -


TAGS: global warming denial funny demotivational
Rating: 3.29/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - February 28, 2014, 11:59 pm
Soylent Green is people! It's PEOPLE!!
fauxnews - February 28, 2014, 9:55 pm
As long as you are okay with the state encouraging abortions in overpopulated cultures so that the remains could be harvested for stem-cell related cures that ultimately would cut the cost of healthcare worldwide and reduce population. Hmmmm?
Curlyrocks - February 28, 2014, 9:00 pm
So you do admit then at least in terms of energy efficiency that gasoline has most green and seemingly green fuels licked. Let's compromise on whale oil, It's made from carbon already in the carbon cycle and is way more pure and needs less processing.
fauxnews - February 26, 2014, 3:09 pm
Both sides are dumb, in other words. Watch the movie, "Oswald's Ghost" for a great deconstruction of American myth-making when it comes to conspiracies.Yes, conspiracies provide a healthy function, folklore.But hopefully the smart folk get that.My 2 cents
fauxnews - February 26, 2014, 3:08 pm
Okay,the oil conspiracy people are just as nutty as the GW conspiracy people.Happy? There is no NWO or illuminati. I dont believe in conspiracies,period. Oswald acted alone, Roswell was a military project gone wrong (no aliens) and Elvis is very much dead
fauxnews - February 26, 2014, 3:06 pm
Only The Commies would think that. X-D
Curlyrocks - February 26, 2014, 1:58 pm
Oil? Why are our conspiracies any less valid than your sides.
Curlyrocks - February 26, 2014, 1:57 pm
Why is it when we say there's a-holes who want to control everything we're crazy but when we then ask why if gasoline is so outdated and such a terrible fuel are people still using it, it's because of the evil oil tycoons plotting to make everyone use...
OTC - February 26, 2014, 1:42 pm
Was that Off The Cuff?
fauxnews - February 26, 2014, 11:23 am
In a room of libertarians, we'd laugh you out of the room for your consistently laughable conspiracy beliefs. Ron Paul, "The human race is too stupid for conspiracies."(lol) Amen. His bluntness is why he doesn't get more respect.God bless him for that X-D
fauxnews - February 26, 2014, 11:21 am
Originated in AREA 51,right? One thing that separates the mice from the men in the world of libertarians is the humble belief of believing in your own independence,not marching lock in step like some Teabagger,which you advocate.Think for yourself,Jdolt.
fauxnews - February 26, 2014, 11:03 am
Blah, blah, blah... Show me where I attacked your boyfriend? X-D Not every GW poster is against him :-p
JGalt - February 26, 2014, 6:59 am
the hidden agenda is about control. Read about Agenda 21, the action plan to inventory all resources, own and control them all, control all land, all water, minerals, plants, animals, construction, means of production, energy, info, and humans
JGalt - February 26, 2014, 6:56 am
subtle attack on OTC eh? slipped by the admins. The junk science part is of concern- ice caps growing, does not fit the model, so in denial, scientists have to claim its climate change now. There is no doubt man is affecting the earth, but


It's your 'move' climate-change deniers...* -




The Lamest Generation -


TAGS: global warming denial greatest generation
Rating: 2.78/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

foxrecon19d - June 5, 2014, 10:42 pm
I have to agree with this poster. The GOP is finished as a party. The day they thought that pandering to devoted entitlement-minded liberals and apologizing for the Democrat false narrative, the GOP has become the RINO party and must cease to exist


NO SURPRISE HERE - Stop being a sucker for corporate con artists.


TAGS: climate change denial
Rating: 2.54/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

PapaFox - March 22, 2013, 11:56 pm
Thank you for proving my point again. (d*** you're dim.)
foxrecon19d - March 22, 2013, 11:31 pm
And almost all climate change propaganda are linked to liberal big business "clean energy" coorporations (Solyndra, et al. What's your point?


SCIENCE DENIAL - Sorry buddy. Why don't you go take auto repair instead?


TAGS: science denial
Rating: 2.37/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

PapaFox - February 25, 2013, 11:46 am
And this relates to science denial how?
Renza - February 25, 2013, 11:43 am
Stopping manned space flight does suck, but it seems like this should be something republicans would be celebrating... you know, being a budget cut and all
Renza - February 25, 2013, 11:43 am
Yeah, they do need to quit being lazy and political sissies and put a budget to vote, and republicans need to quit being d-bags and actually try to work cooperatively to get something done.
ipaprime - February 25, 2013, 11:06 am
how about O's defunding NASA
ipaprime - February 25, 2013, 11:05 am
o so it is not true that democrats in the senate have done nothing to pass a budget in what is it 3 or 4 years now. or how a bout that they keep trying to raise taxes
PapaFox - February 25, 2013, 9:20 am
Until they speak out against the loons, then yes I will criticize the party.
Renza - February 25, 2013, 9:10 am
Republicans have no issue doing the same towards democrats... usually without any base in reality at that.
ipaprime - February 25, 2013, 9:01 am
so tarring evey republican is acceptable now?
PapaFox - February 25, 2013, 8:49 am
I'll admit I hate the anti-science loons that have infested the Republican party in the last few years.
ipaprime - February 25, 2013, 7:50 am
so PF you a hater now or what!


Political Conspiracies -


TAGS: climate change denial bigfoot conspiracies
Rating: 2/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

Zeitguy - August 10, 2014, 10:41 pm
You're
Zeitguy - August 10, 2014, 10:40 pm
Funny, but lacking in substance. But that's probably what your going for.


CONSERVATIVE LOGIC - Yeah, it's that bad.




FLAT-EARTHERS -


TAGS: climate denial loons
Rating: 1.8/5

More politifakes by PapaFox

Renza - April 9, 2013, 8:12 am
yeah, I imagine there was plenty of "scientific facts" god provided on why climate change is as fake as evolution.
Renza - April 9, 2013, 8:11 am
hes making fun of godwinism
JGalt - April 9, 2013, 6:24 am
I'm sure there was a lot of science and not just liberal ridicule of those in disagreement (LOL)
Oyster - April 9, 2013, 6:21 am
So do you watch his show for the entertainment value, or the content?
PapaFox - April 8, 2013, 10:45 pm
The guy's funny, if a little strange. And if the argument's right, I don't care who says it!
Rudedog - April 8, 2013, 10:24 pm
Maherism, you automatically loose the argument. (Even if your right).


Obamagasm -




denial-denali, what difference does it make -




gun nuts -


TAGS: gun grabbers bad laws denial
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by calron

calron - December 5, 2015, 2:57 am
Note to self. Delete and retype last period after running spell check.


Dinosaurs -


TAGS: the stupidly of agw denial
Rating: 4.53/5

More politifakes by Zeitguy

Zeitguy - June 19, 2015, 10:59 pm
Wow, Curly bragging about his pen-is on the Internet. That's pretty funny. When does your "hair club for men" membership expire?
guest818 - June 19, 2015, 4:31 am
Not as funny as the episode I'm watching live right now[#77299] - about a Bible-thumping teenage girl who thought she single-handedly overturned the consensus on AGW and exposed fraud at NASA with her google search engine and her personality disorder ^_^
Curlyrocks - June 19, 2015, 3:40 am
No they do in fact believe in natural phenomenon, it's just that scientists know EVERYTHING to do with nature and the environment, they know EXACTLY what the climate should be doing despite it being a complex process of powerful forces.
Curlyrocks - June 19, 2015, 3:35 am
What about the episode where they come to my house and find that I don't have a car and all my electricity is produced by Biomass. Probably get cancelled as MMGW nuts resent it when some one doesn't buy into their trash and still lives cleaner than them.
Curlyrocks - June 19, 2015, 3:28 am
My big Whang is not a theory, I'd prove it to you but this is not one of those types of sites
Zeitguy - June 17, 2015, 9:55 pm
Camo, unregistered guns and homophobia. That's true reality TV :)
rebeccaolsen - June 17, 2015, 9:28 pm
How about "Schmuck Dynasty"? :D
guest818 - June 17, 2015, 7:49 pm
LoL!
Zeitguy - June 17, 2015, 7:19 pm
Maybe " The Big Whang Theory"?
Zeitguy - June 17, 2015, 7:12 pm
Lol guest! If that's the new sitcom pilot on ABC, I'm all in:)
guest818 - June 17, 2015, 5:27 pm
Best show around, Zeitguy. ^_^ Like a Teabag version of 'The Big Bang Theory' featuring inbred low-information voters and acted out by the food-court staff at Walmart.
Zeitguy - June 17, 2015, 3:48 pm
Deniers; you guys are hilarious.
OTC - June 16, 2015, 4:58 pm
According to liberals, natural phenomenons have nothing to do with climate, it had to be Dinosaur Made Climate Change that did them in
MMessEnnBeeCee - June 16, 2015, 2:42 pm
Add in the volcanic activity, the sun activity, earth wobble, etc and voila!
OTC - June 16, 2015, 2:14 pm
So basically, deforestation and methane release, dinosaurs could have done it to themselves
MMessEnnBeeCee - June 16, 2015, 1:48 pm
Do you mean the Fred Flintstone cars?
Curlyrocks - June 16, 2015, 11:45 am
Well cows produce a lot of methane as does any large grass or green plant eating creature. Now imagine how much a brontosaurus would ****. Combined with the fact they would need to strip about 1 Km2 of trees a day to live, that might cause an impact.
Curlyrocks - June 16, 2015, 11:37 am
It was using those cars where you have to run underneath to move and using pterodactyl's as windshield wipers and pelicans as cement mixers that ruined the world, couldn't possible be a wide range natural forces beyond our scope of comprehension.
OTC - June 16, 2015, 7:48 am
According to alarmist, cows are doing it to themselves
MMessEnnBeeCee - June 16, 2015, 2:57 am
No, according to the alarmists, man did it


Comb -


TAGS: ancient aliens science denial climate
Rating: 4.39/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

guest818 - June 9, 2015, 1:24 pm
You accuse the scientific community of perpetrating a hoax over AGW.#77008 There is your conspiracy theory.You also accuse members here of "pushing" AGW. There is your other conspiracy theory. Maybe they simply accept it. After all, it is accepted science
guest818 - June 9, 2015, 1:14 pm
the only conspiracy theory you see? you said [#76973]"Conspiracy theories?when have I pushed a conspiracy theory?" I see 2 in ONE post alone.#77006,(1)"The only conspiracy theory I see here is man-made global warming." (2)"And you clowns push it hard"
guest818 - June 9, 2015, 1:10 pm
accepted science is not a conspiracy theory. that is why it is accepted.
MMessEnnBeeCee - June 9, 2015, 11:52 am
The only conspiracy theory I see here is man-made global warming. And you, like the other global warming clowns here, push it hard.
MMessEnnBeeCee - June 9, 2015, 11:51 am
narcissistically-formulated politicized thinking?!? Did you learn some new words and forget to look up the definitions?
guest818 - June 9, 2015, 2:16 am
but rather than accept those facts, you deny in favor of a conspiracy theory that you should at least be equally skeptical about if skepticism was truly your agenda. you are not, because trolling is your agenda.
guest818 - June 9, 2015, 2:15 am
you acknowledge that reputable researchers received govt grants, clearly that is public knowledge, as is their funding, which is disclosed. The denier scientist you are referring to was caught deliberately not disclosing his private corporate funding
guest818 - June 9, 2015, 2:12 am
#76995 responded to your narcissistically-formulated politicized thinking in #76992
guest818 - June 9, 2015, 2:10 am
another one of your conspiracy theories.
MMessEnnBeeCee - June 9, 2015, 2:09 am
If source of funding is not important, then explain this crap: http://www.politifake.org/fairy-tales-wei-hock-soon-science-deniers-funding-politics-62846.html
MMessEnnBeeCee - June 9, 2015, 2:06 am
and where does their money come from? Ever see a government contract? It's written something like "Produce proof that anthropogenic global warming exists." Hardworking? More like political leeches.
MMessEnnBeeCee - June 9, 2015, 2:01 am
awww, did your but.tons get smashed again? try putting some of your forehead grease on it and it might loosen up and reset.
MMessEnnBeeCee - June 9, 2015, 2:00 am
here's what your comments amount to: caw...skip...caw...skip...caw..skip... ad nauseum. You most definitely are a one trick pony.
guest818 - June 9, 2015, 1:59 am
you dont give those hardworking folks the benefit of the doubt.You flippantly dismiss their data while narcissistically favoring politicized talking points,which you should be (at least)equally skeptical about.Points to paranoid conspiracy minded thinking
guest818 - June 9, 2015, 1:49 am
researchers weren't from some sort of "Institute to find AGW." They're from depts focused on polar research and Earth sciences. whatever the data tells them is what eventually forms a consensus one way or another and reality just happens to have a bias.
guest818 - June 9, 2015, 1:32 am
who are actually generating the results that point to anthropogenic warming, so it can't possibly provide an incentive to them.what money is left, little of it actually go to scientists.
guest818 - June 9, 2015, 1:30 am
your argument displays a profound ignorance of how science and science funding work. the vast majority of that govt money is in the form of "Climate Technology," None of that money goes to the researchers
guest818 - June 9, 2015, 1:28 am
looks like your bu.tton was pushed again. you can tell when you drop another one of your "conspiracy theories", to answer you from earlier [#76973].Reputable AGW climate scientists are not engaging in shady practices involving govt funding,your contention
MMessEnnBeeCee - June 9, 2015, 12:07 am
hypocrite much?
MMessEnnBeeCee - June 9, 2015, 12:07 am
faux, faux, faux! You argued that the "denier" didn't reveal his funding and it was a big deal to you. None of the science alarmists are revealing their funding, but it doesn't phase you because they duped you into thinking like them (or not thinking).
rebeccaolsen - May 30, 2015, 2:50 pm
BUMP http://i.imgur.com/IIqQu.gif


Co2 -




Republican Science Deniers -


TAGS: science denial republicans inhofe climate change
Rating: 4.1/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - June 7, 2015, 3:33 pm
Well thanks for taking the time to try to demonstate [sic] my point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning


Meet Slick "Willie": The Poster Child of Climate Change Denial. -




" I d i o c r a c y " i s s u p p o s e d t o b e a m o v i e . -


TAGS: climate change deniers denial idiocracy
Rating: 3.35/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

Zeitguy - February 8, 2015, 8:37 pm
A hilarious movie that unfortunately has become all to prophetic.


Logic and Reason According to Climate Change Deniers -




How science works according to Climate Change Deniers -




How Republicans View the World -


TAGS: climate change denial deniers
Rating: 3.17/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - February 9, 2015, 3:33 pm
Gee…The Telegraph, a conservative, tabloid newspaper thinks the 97% consensus of climatologists is a massive liberal hoax/conspiracy. Color me surprised.
Bandit5906 - February 9, 2015, 1:13 pm
The Telegraph: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever.
fauxnews - February 8, 2015, 5:22 pm
*bows* Well...thank you. :-) P.S. Welcome to Politifake!
DebtToAmerica - February 8, 2015, 5:13 pm
haha, this made me think of "i have a job, so clearly anyone who doesnt must be lazy, end welfare!".


How Climate Change Deniers See the world -




Climate Research And Propaganda Of Liberal Activists (C.R.A.P.O.L.A.) -


TAGS: cilmate change tinfoil hat denial
Rating: 3/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

rebeccaolsen - May 12, 2015, 12:26 pm
So, you're finished with your 'latest' meltdown?
rebeccaolsen - May 12, 2015, 12:13 pm
See #76125.
rebeccaolsen - May 12, 2015, 12:11 pm
Your fake mustache FTL :) http://cdn.meme.am/instances/45470299.jpg #CHECKMATE
freasy - May 12, 2015, 12:09 pm
OK, prove it
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 12, 2015, 11:54 am
lololol! What a brilliant comeback. From what I can see of your postings, it's typical. Can't respond with anything worthwhile, just use either use ts;cr or "obvious denier troll" lolol
rebeccaolsen - May 12, 2015, 11:15 am
Polar bears are fun :) you keep mentioning them over and over again. Yes - they are cute and cuddly, and easy for your simple mind to wrap around. Stick with that. Here - www.jaunted.com/files/3873/Flocke_the_Polar_Bear.jpg
rebeccaolsen - May 12, 2015, 11:11 am
Master's Degree in Physics. Minors in environmental science and computer science. Your 'indictment' of fake "dat", as you spelled it, or the "ica age", whatever the hell that is, speaks volumes of someone who hasn't seriously participated in academia, hun
freasy - May 12, 2015, 10:55 am
And your advanced degrees are in what subject???
rebeccaolsen - May 12, 2015, 10:15 am
Obvious denier troll is obvious.
freasy - May 12, 2015, 10:07 am
SO, what happened to the ica age predicted by the scientific community in the 70s? Fake Dat, Fake models, no warming last 10 years and lots more polar bears.......
fauxnews - May 11, 2015, 9:09 pm
lol
Zeitguy - May 11, 2015, 8:54 pm
I was always a big fan of George Gervin also. Oh sorry, that was the Iceman Bringeth :)
fauxnews - May 11, 2015, 8:31 pm
Never mind then. It's a classic. Figured you might've, given your age. You should give it a gander, though. What you said in #76072 was much a "Hickey" moment-of-revelation. Very eye-opening, in the same vein of "Iceman." Have a good one, mate. Cheers :-)
OTC - May 11, 2015, 8:25 pm
No and no
fauxnews - May 11, 2015, 6:08 pm
So, I will ask you one more time: Have you seen or read "The Iceman Cometh"? Or is all of this stalling so you can buy yourself enough time to google it throughly so you can pretend u did and pretend to respond intelligently like you do w/MMCC? X-D (2/2)
fauxnews - May 11, 2015, 6:05 pm
Couple steps ahead of you as usual, OTC. You're Splitting hairs. It was clear that I meant putting side your "denier" climate change debate. The over-all debate is still chugging along,despite your propensity to focus on semantics as a "red-herring."(1/2)
OTC - May 11, 2015, 5:58 pm
I believe it was you that said "Putting this "debate" ASIDE for a moment..." therefore, how could I avoid the debate when it was aside for a moment for you to ask a question? Wouldn't that be avoiding the question rather than the debate? hmmm
fauxnews - May 11, 2015, 5:50 pm
Not annoyed. Perplexed. I interpreted #76086 as you dodging the question and running away from the debate(s) you start, like "you often do" (and you just did...again). ;-) #vintageotc
OTC - May 11, 2015, 5:43 pm
Just responding with absurdity like you often do (e.g. comment #75970) Annoying, isn't it?
fauxnews - May 11, 2015, 4:26 pm
*chirp* *chirp* http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fp0VNxnODYM/UhOswyKrKbI/AAAAAAAADus/VzcNMFxE2PA/s1600/crickets.gif
fauxnews - May 11, 2015, 2:45 pm
*sigh* :-/ It's not about "icemen" or "snowmen" or "scientists" or "gods." It's not a Disney cartoon about frigid angry sisters or a spinoff Marvel movie about the mutant X-men. It's a play by Eugene O'Neill. It's a straight question. So, yes or no?
OTC - May 11, 2015, 2:35 pm
So you're saying icemen are scientists, or gods?
fauxnews - May 11, 2015, 9:42 am
Not exactly, mate. Are you familiar with “The Iceman Cometh?"
OTC - May 11, 2015, 6:17 am
God again? Another red herring?
fauxnews - May 11, 2015, 12:52 am
Putting this "debate" aside for a moment,science really isnt the enemy of God that you think it is.Some Christians even think that by science proving he doesnt exist in THIS world,it returns him to the world NOT OF this realm. Food for thought ;-) (2/2)
fauxnews - May 11, 2015, 12:48 am
The words "very likely" are your ace-in-the-hole in this? lololol..In that 'card' you think you are holding, and the confidence you exude in acting like 'you-really-got'em-by-the-ba.lls', you reveal that really do have the lowest opinion of science(1/2)
OTC - May 11, 2015, 12:01 am
An unequivocal theory, got it. And you mean NASA is actually "very likely" settled on MMCC. Just as they think its very likely human induced warming.
fauxnews - May 10, 2015, 11:14 pm
Science is based on theory. There is no point in explaining the skeptical-by-nature design of science if your cognitive dissonance won't let you hear what I have to say. NASA is actually very settled on MMCC, mate. But since when do you listen to facts?
OTC - May 10, 2015, 10:42 pm
Who has refuted science? Even NASA says the warming is "very likely" human induced, which doesn't sound settled or unequivocal


Great News for Xtian Fundy Climate Change Deniers! -




Stupid liberals -




Cognitive Dissonance -




T h i s i s y o u r b r a i n o n F a c t s -




The Danger of Fundy Thinking -




Our poor ears! -




The Truth about Man-made Climate Change Denial -




Clark? Clark! -


TAGS: vacation national lampoon science denial
Rating: 2.67/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - May 10, 2015, 1:02 am
STOP READING MY MIND OX= *Puts on tin foil hat.*
Oldsod - May 4, 2015, 3:15 pm
One thing we can agree on, faux...poverty sucks. I saw a pontoon boat the other day...just two pontoons, a deck, an engine, and a small "gazebo," that was worth more than my house. Heck, I'd be happy with a canoe...
fauxnews - May 3, 2015, 10:28 pm
Already did.Yeah,my bike's that old :-/ Im cheap, so cheap I'd separate my 2 ply toilet paper to make 2 rolls if my family wouldnt kill me over it X-D They're already pi.ssed at me for trying to make whole milk into 2% by adding water so it'll last longer
OTC - May 3, 2015, 8:54 pm
Shoulda got the extended bike warranty
fauxnews - May 3, 2015, 2:52 pm
Keep it. :-) Have a good one, mate. P.S. Speaking of tinfoil, I'm starting to think my bike is made of the stuff. Second time this month I have to take it into repairs :-/ Another lost weekend *sigh* Catch ya on the flipside bloke
fauxnews - May 3, 2015, 2:50 pm
Nah,mate.That's your bag,remember? ;-) You're the expert.Im just a meat and potatoes science and reason man.I dont believe in conspiracy theories.I accept the science when it tells me something's unequivocal X-D You can be the junk science guy around here
calron - May 3, 2015, 2:25 pm
You wear a tin foil hat to prevent mind reading, you really need to brush up on your conspiracy theories.
rebeccaolsen - May 3, 2015, 2:14 pm
:)
fauxnews - May 3, 2015, 2:03 pm
I'll accept your compliment,backhand and all ;-) haha Thank you, Beck.Been wanting to do one of these for a while.My little Harold Ramis tribute(a dearly departed filmmaker who directed Vacation,also a famous satirist).Have a good morning,mates.Cheers :-)
rebeccaolsen - May 3, 2015, 1:49 pm
Normally, I find your humor to be pretty dumb hun. But this time you nailed it :) Also, I'm probably the last living Chevy Chase fan,as you already know.Despite that - Objectively, can still give this: 5Lions Thank you for the Sunday morning laugh,sweetie
fauxnews - May 3, 2015, 1:41 pm
?
fauxnews - May 3, 2015, 1:41 pm
;-)
calron - May 3, 2015, 1:36 pm
What, no mention of mind probes?
rebeccaolsen - May 3, 2015, 1:15 pm
http://mlpforums.com/uploads/post_images/img-2257089-1-mlfw1925-101218_-_animated_animation_applejack_artist_773he.gif


Anthropogenic global warming -




climate change: a natural cycle -


TAGS: climate change denial inhofe co2
Rating: 2.45/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - March 28, 2015, 3:08 pm
So the ice age is junk science now? lol


the ultimate failure -




Republican views on science -


TAGS: climate change denial
Rating: 2.43/5

More politifakes by rebeccaolsen

ipaprime - April 4, 2015, 10:33 am
MMCC relying on the biggest pile of unscientific evidence ever.


the reason we still have climate change -


TAGS: climate change denial matrix neo
Rating: 2.43/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 7:38 pm
?
OTC - March 18, 2015, 7:34 pm
Thanks faux, I was echoing liberal sentiments and that's how they come across. Guess I nailed it!
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 6:32 pm
haha...Sorry Curly. That remark was meant for OTC, not you. Cheers =)
Curlyrocks - March 18, 2015, 6:20 pm
Well let me see. I can't get a good job in my field as a trained Millwright as industry was moved out of your sight and to the 3rd world, so yes very bitter.
fauxnews - March 18, 2015, 2:16 pm
Bitter? lol
OTC - March 18, 2015, 2:10 pm
No, no, no. The planet never hurts itself, it's all man-made volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and humans are so bad at hurting this planet, that's its spilled over to nearby planets causing them to warm up. All that man-made CO2 had to go somewhere,eh?
Curlyrocks - March 18, 2015, 1:37 pm
How can we progress as a species if we we're so full of self loathing that we blame every single act of nature on our selves?


Science Denier Temper Tantrums -


TAGS: climate change consensus denial
Rating: 2.42/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - April 5, 2015, 2:58 am
So your ignoring me by replying to me? LOL You have not proved your belief on me and the others and thus is at best "UNTRUE".
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:55 am
unscientific standard divorced the standards of evidence and ignoring that you yourself have failed to prove yourself right and thus by your own standard must be wrong.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:55 am
Cal, some of us here have already entered into a pact behind-the-scenes to ignore you and your other trolls. Carry on if it makes you feel better though.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:52 am
" that your beliefs are, at best, UNTRUE until proven otherwise" LOL, nice to see your mask fall off. That is what is know as an Argument From Ignorance. It's like saying the outer planets didn't exist before they where proved to exist. Thus an...
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:47 am
Good night and good luck, Calvon, you’ll need it.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:46 am
which for all practical purposes means they will remain false. That’s a far cry from what you are claiming. You will have to live with your shame. I’m off to bed, Cal. Your persecution complex, if nothing else, is entertaining.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:46 am
By failing to do either, you concede by failing to accept a control - that your beliefs are, at best, UNTRUE until proven otherwise. Since you refuse to ever do so and accept a control, your beliefs will remain untrue forever -
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:45 am
On the other hand, if you really had conviction in your position, you would’ve taken my simple challenge and proven me wrong in a controlled setting.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:45 am
Like Uri Gellar and other science deniers - you would rather accept the reputation of a charlatan than be exposed as wrong.  If you really did not want to jump through hoops, you would’ve ignored me long ago sticking to principle.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:44 am
about why you won’t, but you still puff your chest out anyways, that man is labeled a coward. The REAL point was to trick you into this circus act of your own doing. We already knew you wouldn’t take the bait. In that sense, you took the real bait.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:44 am
This was fun! Wish I could say the same for you amigo. Last thoughts on this with help from my science buddies, Giving credit where credit is due: If a man asks you to step outside, and you spend an entire hour like you did whining and making excuses
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:43 am
As my science buddies point out, another strawman. As you have already conceded this debate by your behavior, it is now a moot point. But with their help, I promised them I would explain why so as to prevent you from more deception and strawmanning-
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:35 am
studies rather than of scientists. It is odd how often people (like the OP) confuses the two.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:35 am
So you are going to a**ume what I think again. It's odd how you claim that it is easy to debunk me and yet the effort you'll go though not to post it and then call me chicken when I actually provided my evidence. Most likely you'll point to a consensus ..
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:31 am
Was giving you the benefit of the doubt since you were hiding behind the bar stools from my offer. Weren't sure you heard me or not. Now I know. I will take this as you are chickening out, coward
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:25 am
Oh, another last chance. I though the last last chance would be the last one. And nothing prevents you from doing it without me, except you of course.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:23 am
No, the 30% position divides the pro camp into several conflicting theories on MMGW, so your Appeal to Anonymous Authority has told you what I think wrong again. If you look at the poll you'll see added they present a greater number.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:21 am
Maybe you didn't hear me. Would you like to step outside into a real science forum and put your money where your mouth is Cal? You can name any apolitical science you prefer. Man up or chicken out? Last chance
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:20 am
You do not get to be the judge of what is unequivocal. You concede you are not an expert. Neither am I. You do not get to decide to be the control. It's not manning up if you get to choose a place where you can hide from the actual fight.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:19 am
Typo. My buddies point out you also listed as low as 30% giving you room to hold onto your denier position if you need to but 90% so as to not look like a fool. You don't get to ride the fence.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:18 am
No need, you have unequivocally without a doubt shown that you managed to get what I said wrong. QED. And nothing prevents you from putting your money where your mouth is and manning up yourself. Rather you have excuses for not presenting your evidence.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:16 am
Nope, up to 90%. As I said you are factually wrong on my position.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:15 am
Once again, would you like to step outside into a real science forum and put your money where your mouth is Cal? You can name any apolitical science you prefer. Man up or chicken out? Last chance
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:14 am
Would you like to step outside into a real science forum and put your money where your mouth is Cal? You can name any apolitical science you prefer. Man up or chicken out?
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:14 am
It isn't needed. You can go on and present everything here to them and show I was wrong just find and present it. Then you can show thoroughly how full of it you think I am to all to see. So show me the money.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:13 am
They tell me to stop entertaining your red herrings and return to the argument at hand: You believe the media has exaggerated the scientific consensus and the consensus is really only 30%-50%
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:11 am
Nothing doing. My science buddies have already pointed out a pattern here that you manipulate data to fit your false narratives and then you are allowed to strawman your opponents so you can put words in their mouths. They're offering a control instead.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:11 am
And another Appeal to Anonymous Authority to tell me what I think. Authority is technically irreverent.And nothing prevents you from quoting and showing what I have said as wrong in such a setting. So still you refuse to present the evidence.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:09 am
I don't need them to tell me this is another strawman. Test my honesty then. What apolitical scientific forum would you like debate your misguided views on climate change?
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:09 am
So your Appeal to Anonymous Authority has told you what I think again (talk about a lack on control) to further your own unwillingness to actually present your evidence that you say was easy to come by.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:08 am
My scientific buddies say you are strawmanning me by claiming what you think I mean by control. Neither of us our experts, so neither of us can make this claim with authority. By introducing a control, we can test our opinions with authorities
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:06 am
Your still making excuses for not providing the evidence. Rather you dismiss the ability of each person to come to there own conclusions in favor of setting up hoops instead of debating honestly.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:06 am
My science buddies inform me you are stalling with this red herring tactic. Instead, if you man up coward and pick an apolitical environment of scientific peers, they will introduce controls to test your evidence against science's claim of consensus
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:04 am
represent what I have said, the contradiction shows that you lack understanding of what the claim I have made is, and are dodging that that contradiction.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 2:02 am
Which I offered to do in a controlled environment. You are hiding in an environment where you making yourself the control. If you show up, and nothing happens, you will know I was bluffing.
calron - April 5, 2015, 2:02 am
Scientifically that is not accurate. A control is there to confirm fact but it can be a**igned without it. Like for instance if you say 2+2=5 I cannot call that being wrong as a fact without someone else in the middle. As you failed to accurately...
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:59 am
Actually no I cannot, only the presentation of evidence by either them or you can dispel that anonymity. And of course you do not need me to do anything to present that evidence. So go ahead, I'm not stopping you.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:59 am
Without a control, you cannot make that claim. You are not allowed to be the judge of what I do or do not understand. Since you are making yourself the judge and the control, you have shown nothing. What control would you like to offer?
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:58 am
We are past that now. Scientifically speaking, it can't be verified as fact as long as there is no control test or control. You cannot a**ign yourself the control. No scientist would ethically do that.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:56 am
My buddies tell me not only will you be able to dispel their anonymity, but you can feel more comfortable since you are among people you know and trust. Where do you want us?
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:56 am
I can make any claim I want. I know what I think and noted that what you have said that I think is different from both that and what I have said and that. The facts prove that you misunderstand. No authority will change that.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:55 am
My buddies replied to me on Facebook! They consent to meeting you on your turf as long as it is an apolitical science forum. Atta boy. Great idea you came up with, Cal.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:52 am
For real? You have science buddies too? I can invite my buddies to debate you and your buddies in your science forum then. Is it apolitical?
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:50 am
My buddies say you are strawmaning me.I do not consent to you putting words in my mouth as proxy.Rather,we both conceded we are not experts. Let us add the control of introducing experts in the field of climate change to test the accuracy of our opinions
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:50 am
So your Appeal to Anonymous Authority told you what I think once again. My science buddies tel me this is an attempt to a**ign an authority that doesn't exist to your own opinion (
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:49 am
Without a control, you cannot make that claim. You are not allowed to be the judge of what I do or do not understand. Since you are making yourself the judge and the control, you have shown nothing since your opinion could be biased in your favor
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:46 am
Doesn't need testing, you have shown to not understand my argument and that misunderstanding is what you are trying to test. We could have gotten here quicker if you bothered to actually show your work.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:46 am
My science buddies now tell me that you are acknowledging your sinking ship by creating a strawman in the place of me and essentially arguing with yourself to evade the control. Uri Gellar used to produce his own shows trying to prove his denial as well
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:44 am
you instead reached the conclusion that because I disagreed with an untrue statement that I am trying to support the opposite statement. That is a flat out false dich**omy.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:43 am
I can cut and paste as well: I am no expert. Neither are you by your own omission. Let us test your argument then with a control. What apoltical scientific forum of your choice would you like to test this argument?
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:42 am
How can you? Are you psychic, Uri? I am no expert. Neither are you by your own omission. Let us test your argument then with a control. What apoltical scientific forum of your choice would you like to test this argument?
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:41 am
And here it is, no do not understand what I have said on the subject in no uncertain terms. As I already said consensus is not what the media says it is. Not that it doesn't exist or that clear lines cannot be drawn.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:38 am
I'd lay ten to one odds that you have actually understood what I've said on the subject. The media has exaggerated the consensus as evidenced by the response to Anderegg's studies conclusion vs the medias take.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:37 am
I will entertain your bull. If you are not an expert, why are you scared to present your opinions to experts now? You can pick the experts as long as they are apolitical. I found several forums that are simple science forums.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:35 am
You're very convincing in your conviction about there not being a clear consensus about global warming up until a control is offered.Believers in climate change like myself would accept that control.Deniers would run from it.The only difference? Control
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:34 am
Your anonymous "science buddies" should know that your a***ogy is a false one meant to show something about me the evidence does not support.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:31 am
No you haven't. If you have you would present it is that controlled stetting. Instead what you have shown is a refusal to do what you say that your willing to do, which by your own argument would be less work that what you are doing.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:31 am
Uri Gellar, who was adept at avoiding controlled environment, convinced the world he was psychic. When tricked by skeptic Johnny Carson into appearing on his show and presented with a controlled test, he chickened out much the same way you are doing now
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:30 am
My science buddies point out that science denier Uri Gellar would accept settings as long as he was the control. When tricked onto "The Tonight Show" where the control was forced onto him, he made the same cowardly excuses you are making now.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:28 am
I have shown my willingness to present evidence, in a controlled setting. You have refused to present your evidence, unless you want to claim this is a controlled setting. Not being an expert, you would have to resort to fallacy to do so.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:28 am
in a neutral setting so I can judge if I wish to jump though those hoops and join in instead relying on the anonymous authority of your "science buddies" to claim I do not wish to do what I have already done.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:26 am
I will make a confession, Cal. I am being aided by three very intelligent scientists who moderate that forum. If you would like to verify this, please join us for a lively debate.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:26 am
So your not doing what you are doing because... Your Distinction Without A Difference is a fallacy. You are showing yourself unwilling to provide your evidence and then in turn try to shift the blame to me. I'm not stopping you from offering your proof...
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:25 am
My science buddies tell me that it is likely you want me to present my evidence here so you can be the own judge and filter of what is true or factual. By introducing a control, it has shown what I wish it to: you are hesitant to back your own position
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:23 am
I'm not refusing support of my claims at all. I am offering to present them in a setting where we can apply a control test. It's a reasonable request. I'm willing to offer my proof. You are the one refusing the control. In turn, that is very unscientific.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:22 am
No, your "anonymous authority" would be removed by showing the source of the claims that you keep presenting. You have failed to do so as you refuse to present evidence without hoops.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:20 am
Then why have you not supported your claims? It is because despite what you say, you are refusing to support your claims. You refuse to do so unless I jump though your hoops first. And then you attack me for being scared to shift the topic that refusal.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:18 am
We both agree we are not experts. Atta boy. Let's now remove your accusation of anonymous authority by seeing if it is anonymous by presenting our evidence in a controlled environment and presenting a control test.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:14 am
Untrue. I'm not refusing support of my claims at all. I am offering to present them in a setting where we can apply a control test. A scientist does know better and wouldn't refuse it. They'd invite it. Why are you scared to test your views?
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:12 am
I never claimed "expertise" and your refusal to provide evidence instead relying on anonymous authority already has shown what I wish it to.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:09 am
Nope, you flat out refuse to offer support for your claims and then a**ign my refusal to play your game as a sign of something that is not supported by such refusal. A scientist should know better that that one.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:09 am
Then you choose a controlled setting where you can verify the experts and authorities yourself. You claim expertise in science. Shouldn't be hard for a smart fellow like yourself.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:08 am
The controlled setting would dispel the anonymity or expose me as a bull****ter. What do you have to lose then?
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:07 am
What matters is that you refuse to offer evidence for yourt position at all. Rather you make a claim to authorities that I cannot verify actually exist and place conditions what matters that do not synonymous with truth.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:07 am
I am offering to present my evidence in a controlled setting. You are the one refusing. In a scientific debate, according to my buddies, that is a concession of the weakness of your position. They are right, Cal.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:05 am
"My science buddies say" say the Earth is flat, Obama is a reptilian, and your wrong. Applying claims to anonymous authority is far easier than providing actual evidence.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:03 am
When an irrational denier of science is challenged to present his claims in a controlled setting, the denier makes excuses or tries to blame the environment or others. What matters is that they refuse to challenge their views in a controlled setting.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:03 am
LOL, so your Appeal to Irreverent Authority gave you insight into what I think? So now that you're proved you are making excuses for non production of evidence rather than offering evidence of any of your claims.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:02 am
My science buddies say what you are doing is no different than what psychics do when confronted by skeptic James Randi.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 1:00 am
If you would like, I will entertain your bull, Cal. My science buddies inform me you would just manipulate here the data I present like you have done with most everything else you've presented.
calron - April 5, 2015, 1:00 am
But you said it was safer over there, and now change your tune when convenient. And you prove that you do not understand what I've said, while making excuses for not presented the evidence you say you have.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:57 am
You've jumped through more hoops in dodging my simple challenge to have a fair scientific debate than if you just had agreed to it. So that is not your concern or you are really this dense or dishonest. Same thing.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:56 am
No. Because you will just argue about it from the safety of here. I'm challenging you to see how your argument plays out with the scientists you are smearing and misrepresenting. If you are not smearing them, you should have nothing to fear.
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:55 am
So you once again a**ert stuff exists without bothering to show it. So why have you not posted the evidence I requested and requested me to jump though hoops instead?
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:53 am
So you will not present your evidence, not are not refusing to present your evidence, thus your distinction has no difference or to put it another way your doing what you claim you are not. And of course you can present you case without me, so go ahead.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:52 am
In a private message on the forum to me that I am allowed to share, they told me you are spending more time jumping through hoops evading my simple request. We could've been half way through our debate by now. Good point. Your bull, I meant,response?
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:50 am
I'm not refusing anything. Rather, I am waiting to present my evidence in a safer setting, safer for both of us.
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:49 am
So you still wish me to jump though your hoops. Of course the question of whether you even accurately know my views comes to mind. I'm saying that the consensus is exaggerated by the media, but not denying that one exists.
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:46 am
So we have your word that evidence exist and your word that I have been reb***ed, but refuse to actually present the evidence or the reb***al.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:45 am
Let me start over. I challenge you to a debate about scientific consensus on global warming on a science forum of your choice for the purpose of seeing how your views hold up. If you are so sure of your grasp on science, shouldn't be a problem
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:45 am
Actually no, you didn't present a counterargument here. You a**erted that evidence exists and I look and then claimed I was debunked easily but failed to produce the debunking. Instead you want me to jump though that hoop and resort to attacks to dodge.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:42 am
Putting your persecution complex aside, you have not called me out on anything. I presented my argument here already. You presented yours. Neither you nor I are the best judge of who is right or wrong. A science forum is better. But you are chickening out
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:38 am
So as we can see form this you are presenting a artificial hurdle to avoid the evidence already presented, so why don;y you "Man up" and present the evidence that you claim to already have without all the hoop jumping.
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:36 am
Personally attacking me will not change that you wish me to jump though hoops to do what has already been done because you refuse to actually provide the evidence you say you already have.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:34 am
Why are you scared, Cal? You came here to a political website to have a scientific debate even though what you have said has "played out on other forums." Man up or chicken out
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:30 am
When O'Reilly challenges a smarty pants to go onto his show for a debate, or a neutral setting, and the smarty pants invents an excuse like "I have already had this debate before, Bill rightfully call out the smartypants as a moral coward
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:29 am
Rather than show what you claim you wish me to jump though a number of hoops to do what already has been done and then attack me for calling you out for it.
calron - April 5, 2015, 12:28 am
And once again you misunderstand. What I have said played out on that forum already. There is no need to rehash what has already been done, and you still refuse to present your evidence despite you saying you have no problem doing so.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:23 am
I have no problem presenting my evidence. I only want to do it in a fair setting where you nor I are the judge. I am not dodging. I am waiting. Still waiting, in fact.
RonaldReagan - April 5, 2015, 12:21 am
We never had any discussion, Cal. The debate you are having now has happened countless times else where. So what of it? By your cowardly reasoning, it shouldn't happen here then. But that isn't stopping you, now is it? You pick the science forum then.


fairy tales -




Global Warming Hysteria -


TAGS: joker climate change denial science
Rating: 2.33/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - May 16, 2015, 8:31 pm
Well you mention AGW and murders and I think of a nut that linked them. :P
fauxnews - May 10, 2015, 2:41 pm
An MSNBC(lol) link to a former Playboy CEO's view on CC? BTW the scientists aren't linking CC to ice-cream murders or other such derpery, mate. They don't need to - the nut jobs have a monopoly on that. The OTHER link was a little funny though, denier ;-)
calron - May 10, 2015, 12:36 am
This reminds me of two things, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk9hKZsSJ6o and http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kyPhEiYq2tM/RmBJ2k1jbqI/AAAAAAAAAF8/-BA4cS6rnNw/s320/batmanhatesicecream.jpg ;)
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 8, 2015, 9:29 am
RE: 76003 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=14&v=EeCdWZUBneM
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 6:57 pm
lol i wish i could 5L your comment. ;-)
rebeccaolsen - May 7, 2015, 6:51 pm
Facts are funny that way, denier. No matter how much you whine about them, the "record" on climate research will never change. FYI you might want to pick better puns and jokes, hun. So far, your track "record" is - you're the gift that keeps on giving :)
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 6:36 pm
No, it's just your record is broken again.
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 7, 2015, 6:23 pm
FauxNews, I think that record is skipping
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 5:16 pm
Who illegally uses drugs and then tries to get away it? Yeah, Republicans. X-D www.cbsnews.com/news/rush-limbaugh-arrested-on-drug-charges/
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 5:11 pm
On Earth, we call that "proof." What do they call it where YOU are from? ;-p
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 5:10 pm
E.G. The highly respected journal, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, a***yzed climate change science, and determined that 97-98% of researchers in climate science supported the tenets of human influenced climate change.
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 5:09 pm
lol.."Without proof?" Tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on MMCC and the 97-98% consensus on it.
OTC - May 7, 2015, 5:01 pm
Who pushes for legalization of drugs? Yeah, liberals
OTC - May 7, 2015, 4:57 pm
The implication isn't that Reid had anything to do with the science of MMCC, but that liberals can say anything without proof of being right (using Reid as a perfect example)
rebeccaolsen - May 7, 2015, 4:52 pm
:)
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 4:43 pm
lol. What 'she' said. ;-) #REBECCA FTW
rebeccaolsen - May 7, 2015, 3:35 pm
My step-dad is Canadian.Best decision my mother ever made.Of course Canada rocks,denier.What's there not to like? That's a good boy(#75991)Now we just need to get you to change your ignorant views on global warming,and we'll throw you another bone,fido :)
rebeccaolsen - May 7, 2015, 3:13 pm
Yup, called it :) #75987+#75988=#75956 Hun,if you wanna EFFECTIVELY attack us "liberals" then u might wanna be smart enough to NOT leave behind your irritating calling card by using the words "hallucinations" and "drug-induced coma." Your-Calling-Card FTL
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 7, 2015, 3:08 pm
Plus, how was I to know that you are canadian?
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 7, 2015, 3:08 pm
I've never attacked canada. I think canada is a cool country.
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 2:18 pm
#75985-->#75988 http://cdn.meme.am/instances/45470299.jpg
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 2:15 pm
Ah, now comes out the "drug-induced" tics and the other one-trick ponies. You forgot to call us skippy and attack Canada. X-D
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 7, 2015, 1:52 pm
fauxnews, please allow me to correct your rant. "If you can see the ignorance in my statement, you are already ahead of the game" - you are welcome
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 7, 2015, 1:51 pm
I believe that you have summed them up pretty accurately OTC. Probably from that drug induced semi-coma that most liberals appear to suffer from. Hallucinations seem to contribute greatly to their lack of understanding of simple phrases and concepts.
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 1:03 pm
Keep in mind EM,Im in no way responsible for whatever meaning you happen to a**ign to my words.If you're choosing to see an undercurrent of ignorance in the words I type,that really only reflects your own mindset,not mine.It was 'your' point,remember? ;-)
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 12:49 pm
lol. When did Reid ever have anything to do with science being right or wrong about MMCC? - quid pro quo. You can bring up Reid's name in sarcasm but I can't respond with sarcasm of my own, mate? There's a word for that y'know. Rhymes with Shipocrite. X-D
rebeccaolsen - May 7, 2015, 11:13 am
Deniers are sooooo adorable when they pretend to be witty and know stuff. :) 'STILL-DOESNT-KNOW-SARCASM-WHEN-HE-SEES-IT' FTL
rebeccaolsen - May 7, 2015, 11:10 am
OTC, that was eloquently said for a guy who a**erts phony baloney all the time and then when called out on it spends weeks pretending he didn't, even though it's still written right there, for all of us still living in reality, to see :)
OTC - May 7, 2015, 8:29 am
Now you understand, liberals read what isn't there, take things out of context, repeat the same repsonse over and over, or attack the messenger.
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 7, 2015, 1:33 am
I have you figured out already. I say "The water in my pool is as blue as the sky" - your response would be "So your pool is in the sky? How's the water in your alternate sky?"
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 7, 2015, 1:28 am
lol. Having trouble keeping up? Where did I say Harry Reid was a climate scientist? you are hilarious.
fauxnews - May 6, 2015, 8:19 pm
So, Harry Reid is a climate scientist now? lol..How is the weather in your alternate universe? X-D
MMessEnnBeeCee - May 6, 2015, 7:10 pm
Not if climate alarmists say the data isn't falsified. Harry Reid proved that you can say anything you want without proof
freasy - May 6, 2015, 9:38 am
Bottom line, if you have to falsify the data, then guess what, its a LIE


Climate Change Denial is a disease -




Wedge Issue -




Climate Caliphate -




Facts tend to have a scientific bias built into them -




At least Be Honest with yourselves, Science Deniers... -


TAGS: picard meme climate change denial
Rating: 2.25/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

Cyberhagen - May 9, 2015, 12:53 pm
Hmm.. does this mean that all republicans are religious, specifically christian? Does that also suggest then that democrats are atheists?
fauxnews - May 7, 2015, 1:04 pm
lol
rebeccaolsen - May 7, 2015, 11:57 am
I did :) Crap. Guess I'm a Republican denier now. Well, in that case, I'd better start getting my science from the Bible, get my news from Rush Limbaugh and grab a good snorkel for all that sand.


Conversations of climate change deniers -




Climate Change Denier's Proof against Global Warming -




A Climate Change DENIER'S Achilles' heel -




Climate Change Denier's Proof against Global Warming -




Explaining Science to a Republican -




Cough Cough -


TAGS: republican science denial climate change
Rating: 2.08/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

freasy - May 5, 2015, 12:39 pm
Bottom line the data was fudged, say no more.


Will Produce "Scientific" Results for Money -


TAGS: wei hock soon climate denial meme
Rating: 2.07/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 4:37 pm
Was shocked to see him do that! That he pulled it off so well was probably the biggest treat of all :-D Better than Eddie Murphy’s lame 30 second appearance :-/ They wanted Eddie to play Bill Cosby! That would’ve rocked the house X-D OK.Gotta go,busy.Thx!
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 4:35 pm
Scratch that. Thought you were speaking about a Chevy Chase skit. You're talking about the Bill Murray lounge-singer bit, where he sings the JAWS love song.haha X-D Yeah, saw that. :-) watching it again. #goldpopculturemoment
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 4:31 pm
Aye we're on the same page ON THAT more than you know ;-) Besides,though I plan to stick around,the more work ramps up for me the less time I have for stuff like this.That,and 1000 unfunny memes later,I think I got the political itch outta my system X-D
fauxnews - April 4, 2015, 4:30 pm
Don't feel too bad, mate. I'm an useless repository of pop-culture nonsense myself :-/ I might've already seen the Chevy Chase Saturday Night Live skit you're referring to. I'm on my lunch, so I don't have a lot of time; but I will check it out ;-)
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 3:51 pm
heart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy9km7kBjo4 It's another terrific homage to the 1980s.It's not Chevy Chase,but Im also a s.ucker for Bill Murray.He dusted off his old Nick Ocean gag in his SNL tribute in one of the sweetest cultural MOs ever :)
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 3:42 pm
If you liked that,Faux, check this out! melted my
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 3:30 pm
That smiley face,by the way,was meant for you Faux and your"Paul Simon"comment#74443,not fallacyboy's tantrum about my decision to ignore him.That was my 1st music video as a tween,Faux :) Im probably the last person alive to think Chevy Chase is funny :(
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 3:16 pm
:)
calron - April 4, 2015, 3:15 pm
Which goes to prove that your argument style has nothing to do with what you cleave to is in fact true or false. Rather it allows you to dismiss anything that you do not wish to be true without bothering with the facts.
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 3:15 pm
For now on, I would just ignore them, Faux. I plan to. Obvious where this is coming from - old drama is resurfacing,new package. Fallacyboy and his emogang are fun toys but toys are meant for kids, know what I mean?For now on,dont pay them no nevermind :)
calron - April 4, 2015, 3:13 pm
So basically you once again resort to Ad Hominem and then slide into ridicule so you do not have to consider that you might be wrong. Check page 5, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf So there you have a direct source.
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 2:43 pm
Hun, I will tell you the same thing I tell the children I work with:"Play time is over when you forget who the adult in the room is." You will have to have this argument with yourself. It's not my job to keep you honest.You're just a sore loser. CYLA :)
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 2:35 pm
There is no point in bluffing if I can see your hand :)
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 2:35 pm
There is no point in bluffing if I can see you hand :)
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 2:32 pm
Not all all hun. You are having another passive-aggressive tantrum because people refuse to debate the way you want to, just so you can be in moral position you insecurely a**igned to yourself so you can be the one who tells others you is right or wrong
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 2:30 pm
This is why no one takes you seriously.The Dailymail is a conservative tabloid. Tabloids have no place in a debate about what science say or doesn't say. Only peer-review and fact-based journals.You reveal your bias fail and fallacy fail in one fell swoop
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 2:29 pm
This is why no one takes you seriously.The Dailymail is a conservative tabloid. Tabloids have no place in a debate about what science say or doesn't say. Only peer-review and fact-based journey.You reveal your bias fail and fallacy fail in one fell swoop
calron - April 4, 2015, 2:14 pm
And forgot this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html 2014 is not even more likely than not the warmest year on record.
calron - April 4, 2015, 2:04 pm
And when shown the flaws in your argument, you resort to ridicule and personal attacks over facts to prove those that disagree with you wrong.
calron - April 4, 2015, 2:03 pm
And the study itself says, "We ranked researchers based on the total number of climate publications authored. Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community."
calron - April 4, 2015, 2:02 pm
Is what the study says, but NASA changes that to, "97% of climate scientists".
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 2:02 pm
ts:dr
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 2:01 pm
You are a denier troll with a persecution complex. YOUR false equivalency logical fallacy makes everything else you say collapse due to your water from the poison well fallacy and subsequent appeals to authority and red herrings. PWNed You're welcome :)
calron - April 4, 2015, 2:01 pm
Nope, you have more Ad Hominem attacks and a lack of supporting evidence, "9798% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 2:00 pm
You are a denier troll with a persecution complex. You're false equivalency logical fallacy makes everything else you say collapse due to your water from the poison well fallacy and subsequent appeals to authority and red herrings. PWNed.You're welcome :)
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 1:56 pm
I did read it. Like everything you post, it rarely says what you want it to. Rather, it's a slippery slope fallacy careful designed to look like an indictment against science. Your ad hominem charge fails because of your appeal to authority fallacy. :)
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 1:55 pm
But a classic denier attack against science is to exploit philosophical loopsholes and errors in semantics to show the failing of science. For practical purposes, they have to present their arguments even if in oversimplifying it they risk this sophism.
calron - April 4, 2015, 1:53 pm
No, they changed it. It is clear if you actually bother to read even the opening of the study. Rather than address the facts of the study here, you once again launched an Ad Hominem to avoid the truth.
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 1:52 pm
Yes, but they still reported on it anyways. Why is that? To trick people? Puhleeze... It's because a good scientist will always be the first to acknowledge the inherent uncertainty in scientific discourse and research.
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 1:50 pm
You are ignoring evidence that their is a scientific consensus on MMCC, you are dishonestly pushing a manipulative denier agenda, and you fall back on an appeal to authority to make you're case though it is clear you are no expert in fallacies.
calron - April 4, 2015, 1:50 pm
Even with that the study itself declares that that it is not representative of scientific community as a whole. As such you are referring to a debunked claim and then using Ad Hominems and that Appeal to Authority rather than acknowledging the facts.
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 1:49 pm
NASA didn't "change" this. They've already addressed this as political spin and laymen exploiting loopholes in the way science copes with uncertainty when delivering their findings to an ignorant public.
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 1:47 pm
Thanks for sharing your 'feedback' but we will debate how we like, thanks. Case in point, did you hear about the scientific consensus about MMCC? You should check it out, denier: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
calron - April 4, 2015, 1:46 pm
Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away. NASA mispresentived W. R. L. Anderegg's “Expert Credibility in Climate Change” The study refers to the most published and cited scientists but NASA changed that to all scientists.
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 1:46 pm
Thanks for sharing your 'feedback' but we will debate how we like, thanks. Case is point, did you hear about the scientific consensus about MMCC? You should check it out, denier: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 1:44 pm
and you're deliberately manipulating data to make YOUR point.WE keep pointing to it,because we've appraised their data as solid and we dont owe you anything;especially when you espouse a political agenda on science and personal one against those like faux
rebeccaolsen - April 4, 2015, 1:39 pm
And then this appeal to authority fallacy. You are not in a position of moral authority. We keep pointing to NASA because (A) they are a good source (B) you FAILED to show them misrepresenting anything,and (C) you are projecting.2014 was the warmnest year
calron - April 4, 2015, 1:09 pm
Why do you still keep pointing to NASA after I showed them blatently misrepresenting a study in order to produce a false narrative? It's like when they call 2014 the warmest year, and then said they where only 38% sure it was/ They manipulate the data.
calron - April 4, 2015, 1:05 pm
So basically you when into refuting something i didn't say and Ad Hominem attacks because I pointed out you argument allowes you to reject whatever you wish with regard to it being true, thus us fallacious. This shows you are not debating honestly.
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 10:31 am
Paul Simon "FTW" ;-)
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:14 am
As to why "denier" offends you horribly - guilt much? You have no problem labeling everyone under the sun who disagrees with YOU a "liberal".You want to call us alarmists? I like the ring of that :) You can call me AL www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-gYOrU8bA
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 6:04 am
You harmlessly presented a classic climate change denial myth. It would appear that Faux offered you a proper reb***al. But you lost your **** and used it as an excuse to lash out against many of us. How that is our problem, and not yours, is beyond me.
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 5:56 am
If you don't like the way we argue, then why did you join this forum in the first place? No one is making you stay. If you are a previously banned member trying to sneak back in, then you've lost all credibility to start with.
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 5:47 am
And the viewer might think that half the world’s scientists are equally split between both sides of the “debate” regarding ACC. However, the real balance would give us 97% scientists supporting anthropogenic climate change and 2-3% against.
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 5:46 am
There is a political debate going on about MMCC. However, the debate is settled within the scientific community. That is all anyone is saying hun. But that hasn't stopped you from using logical fallacies and manipulated data to make a point.
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 5:45 am
Your indignation is uncalled for. You rely on a false equivalence logical fallacy to justify it. You think that to be balanced, both sides of a scientific argument are equivalent in quality of opinion and evidence. Not according to climatology there is.
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 5:43 am
The indignation you're demonstrating might be valid over an argument concerning political opinion. Your indignation is over facts that dont fit your narrative.No one's saying you have to AGREE with the science.We're just telling you what the science says
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 5:38 am
This isn't an argument over who gets to be the spokesperson of science. That's what you are making this into. WE are just confident in our position. It's not OUR fault that you are not confident in yours.
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 5:37 am
Finally, we don't OWE you parity in a debate. You are not in charge of us. If we want to tell you what science says, we have the freedom to do so. Just like you've the freedom to deny it.
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 5:33 am
"Speaking of trolls",if you really feel like we are a conspiracy of trolls out to get your goat,then how does acting like a troll yourself make the situation better? Before you employ your famous "self-defense" mantra it's NOT if you picked the fight
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 5:30 am
You uttered this awesomeness,"No opinion which runs contrary to yours is valid or worth consideration." Yuppers, nailed it. That's you in a nutshell. That phrase, "It takes one to know one?"
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 5:29 am
Problem number 2, you are projecting. One only needs to read your comments today to see you have a raging superiority complex and persecution complex.
rebeccaolsen - April 3, 2015, 5:28 am
Problem number one. I don't see anyone here saying,"We are smarter than you." That's your insecurity. Stop making it everyone else's problem.
OTC - April 3, 2015, 1:28 am
Just like earlier in this thread i wasn't picking on anyone for spelling mistakes, just making light of 'brides' instead of bribes, and what happened with that? attacked
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 1:21 am
Whatever you say, Anne.
OTC - April 3, 2015, 1:13 am
I didn't say you were "attacking", I used the past tense "attacked", as in, you have done so in the past
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 12:55 am
OK, that's all folks! See you blokes next week hopefully. Cheers everyone! :-D Peace out
fauxnews - April 3, 2015, 12:53 am
Well,mate,Im smart enough not to be in YOUR position ;-) Remember that,Adam doesnt get back into Eden by posing as the snake P.S.You forgot this: http://postimg.org/image/h8f58poa9/full/ NOW,my weekend's here.Excuse me,I've friends to entertain.Cheers =)
MMessEnnBeeCee - April 3, 2015, 12:23 am
religious, but the three of you are card-carrying members of the church of climate alarmism. Do all of you, by any chance, have "I heart MSNBC" bumper stickers on your euro-trash electric beemers?
MMessEnnBeeCee - April 3, 2015, 12:19 am
and, speaking of trolls, looks like there are three of you who tag team troll this site. I see you taking turns ragging on OTC, but none of you has an argument worth considering or that hasn't already appeared on MSNBC. You complain about people who are
MMessEnnBeeCee - April 3, 2015, 12:17 am
and that no opinion which runs contrary to yours is valid or worth consideration.
MMessEnnBeeCee - April 3, 2015, 12:13 am
Civility isn't in your nature, is it alarmist? Or is it just that you have an uncontrollable ego which causes you to falsely a**ume you are smarter than everyone on the site?
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 10:54 pm
But,I can oblige,denier:Again,no one's telling you that you HAVE to agree with the science.We're just telling you what the science says.Next time,if you're not really asking a question and just putting out bait so you can troll,just say so. Cheers,mate =)
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 10:53 pm
But,I can oblige,denier:Again,no one is telling you that you HAVE to agree with the science.We are just telling you what the science says.Next time,if you're not really asking a question and just putting out bait so can troll, just say so. Cheers, mate =)
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 10:49 pm
Okay, I could've given you the short answer. Because 99% of studies have found that oceans have absorbed the heat. But I was trying not to insult your intelligence with oversimplification. Science isn't religion: where a 'trickle' is enough: GOD SAYS SO
MMessEnnBeeCee - April 2, 2015, 10:40 pm
This is what I love about this site. A trickle goes out and a firehose comes back - tolerance is a dirty word that I'm surprised isn't censored here.
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 10:24 pm
P.S.And if you also wanted in on a fun civil debate on MMCC,then give me the word.I can start with the cliff notes version of a peer study on why the "30% increase in temp.to match the 30% in CO2 levels" is a popular denier myth.Lemme know,mate :-) Cheers
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 9:48 pm
...I'm trying to be civil here. if you want to have a civil conservation about MMCC, let's treat the past as water under the bridge and go for it! :-) Otherwise, if you want conflict, that's your choice. Have a good night, mate. Sincerely. Cheers :-D
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 9:45 pm
...But you can dish it and can't take it. We have all been guilty of attacking each other over our political beliefs.Yes,even you.And you should stop pretending you are Anne Frank http://www.politifake.org/history-repeats-persecution-politics-62277.html
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 9:42 pm
*sigh* You're projecting, mate. And here is a great example where I'm clearly not attacking anyone. But you are. And you are unable to see the irony. It would be one thing if you were truly a victim, and never picked a fight yourself...
OTC - April 2, 2015, 9:31 pm
No, no. one is forcing anyone to agree, but they certainly get attacked for not agreeing, as Rebecca (and yourself) make clear
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 9:13 pm
P.S. If you really are serious about learning the hows and the whys of MMCC,I can share with you several very good peer reviewed papers that explain it well--albeit,they are too long and boring for most.lol But just PM me and I can send you a link.Cheers
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 9:10 pm
....but, for the sake of argument, like Rebecca and others have said: no one is saying a person has to AGREE with the science. All we are telling you is WHAT the science says. Have a good night, mate. Cheers =)
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 9:09 pm
NASA, the NOAA and every major American science body (and international science body) stubbornly holds onto this view because for them, the debate is over. For the field of climatology the debate has been settled, and they back as a community: MMCC theory
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 9:06 pm
...but, again, as this is a political forum and their is 'some' value in political beliefs about this and even religion beliefs...ahem....
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 9:05 pm
...but it is not proof against MMCC, nor is it an error with the findings of the consensus. The thousands of independent models and simulations have held up and accounted for this factor, when explained over time and climate chronological patterns...
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 9:04 pm
...So, the anecdotal observation about a 30% increase has more to do about the complexity of a situation that is conceptually hard to fathom, not an error of the findings themselves...it's accounted for over time, and still is growing...
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 9:02 pm
...we can say that, as far "science" is concerned, man-made climate change is unequivocal(the handful of dissenting studies have been explained away as fraud or error ridden).However,no one is forcing anyone to AGREE w/the science, as Rebecca pointed out
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 9:00 pm
...when tens of thousands of independent investigators (climatologists in this instance) have all independent of each other arrived at essentially this same conclusion -- isolating in their findings -- the game-changing power of this outlier...
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 8:58 pm
...man-made CO2 and they've confirmed the correlation, when having essentially (and successfully) distilled a very complicated system into major factors and players and then examined changes in everything from temperature to other variables...
fauxnews - April 2, 2015, 8:55 pm
It's more complicated than a simple 255 char.comment will explain to you,mate. But if you must, in the complicated natural warming and cooling cycles thoroughly examined by scientists for years, their studies have examined the outlier of man-made CO...
MMessEnnBeeCee - April 2, 2015, 7:49 pm
If your claim that CO2 has a direct correlation to increase in temperature is true, shouldn't there be a 30% increase in temperature to match the 30% increase in CO2 levels?
fauxnews - March 31, 2015, 1:23 pm
*yawn* Running away from the debate, mate, like the point I offered about dams (which you quietly evaded, and then responded w/one of those redherrings you whined about earlier)IS a lot of h** AIR. So, yes, you are at least right about that. ;-) Cheers =)
OTC - March 31, 2015, 8:41 am
Love how libs always have to add to or put into what isn't there to take away from the debate. Can't expect anything less from malignant narcissists. try to have a good day, I'll be releasing CO2 & changing the climate on my way to Dallas
OTC - March 31, 2015, 1:58 am
Just like hoax believer Ms Becky can't debate the 78 major climate changes, she has to focus on attack and ridicule, and you're worried about dignity?
fauxnews - March 31, 2015, 1:53 am
If a dam broke,sure...Why not, mate? Or is that also a natural cycle...of flooding - because despite the manmade structure collapsing,the water was "natural",amirite? X-D The Titanic sunk,thousands perished..must've been a "natural" disaster.X-p Cheers =)
OTC - March 31, 2015, 1:53 am
"Liberal" is an insult? And here I thought it was an ideology. The things one learns talking to a liberal, uh, I mean narcissist
OTC - March 31, 2015, 1:44 am
A natural flood coincides perfectly with me over watering my lawn. must be man made flooding
DebtToAmerica - March 31, 2015, 1:03 am
just stop. while you still have a shred of dignity left.
DebtToAmerica - March 31, 2015, 1:02 am
nope. the fact you said this proves, beyond reasonable doubt that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. what you just said is like saying "I KNOW OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST, THE VOICES IN MY HEAD TOLD ME SO!"
DebtToAmerica - March 31, 2015, 1:00 am
you dont even bother with the herring, you just go straight on the attack with your favourite insult, "liberal".
DebtToAmerica - March 31, 2015, 12:57 am
well, the +30% increase in CO2 levels in only 400 years is pretty godd*** compelling when you consider that CO2 levels havent EVER risen that fast before, and that 400 year period coincides perfectly with the widespread adoption of fossil fuels.
OTC - March 30, 2015, 12:02 am
So MMCC has somehow stopped all other scientific events like solar/orbital cycles, el nina/nino, volcanic activities, earth's tilt on its axis, and all the other science of nature. wow, amazing what man made CO2 is capable of
OTC - March 29, 2015, 11:57 pm
So you believe man is changing the earth's climate, now what? Attack those who don't believe what you believe? That's a convincing argument.
OTC - March 29, 2015, 11:51 pm
Sorry, I shoulda known to be more specific with you, and you think I have a little brain? No worries, I understand how debating a liberal works, throw in a red herring (like the Bible) and attack the messenger.
rebeccaolsen - March 29, 2015, 11:14 pm
1000s of peer-reviewed independent studies have found a correlation between pollution and CC.Wanna guess how many reject the correlation?Your fallacious anecdotal observations would be like me saying the sun burns out every night as it sets into the sea
rebeccaolsen - March 29, 2015, 11:00 pm
Since 2500 B.C.,the Bible has claimed people have arisen from the dead and countless other miracles,but somehow GOP junk scientists haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support these stories? excuse me while I go roll on the floor LAUGHING :)
rebeccaolsen - March 29, 2015, 10:42 pm
While you "go roll on the floor" and what? Have a seizure? That little brain must've overloaded again
OTC - March 29, 2015, 10:06 pm
Since 2,500 B.C., there have been at least 78 major climate changes worldwide, but somehow this cycle is man made? excuse me while I go roll on the floor
rebeccaolsen - March 29, 2015, 8:28 pm
Logic FTW. You're welcome. :)


Climate Change Caliphate -




Junk Science -




Deniers -




A Republican Science Denier arguing with a real scientist -




Climate Change Deniers -


TAGS: climate change denial co2 wonka
Rating: 1.92/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 9:09 pm
holy f*** dude you werent joking about "spin zone". i've never seen someone strawman as hard as you just did. its like you're not even trying to hide the fact that you're a troll.
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 8:50 pm
well, based on this thread, you really seem to enjoy using ad-hominem attacks during debates, and you dodge questions like a professional politician, and you derail discussions whenever you cannot come up with a counter argument.
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 8:46 pm
spin zone? i thought we were in the kindergarten zone... or does that only cover comment #74146 to comment #74150 ?
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 28, 2015, 8:43 pm
Let's start with the fact that you don't know anything about me, but you would like to keep conversations at a garbage dump level rather than bring them up to responsible, sensible discussions. But, hey, if that's your fancy, drive on, brother, drive on
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 28, 2015, 8:40 pm
Logic is left behind and twisted, convoluted rhetoric and accusations replace common sense.
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 8:34 pm
because its neccesary for you to make blatant lies about his posters in order to avoid losing this argument?
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 28, 2015, 8:33 pm
where comments need not make sense and everyone's opinion is the only one that can possibly be correct.
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 28, 2015, 8:33 pm
Welcome to the spin zone
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 28, 2015, 8:32 pm
So, the bottom line is that you are of the opinion that if someone doesn't buy into MMGW, that person must be a bible thumper? Geez louise, where do you people come up with this crap?
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 28, 2015, 8:27 pm
Who was that meant to address?
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 8:26 pm
and because you cant believe that some people think for themselves, you cant believe that people would voluntarily work together to refute your lies, so therefore they must be "attack dogs" working for the master conspirator Al Gore
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 8:23 pm
what's funny to me is that you a**ume that there must be some massive conspiracy because you honestly cannot comprehend the idea of people agreeing with the evidence.
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 8:21 pm
you can state your position all you want, but actions speak louder than words, and the nature of your attacks indicate that you're a full blown conspiracy theorist who thinks al gore has taken over the government and is pushing his climate change agenda.
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 8:16 pm
it reminds me of literally every argument you've ever used, "some climate change believers acts like the word of al gore is gospel! therefore you're pushing your religion on me!"
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 8:13 pm
why are you angry at faux for diverting the conversation to something you would enjoy?
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 8:11 pm
you sound surprised that your lies are pissing people off... but i'm pretty sure you're faking it, you know exactly what you're doing, endlessly repeating blatant lies in order to rile people up.
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 8:06 pm
funny how none of what you said is true, and you're just blatantly making up lies to support your position... what i find unbelievable is that you think noone is going to call you out on those lies
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 8:04 pm
because its neccesary for you to misrepresent it so you can complain about it without appearing to be a complete idiot, you lack the ability to challenge the facts, which is why you rely so much on fallacies to carry your arguments.
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 7:54 pm
yes, it point out that he's willing to change his view if presented with evidence that contradicts it, unlike most CC deniers who proudly claim that nothing would change their mind. its easy to attack others for their view, much harder to defend your own.
DebtToAmerica - March 28, 2015, 7:48 pm
its also behind a paywall, and its from a news outlet owned by rupert murdoch. you're practically quoting fox news, despite the fact that your username implies that you think the mainstream media is full of ****.
rebeccaolsen - March 28, 2015, 4:24 pm
So just like. Not "So of like." Stupid me. Need more coffee. Mmmmmk, back to work. Thank you for the laughs you two :)
OTC - March 28, 2015, 4:23 pm
Where did I make that statement?
rebeccaolsen - March 28, 2015, 4:16 pm
So of like when you label every believe of MMCC a supporter of Al Gore even though he's just a politician and not an official spokesperson for science?you deny man-made climate change. That's doesn't get you labeled a denier. It's what you are doing hun
OTC - March 28, 2015, 4:09 pm
What's funny is denying Man-Made Climate Change,but believing in Climate Change, and liberals labeling you a climate change denier
calron - March 28, 2015, 4:01 pm
Senator James M. Inhofe.
rebeccaolsen - March 28, 2015, 3:55 pm
MS or Inhofe?
calron - March 28, 2015, 3:47 pm
Really cause when that apple got eaten God's creation was changed by the actions of Man. So not only is he using Appeal to Authority, he's putting words in the authorities mouth.
rebeccaolsen - March 28, 2015, 3:39 pm
MS, if the rejects attacking climatologists are using the bible as their source then it is fair to challenge their source. Senator Inhofe thinks man could never alter god's creation. Uses a passage from Genesis as key evidence against GW. Derp
calron - March 28, 2015, 2:56 pm
Especially ironic because those things can explain the pause and allow for MMGW being true. Natural variability is a well known and highly excepted factor in climate.
OTC - March 28, 2015, 1:30 pm
Sounds like your projecting again faux. funny how alarmists don't accept the science of orbital cycles, solar cycles, & other events contributing to climate change, but attack others for not accepting their belief that there's only 1 cause for CC
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 28, 2015, 9:51 am
Nice Logic: Some a are b, therefore you are b. Common Core much?
Curlyrocks - March 27, 2015, 9:37 pm
Michael Mann is not head of the NOAA. He's basically the one pushing all this end of the world nonsense on us, and he has worked on projects funded by the NOAA but he is not one man who can be summed up as the NOAA.
rebeccaolsen - March 27, 2015, 6:43 pm
I wouldn't worry about it, sweetie. To support his victim narrative, EMMaEnnBeeEss conveniently forgets the many global warming deniers who use religion as an excuse to attack scientists as godless unamerican commie atheists. Can't have it both ways, mmk?
DebtToAmerica - March 27, 2015, 4:41 am
you mean like how the threat of the soviet union was blown out of proportion by war profiteers? or how the threat of radical islam was blown out of proportion by war profiteers? just because a threat is blown out of proportion doesnt mean its not real.
DebtToAmerica - March 27, 2015, 4:40 am
then its a good thing he didnt use any facts.
DebtToAmerica - March 27, 2015, 4:32 am
"wasting billions on the fears of a doomsday cult" is a matter of perspective, and just like the last few times the people responsible for detecting the threat have had a consensus on the topic, not shared by the general public.
DebtToAmerica - March 27, 2015, 4:30 am
its so much better than that doomsday cult involved in the M.A.D. showdown between the USA and the USSR, or that doomsday cult that claims islam will take over the USA and impose sharia law.
fauxnews - March 27, 2015, 1:19 am
*yawn*Im aware of your agenda.Im not stupid.In this game of king of the hill you’re playing,remember what'Joshua'the computer said in Wargames:“The only winning move is NOT to play.” When ya figure that out,you'll figure ME out.Food for thought ;-) Cheers
fauxnews - March 27, 2015, 1:19 am
Hmmmm.... sad? Really? *chortle* Want to know what is "sad?" ;-) Then I got to go...got a big work week ahead of me...so, if you must, we can continue this next week, but...if you want to know what "sad" is: read [comment #74157]
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 1:17 am
Well, it's off to bed now, been fun. We should do this again sometime. I need these kinds of laughs once in a while
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 1:12 am
and to add insult to injury, you accuse me of echolalia and just a couple of comments later prove that you are guilty of it. Sad, really sad.
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 1:11 am
nah, you haven't pushed any b***ons, but I do love the way you inject that whenever someone doesn't agree with you. Kind of pathetic and funny at the same time.
fauxnews - March 27, 2015, 1:08 am
*yawn* sounds like your b***ons were pushed. If so, sorry, I didn't mean to rile you up. X-D
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 1:05 am
TRANSLATION (FauxNews): Gosh, I have nothing, let me try diverting this conversation to something a grade school kid would enjoy
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 1:04 am
Just when I thought your arguments were at the top of the lame scale, you prove me wrong and push lameness to a new level.
fauxnews - March 27, 2015, 1:01 am
You are a terrible liar X-D
fauxnews - March 27, 2015, 1:00 am
TRANSLATION (MMessEnnBeeCee): Now I'm REALLY projecting. You can tell when I start ripping off Faux's *yawn* shtick and doing the echolalia thang X-D
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 12:59 am
nope, I'm just sitting here laughing at you. :)
fauxnews - March 27, 2015, 12:58 am
Angry, bro? :-/
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 12:58 am
*yawn* sounds like your b***ons were pushed. If so, sorry, I didn't mean to rile you up.
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 12:57 am
Using religion as an excuse for an attack is lame especially when you consider that I'm not religious
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 12:56 am
If it's questionable, alarmist, why do your posters and comments all claim it's gospel?
fauxnews - March 27, 2015, 12:54 am
All science is 'questionable',denier. The bible, for instance, claims to answer all your questions. Science will question all your answers. Food for thought, mate ;-)
fauxnews - March 27, 2015, 12:53 am
Oh, no! How...will...I...recover. The shame. ;-) #MMessEnnBeeCee'sb***onspushedbestofmoments
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 12:52 am
*yawn* your use of the word yet implies that the "science" is questionable
fauxnews - March 27, 2015, 12:51 am
Chat with you and your "friends" sometime next week if I get the chance. In the meanwhile, thank you for taking the time to show interest in my poster, mate! Have a good one =)
fauxnews - March 27, 2015, 12:50 am
*yawn* That's true of EVERY, ANY scientific 'theory', denier. ;-) Correction - as far as ANY scientific theory goes, the KEY word (above) was 'hasn't. Until then...for all practical purposes, it's accepted as true by science. But, nice try, mate. Cheers
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 12:49 am
TRANSLATION (fauxnews): I don't know what projecting means
fauxnews - March 27, 2015, 12:48 am
TRANSLATION (MMessEnnBeeCee): I'm projecting.
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 12:47 am
don't confuse alarmists by using facts, otc, it just riles them up.
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 27, 2015, 12:46 am
the key word in your comment is "yet"
OTC - March 26, 2015, 9:05 pm
Oh I accept the science of climate change, just not the biased science that there's only one reason for it happening.
fauxnews - March 26, 2015, 6:40 pm
You not wanting to accept the science or you not understanding the science is NOT the same thing as it being wrong. OK..lol..my weekend of sorts is over.Now back to work for the next few days.See ya next week sometime.Nice chatting with you,mate!Cheers =)
fauxnews - March 26, 2015, 6:34 pm
*yawn* Yes, I get that the facts push your b***ons, mate. But as you already know...the scientific consensus on climate change isn't a poll or a survey, denier. lol So, there you go again. Stop trying to confuse others into thinking politics is science.
OTC - March 26, 2015, 6:28 pm
Don't mind faux, he thinks scientific proof comes from polling data, no hypotheses needed
fauxnews - March 26, 2015, 2:23 pm
P.S. BTW...that 'guy' IS the NOAA. It is their official site. ;-)
fauxnews - March 26, 2015, 2:22 pm
...A theory stands until properly disproven. Climate change theory hasn't been debunked yet. Remember, emotional thinking (ie. theocratic thinking) offers to answer all your questions. All science says is that your answers will be questioned. Cheers, mate
fauxnews - March 26, 2015, 2:20 pm
...that means uncertainty and skepticism must be held about every theory, even atomic theory, even climate change. But if 97% of the world's doctors told you that you only have 3 years to live if you don't get an organ transplant, you'd still listen to'em
fauxnews - March 26, 2015, 2:19 pm
By your logic, there is no way to actually prove ANYTHING in science. That's how science works. It's all theory. Even the best ones, are still theory. It's not about proving, it's about probability it is true....
Curlyrocks - March 26, 2015, 1:39 pm
There's no way to actually prove scientifically that extreme weather is caused by Man made climate change, so even the most knowledgeable scientists are at best guessing about how much GW is human caused.
Curlyrocks - March 26, 2015, 1:37 pm
http://ecowatch.com/2014/12/09/link-california-drought-climate-change/
Curlyrocks - March 26, 2015, 1:37 pm
So this guy is doing the same thing as you, when the NOAA doesn't officially draw a connection between extreme weather and man made climate change he just makes it up and bad mouths the NOAA for not saying what he wanted.
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:36 pm
...Just as 'the right' shouldn't pretend there is NOT a scientific consensus. They just don't agree with it. Cheers mate.
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:34 pm
...and I think THAT IS valid. Just because science weighed in on this doesn't mean everyone will buy into their outlook. Again, the scientific debate is over but the POLITICAL debate is far from over. And the left shouldn't a**ume it is OR should be.
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:32 pm
And that's a great point, most of the scientific community has moved on about man-made climate change. The debate is over for them, with the exception of a handful of naysayers. But the POLITICAL debate is FAR from over...
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:31 pm
...All science is theory, and yes,that means even the best theories MUST accept a certain degree of uncertainty. But at one point, annoyed by the deniers, the NOAA site even says about it's conclusions, "There is no scientific debate on this point"
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:29 pm
I could go on and ON and list more from them, but the correlation is there. I could find a loop hole in the semantics about atomic theory, but that doesn't mean atoms don't exist and I can't see atoms with the n**** eye...so...
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:27 pm
And, on the NOAA site, also this>>>"The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real...Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases." In the section of their site that precedes this.
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:23 pm
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php So...on their OWN site, this>>>"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas)"
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:13 pm
Also, "The Australian presents varying views on climate change, including giving space to articles and authors who AGREE with the scientific consensus..." So, again, not sure value this has other than as a *yawn* political opinion on this. Cheers
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:12 pm
As for RUPERT MURDOCH's 'The Australian,"Chris Mitchell has said that the editorial and op-ed pages of the newspaper are conservative leaning."
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:08 pm
The NOAA isn't disputing their conclusions in the matter, as in the quote attributed to them above. I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from :-/ Please correct me if I'm wrong, mate. I just don't see it, and I'm using the same tools as u.Cheers
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:07 pm
Will all due respect, Curly, NASA and the NOAA and every major scientific organization would disagree with you on that. Do you have an actual quote from the NOAA which says "there is no credible connection between human activities and climate change"?
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 10:05 pm
The word "OPINION" says it all. Also, look at the credentials of the source (biased as h'ell). Sorry but OP-EDs blogs, tabloids don't speak for the scientific community. #SOURCEFAIL
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 25, 2015, 10:00 pm
Yes, it's an opinion page, but it still has some pretty compelling arguments
MMessEnnBeeCee - March 25, 2015, 10:00 pm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/global-warming-consensus-claim-doesnt-stand-up/story-e6frg6zo-1227276959248
Curlyrocks - March 25, 2015, 9:23 pm
correlation between the two, people just draw their own conclusions on what's happaning and why
Curlyrocks - March 25, 2015, 9:22 pm
NO THEY DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE A CONNECTION! your doing the exact thing that pisses me off you took data from 2 studies and drew your own correlation. The NOAA said that storms are getting worse and that CO2 is on the rise but there's no scientific 1/2
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 8:29 pm
I dont care as much if people disagree w/the science.But when the scientific community's almost unanimous in this regard,and people start saying "IT'S A HOAX" or "IT'S A CONSPIRACY" or just lie about what they say, that's just delusional.My 2 cents.Cheers
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 8:27 pm
(another excerpt)"...the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and many others,say greenhouse gas levels are rising due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels & deforestation" Sounds to me the NOAA acknowledges the connection
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 8:10 pm
"Changes in the earth's climate are increasing at a steady rate,Natl'Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)warned Thursday in a new report.Greenhouse gas emissions, sea levels,global temperatures and super storms all are trending upward,NOAA said."
Curlyrocks - March 25, 2015, 5:22 pm
it is. Much like how religious people ignore the part where god says to love each other and figure he wants people out in the street screaming at [email protected]'s. It's not about saving the world it's about making people doing things they don't like stop.
Curlyrocks - March 25, 2015, 5:20 pm
Bot even the NOAA is denying that man made CO2 is the cause of droughts or storms, so obviously not enough people are actually listening to the scientists and are just drawing their own conclusions on what's happening, why it's happening and who's fault
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 3:49 pm
I agree with you that the politics is screwed on this, on both sides. Especially with the left. But the SCIENCE has got this correct, even if the POLITICS has not. In any case, nice chatting with you, mate. :-) Have a good day. Cheers =)
fauxnews - March 25, 2015, 3:47 pm
I agree that the left has a lot of hypocrisy to account for: their green energy lunacy, Obama's him and her private jets to Presidential gigs. But I don't think it proves that the SCIENCE is wrong about its consensus about man-made GW.
Curlyrocks - March 25, 2015, 2:28 pm
The truth is if every global warming alarmist lived as eco friendly as they preach then they actually could save the world. The Koch brothers arn't the ones burning all the oil. It's not about living better it's about telling others how to live.
Curlyrocks - March 25, 2015, 2:26 pm
don't approve of and blame an up coming apocalypse on them, and their way of life ignoring the fact that they are the ones buying the oil, the same way Christians blame an up coming rapture on [email protected], ignoring their own sinful behavior of hate.
Curlyrocks - March 25, 2015, 2:15 pm
And they had "the word of god". and in much the same way as GW science, it was misinterpreted and blown out of proportion by the greedy and ignorant. Bad alarmists (which is most of them) focus on the fact that rich people are living a lifestyle they.
fauxnews - March 24, 2015, 5:55 pm
...If not on a political parody site, then where else? My 2 cents. Always good sparring with you mate. Have a good day, Cheers =)
fauxnews - March 24, 2015, 5:54 pm
Climatology is far from a cult. And most deniers are closet theocrats that believe in an immortal Jesus and a 6000 year old world. When they use science to make their claims but ignore how ridiculous their own views are, I think its fair game to tease'em


The only thing dumber than Science-hating, Climate Change Denialists... -




Climate Change Deniers -


TAGS: climate change denial willy wonka
Rating: 1.86/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

OTC - March 13, 2015, 9:39 pm
Which was more catastrophic, the Medieval WARMING Period, or the following Little ICE Age?
fauxnews - March 11, 2015, 7:13 pm
Who cares what Al Gore says? He's not a scientist and he didn't do a study on MMCC.He's a douchey dork.So what?What he does or doesn't do has no effect on the findings of science.He's a politician. His opinion means about as much as Glenn Beck's. Nada.
freasy - March 11, 2015, 6:57 pm
Anybody that falsifies data is a liar, and a cheat. Al Gore bought property in california, that according to him would be underwater in 15 years. The model has crashed. Oh what happened to the ice age of the 70's and 80's. same organizations were
fauxnews - March 10, 2015, 1:04 pm
*yawn* And your evidence that global warming is a proven hoax? Or this like that Jesus thing where evidence doesn't matter....just blind faith.
freasy - March 10, 2015, 1:03 pm
I believe in Climate Change, it happens all the time..... Global warming is a proven hoax, and changing the name to climate change is BS.


The Formula For Success -


TAGS: breaking bad climate change denial
Rating: 1.84/5

More politifakes by rebeccaolsen

calron - April 5, 2015, 12:42 pm
Looks like you have abandoned the principle of fallibility in favor of trying a right by definition approach.


Climate Change Denial -




MORE ICE = GLOBAL COOLING -


TAGS: climate change denial
Rating: 1.8/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - February 28, 2015, 10:14 pm
I remember a recent sun revolves around the earth that hinges on the looks like argument (fallacy).


Climate Change Denial in Florida -




Republicans -




Republican Card Tricks -




the reason we still have climate change -




Republican Science Deniers -


TAGS: climate change denial ancient aliens
Rating: 1.63/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 10:40 pm
Fair enough mate.
calron - April 25, 2015, 10:33 pm
I remember citing to show that number adjustment happened, which did, just because I came across it quickly in a search. I never said why they where adjusted until until recently.
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 10:29 pm
It was hard to tell since you cited this publication before. But I'll take your word on it. Cheers
calron - April 25, 2015, 10:19 pm
never said I trusted it, just listed the source and just started looking into it. So thanks for reading into things I didn't say and check this out, 62619
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 10:08 pm
If you're going to have a healthy skepticism about the scientists but not jokers like this,then you are just arguing to win - but betrayed by a double standard.Unless this was your way of calling out Bandit.But you're aint necessarily doing that here(2/2)
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 10:06 pm
There was a lengthy debate here about Booker a few weeks back, and it is clear he has a credibility problem. If you are going to have a healthy skepticism about the scientists but not jokers like this, then you are just arguing to win.(1/2)
fauxnews - April 25, 2015, 10:04 pm
Tabloid. Junk journalism with an admitted conservative bias. Christopher Booker is as biased as they come. Caught red handed for misleading with bad sources. If you don't trust media matters, you shouldn't trust this. Now you are just being a hypocrite.
calron - April 25, 2015, 9:43 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
calron - April 25, 2015, 9:41 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
calron - April 25, 2015, 9:25 pm
Citation needed.
Bandit5906 - April 25, 2015, 8:14 pm
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry = fraud


Epic -


TAGS: climate change denial inhofe deniers
Rating: 1.62/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 9:29 pm
haha..That was good. We should coordinate, make some kickass posters together. :-) I'm a big of all things fantasy. Hit me up sometime, peace out!
calron - April 11, 2015, 9:27 pm
P.S. Closely check the red text at the bottom tight of the Gollum poster. :)
calron - April 11, 2015, 9:26 pm
Never said that you called me that, but you did use the term. It's hard to determine the emotions of someone on the internet because of the lack of cues that are normally used, and I've been clear several times. I'm neither upset nor annoyed.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 9:23 pm
P.S. Have a good night. :-) Remember...quid pro quo, Clarice. ;-)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 9:20 pm
Sounds like cat has your tongue, mate. No worries. Not really much left to say. If you want more from me, you will have to build the appropriate level of trust. That's how life works. Have a good one, mate! Like your Gollum poster BTW. Epic ;-)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 9:19 pm
You would make it appear as if you are upset,or at least,highly annoyed with me. IF not, you should've made yourself clear. As for me? I'm happy as a clam. I'm enjoying this very much. Very amusing :-D Everything is coming up Milhouse for me,mate :-)(2/2)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 9:15 pm
Uh, where did I call you a crybaby whiner? The pigeon chess remark was a playful punch in the arm. :-) Sorry if you took it the wrong way. You went out of your way to disrupt a conversation I was having with another to inject an accusation against me(1/2)
calron - April 11, 2015, 9:12 pm
LoL, so after saying "pigeon chess" and "crybaby whiner" you claim that I'm the getting overly negative and emotional.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 9:04 pm
Rather, I enjoy the back and forth spirit of parody and competitive rivalry of this site. It wouldn’t be politifake, let alone politics, without that! Goes with the territory. Stop turning everything into pigeon chess over petty things.(2/2)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 9:04 pm
I can “inductively reason” that you are proving the point of this poster alright with your tantrum. ;-) Lighten up. I don’t get ALL b.utthurt over YOUR memes which are sometimes reactions to something I said.(1/2)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 9:03 pm
LOL..Noooooo...not "hoop jumping." :-) Just dont trust you enough to answer your sneaky self-incriminating questions.You are confusing healthy personal boundaries with dancing around a subject. I'll be DIRECT with you about what I think about THIS debate-
calron - April 11, 2015, 8:59 pm
:P
calron - April 11, 2015, 8:55 pm
I'm not on the site 100% of the time, or do I have help. But thanks for the a**umptions that you have no way to verify.
calron - April 11, 2015, 8:54 pm
So hoop jumping, LOL. And you also used "leading questions" wrong. You can rephrase the question if you really wish and then answer it yourself.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:50 pm
Can't you get the people helping you write your answers to work faster? I don't have all night. ;-)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:44 pm
You are entitled to that opinion. But if you care about what I think, here it is - I refuse to answer your LEADING questions until you make it worth my while. Happy? :-) But I'm willing to offer you general statements about my and my raison d'etre. Fair?
calron - April 11, 2015, 8:38 pm
I'm not the one dancing around the questions.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:36 pm
To quote you, "Nope." Anyhow, you are not in a position of authority to make me do anything. So if it's attention and information from me you want, you will have to earn it. You are playing this poorly. So more pigeon chess from you?
calron - April 11, 2015, 8:35 pm
So hoop jumping. I already spelled it out, I'm asking why you copy me and then say you're not.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:32 pm
Spell out your agenda, mate. You are still being vague. I don't owe you anything. So make it worth my while. What are you hoping to accomplish in your conservation with me, and then I will consider answering any questions you have.
calron - April 11, 2015, 8:29 pm
Homesty isn't really subjective, just the perception of such which might not match reality. Anyway, I would like to hear why you copied my poster title and why your keep quoting me and saying you do not refer to me?
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:27 pm
found = fought
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:26 pm
Don't turn this into one of your infamous games of pigeon chess. Again, give me a baseline. You need to be clearer than that mate.(2/2)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:25 pm
Define audience. Honesty is subjective, I could accuse you of the same. But on a parody website, there are too many distractions. It's like accusing Andy Kaufman of lying when he found Jerry Lawler on Letterman. What's the point? Distill this for me (1/2)
calron - April 11, 2015, 8:23 pm
Well, I'm not angry. Any point would be the the audience, that you might not be being honest with them.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:22 pm
Okay, I'll drop the playful sarcasm and spell it out for you: What debate, exactly, do you want? Give me a baseline.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:18 pm
BTW do you actually have a point with your angry tirade?
calron - April 11, 2015, 8:18 pm
Notice how you didn't actually refute or even address anything I said, but choose to walk the path of ridicule instead.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:15 pm
So....I need to get licensing permission from you now to make a Lord of the Rings parody? X-D Nice to meet you Mr.Tolkien.
calron - April 11, 2015, 8:10 pm
http://www.politifake.org/comments/62465
calron - April 11, 2015, 8:09 pm
I that way you started on a LotR poster that had the exact same title as mine in the report section, erased it, and then made this one?
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:06 pm
Bobby, feel free to ignore the OP who tried to be speak on my behalf. I've been parodying climate change denial long before he was even a member here. I was in a Lord of the Rings mood. Yes, I'm a geek. Have a good one, mate. Cheers =)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 8:03 pm
The OP wasn't even speaking to you.You twisted the question into an excuse to complain about this poster which frankly has nothing to do w/you personally. I think ALL deniers are funny and ripe for parody.As you know,it's a parody website.So sue me(2/2)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 7:42 pm
I'm parodying the climate change debate and the parts of it that amuse me, mate. You are free to see whatever personal interpretation you want in my posters. I don't have to prove to you what I was thinking at the time I was making that poster.(1/2)
calron - April 11, 2015, 7:37 pm
http://www.politifake.org/sore-losers-mak-science-deniers-climate-change-politics-62404.html
calron - April 11, 2015, 7:35 pm
Didn't say i know what you're think, just made a inductive argument. Nice how you resorted to personal attacks over any actual refutation and notice gave the same line you used when you quoted me and how it matches what you said here.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 7:30 pm
*yawn* That's a negative, mate. I thought you were big on not "pretending to know what others are thinking." ;-) Tsk, tsk. You coulda just asked. You are falling apart at the seams today, mate. Losing your cool and everything. ;-)
calron - April 11, 2015, 7:29 pm
http://www.politifake.org/science-denier-climate-change-consensus-denial-politics-62351.html
calron - April 11, 2015, 7:28 pm
Here's the evidence, http://www.politifake.org/sore-losers-mak-science-deniers-climate-change-politics-62404.html
calron - April 11, 2015, 7:23 pm
Given his history he's is likely implying that I a republican science denier, despite me not being republican or deigning science because I disagree with something someone said about climate change.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 7:00 pm
To answer your question: parody of climate change debate and perceptions: nothing more and nothing less. I know many Republicans who do NOT deny science. I also know of many liberal science deniers who are anti-vaxxers. If the shoe fits, ya know? Cheers
BobbyLuau - April 11, 2015, 6:58 pm
thank you. I probably won't be posting much, just trying to see who is who here and get some feel for what's what.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 6:54 pm
Hi Bobby! Welcome to politifake :-)
BobbyLuau - April 11, 2015, 6:49 pm
is your claim that all republicans are science deniers or all science deniers are republican?


Mary Jane...It's the only explanation! -


TAGS: science denial pot climate change
Rating: 1.62/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 4:50 pm
I figured. :-) Thank you for the clarification, mate. Fun article you posted BTW! Thank you for sharing that link. I'm an avid skier. Cheers =)
calron - April 11, 2015, 4:45 pm
Yes, I meant the senator.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 4:44 pm
(2/2)Anything else would represent a betrayal of your own principles,which you seem too guarded to allow for so basic a defeat ;-) CORRECT ME if you meant otherwise.Otherwise, YES - Inhofe and his denier supporters are as dumb as a box of rocks. Cheers =)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 4:40 pm
*crickets* Hmmm, Im gonna give you the benefit of the doubt,mate. After all your complaints from you about "ad hominem" attacks against others,I will safely a**ume you meant this against the Senator which is a fair target for that statement (1/2)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 4:30 pm
This thread would imply you were directing that comment at "DebtToAmerica" since I gather Ipaprime was responding to him. Can't be sure. Wanna clarify your remarks insofar as who you calling "dumb", mate? :-)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 4:27 pm
Inhofe? Or were you making a dig at me or Ipaprime, mate? ;-)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 4:25 pm
Finally! He's learning! See,mate? Knew you'd come around =) CORRECTION: according to science, it is reasonable to infer something is true OR false AFTER an extensive REVIEW of research has concluded.So you were CLOSE #brokenclockstilllrighttwiceAdaymoment
calron - April 11, 2015, 4:21 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html?_r=1
calron - April 11, 2015, 4:21 pm
I believe he might be confusing alarmists that made exaggerated AGW claims with the more mainstream AGW science. But then again, he might actually be that dumb as well.
MMessEnnBeeCee - April 11, 2015, 4:15 pm
Yes, absolutely, because we all know that peer-review makes the article correct. lol
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 2:31 pm
Okay, mate. :-) That's all I got. Off for my ritualistic weekend bike ride into the mountain. Might be available for some debate on and off this weekend. "Ve shall zee." *in my bad sinister German accent* X-D Have a great weekend, blokes! Cheers =)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 2:28 pm
Rather, how about presenting a link directing to a peer-reviewed journal that makes that conclusion for you instead of a link to something random or, worse, a political article that poorly a***yzes a peer-reviewed article. Then I might consider it(2/2)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 2:26 pm
The link you presented isn't a peer reviewed journal or study making the conclusion you are making for it. You are offering your opinion on what you THINK it should mean. Very unscientific of you.(1/2)
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 2:23 pm
@ipa "Next time you support AGT record" Hmmmm,big words, mate. ;-) How about, to borrow insight from another member,NEXT TIME we have a fun political debate over our political opinion and interpretations over a scientific debate,we stick to the facts.
fauxnews - April 11, 2015, 2:19 pm
*yawn* Common sense? lol..Why not empiricism? ;-) Or proper research? X-p Sooooo....you conducted your little pseudo-scientific investigation using anecdotal observations from a link you posted.Should I give a silverstar to your science fair project? X-D
ipaprime - April 11, 2015, 9:05 am
sorry for the double post
ipaprime - April 11, 2015, 9:05 am
So next time you support the AGT record please use history, geography, logic and common sense before you possibly make yourself look ignorant.
ipaprime - April 11, 2015, 9:03 am
Then realize the farther back in time you go the larger the dar/uninhabited areas become. There in yielding less temperature data.
ipaprime - April 11, 2015, 9:02 am
http://geology.com/articles/satellite-ph**o-earth-at-night.shtml shows the planet at night. now realize that prior to satellites taking temperature readings we were getting 0 consistent readings from those large dark zones.
ipaprime - April 11, 2015, 9:02 am
Then realize the farther back in time you go the larger the dar/uninhabited areas become. There in yielding less temperature data.
ipaprime - April 11, 2015, 9:00 am
http://geology.com/articles/satellite-ph**o-earth-at-night.shtml shows the planet at night. now realize that prior to satellites taking temperature readings we were getting 0 consistent readings from those large dark zones.
fauxnews - April 9, 2015, 9:04 am
(2/2) you also demonstrate an ignorance over scientific methods and means which include other tools OTHER THAN "satellites" that work to gather data and are fully vetted. We don't need to prove "you wrong" You still haven't proven The AGT wrong ;-) (2/2)
fauxnews - April 9, 2015, 9:01 am
@ ipaprime said,"It's easy to see the data for THE AGT record is flawed mearly by looking at history." Anecdotal evidence is NOT refutation against the AGT record.You might as well say while you're at it, GW's wrong because it has snowed every year (1/2)
ipaprime - April 9, 2015, 1:28 am
From 1970 on though the data should be correct as that is when satellites became the means to gather temperature data covering the ENTIRETY of the planet. Now prove me wrong if you can.
ipaprime - April 9, 2015, 1:26 am
It is easy to see that the data for THE AGT record is flawed mearly by looking at history. The record runs from 1880-now. So from 1880-1970 the AGT is incorrect due to the inability to get temperature readings from the majority of the planet.
MMessEnnBeeCee - April 8, 2015, 7:27 pm
cadaveric matter was not the cause of the infections, germs were - see Lister, Koch, and Pasteur)
MMessEnnBeeCee - April 8, 2015, 7:23 pm
It's not necessarily flawed data, hypothetico-deductive models have a fundamental flaw: If I make a prediction and it comes true, I can a**ume my theory was correct. That maybe incorrect (see Semmelweis on cadavers causing disease - as we all know, germs,
DebtToAmerica - April 8, 2015, 9:42 am
its easy to throw accusations of flawed data, its even easier to prove accusations of flawed data... IF the data is actually flawed.
ipaprime - April 8, 2015, 8:54 am
While climate changers are denying to themselves that the data at the core of their argument is flawed?
rebeccaolsen - April 8, 2015, 12:30 am
:)


a game for Republican science deniers -




Stop confusing weather with climate -


TAGS: snowball inhofe climate change denial
Rating: 1.5/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - March 7, 2015, 9:11 pm
I suggest you look up the definition of "greenhouse gas" before you contradict the definition. On the same lines warming can cause methane release, which is a stronger GHG was CO2, which would cause more warming. Thus you are Affirming a Disjunct.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 3:26 pm
the prospect of a carbon tax leading to conservatives winning the next election would terrify leftists, and they'll start feverishly campaigning against government intervention and telling every other leftist they know, that carbon taxes are a bad idea.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 3:24 pm
just tell the MMCC believers about tony abbot, and how he got elected soely because the previous "leftist" government in australia tried implementing a carbon tax, and the only thing they achieved was a landslide victory for the conservatives.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 3:23 pm
so why not beat them at their own game, by changing the subject to how they think they can solve MMCC, and then pointing out the flaws in their solutions? you'll never convince them its not real, but you can easily convince them their solutions suck.
OTC - March 6, 2015, 3:18 pm
No faux, liberals in 'general' believe in MMCC, so my posters label the majority, doesn't mean I'm labeling everyone and anyone a liberal
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 3:00 pm
So is that a laughter of insanity? Because the only thing 'hilarious' is how badly you misunderstand science. Scientists would have a good laugh at many of your views - especially if the best you got is "water vapor".So,sure..here's a whole box ;-) Cheers
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 2:57 pm
NASA doesn't think water vapor is an issue as far as human-induced climate change is concerned. Again, they understand it is the result, not the cause, of climate change. The importance has more to do with bolstering their case, not challenging it.
OTC - March 6, 2015, 2:28 pm
And by the way, I said "GOT a tissue?" because I laughed so hard at your comments I actually teared up, so I was in need of a tissue, but hey, you have a right to misinterprete and what you don't understand so no worries.
OTC - March 6, 2015, 2:23 pm
Where did I say "NEED" a tissue? See how you misunderstand and misinterprete things? As far as water vapor, even NASA says it's an important greenhouse gas, but lets not look at the whole picture, lets just focus on 1 aspect to CC
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 12:30 pm
...but I'm always open to learning more about others and my own position on this issue. To tell you the truth, I hope the scientists are wrong given the stakes. Who wants mass extinction? But if I hear tornado sirens, I still listen. Food for thought...
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 12:25 pm
...is like calling your opponent a crybaby. You open the door, then, for that kind of divisive emotional debate. And yet, it didn't bother me when you made that tissue remark. I laughed, to tell you the truth. Which is why I didn't respond...
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 12:23 pm
I agree with that, mate. That's why I agree that there is nothing wrong with us agreeing to disagree. But you bring up water vapor, for instance, and I thoughtful disagree without emotion - responding with an insult like "need a tissue"....
OTC - March 6, 2015, 12:17 pm
The topic to CC, which is undeniable. CC is evident by glacial and interglacial periods.
OTC - March 6, 2015, 12:14 pm
We don't all believe the same thing and that gives us different opinions and that makes life interesting. In trying to debate MMCC, you can see how it turns ugly with certain people because I dare have a different opinion about it and they often change
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 10:21 am
...Just because u dont understand science,or do not want to acknowledge scientific reasoning for political reasons,does NOT mean the same thing as science being wrong.All you're doing is downgrading your skepticism into contrarianism.Hava good day,mate:-)
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 10:12 am
...And yet when deniers offer arguments like "water vapor" they are either (A) completely don't understand science or (B) they do understand science are just being deceptive (even worse.)..Such an argument violates the most basic scientific reasoning...
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 10:09 am
Don't think liberals are too worried about your stance on GW, mate. You offer arguments like "water vapor" when even most junk scientists wouldn't be caught dead doing that now since it's about as debunked as that frozen bigfoot suit they found...
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 10:06 am
...who happen to disagree w/u about this subject and others. Yet in the same breath you label people you disagree with A LIBERAL, so you can't debate folks like you because they yell "Liberal!" Funny. Pot, let me introduce you to your new roommate,kettle.
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 10:01 am
Funny how you contradict yourself in your own sentence. You complain that you "can't debate a LIBERAL about MMCC b/c they will label you a DENIER" which you compare to a derogatory label like "racist" while you yourself call everyone and anyone LIBERAL...
fauxnews - March 6, 2015, 9:58 am
haha... Welcome back to our site, mate ;-)
GaryO - March 6, 2015, 9:17 am
Please carry on (at least while the Motifake site is down)
GaryO - March 6, 2015, 9:15 am
‘Deniers’; the very fabric of every debate (just thought I’d make a witty remark on this new use of the word ‘denier’). OK, back to who’s ruling the world, why it spins, and is it spinning to the left or right....which is an illusion?
GaryO - March 6, 2015, 9:14 am
I’ll fit in nicely here.
GaryO - March 6, 2015, 9:14 am
It’s the greatest monolithic bastion of one-dimensional self-imposed orators of dogmatic pompous twaddle in the history of fakery.
GaryO - March 6, 2015, 9:13 am
I was wrong.
GaryO - March 6, 2015, 9:13 am
Well, I kinda figgered this site would just be a dumping ground for those who wish to pontificate.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 8:12 am
just because we disagree over whether or not MMCC exists, does not mean we cannot work together to stop the leftist agenda from tricking people into supporting unwarranted government intervention in people's lives.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 8:11 am
i hope that you'll consider what i say, in despite of my admission that i believe in MMCC. i could pretend to not believe in it, but you seem like the kind of person who thinks for themselves and responds to honesty, rather than blindly following others.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 8:09 am
but only if you dont let them know you dont believe in MMCC. if they think you're another concerned leftist they'll listen to what you say, because they follow other leftists like sheep, you just have to make your argument sound like it makes sense.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 8:08 am
well, the solution to me is obvious, dont let them know that you're a denier. they'll never be convinced that MMCC isnt real, but its very possible to convince them that carbon taxes and government intervention wont work.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 8:07 am
d***.. i commented in the wrong place, disregard this comment.
OTC - March 6, 2015, 7:58 am
Why do liberals fear global warming? They obviously can't take the heat
OTC - March 6, 2015, 7:57 am
The problem is the same with debating politics with liberals, if you don't believe what they believe they yell "Racist!" So you can't debate a liberal about MMCC because they yell "Denier!"
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 7:34 am
you a**ume "surely DTA is lieing, he's a MMCC believer!" while everyone else says "surely these MMCC deniers are lieing when they say carbon taxes wont work, they dont even believe in MMCC!"
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 7:33 am
or do you ignore what i say about MMCC denial helping the leftists, because i believe in MMCC? you doubt what i say about leftists because i believe in MMCC, and believers in MMCC doubt what you say about bad leftist solutions to MMCC for the same reasons
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 7:31 am
and that feedback loop massively magnifies CO2's effect on the climate and weather patterns... i didnt mean for this to turn into a rant, i just find weather and climate science fascinating.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 7:26 am
the global effect from CO2 on climate is tiny, but the tiny increase in heat retained by the atmosphere causes a tiny change in humidity, which increases heat retention, causing more evaporation, creating a feedback loop.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 7:23 am
the main reason why tiny changes in CO2 concentration can affect global climate, and even make some places colder, is because it influences evaporation, which affects the amount of water vapor in the air.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 7:21 am
humidity has a massive influence over local climate, but because it regularly goes from "100%" to "0%" throughout the year, it can only affect local climate.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 7:20 am
you may have heard on the weather reports that "humidity is 100%" on some really h** days, what this means is that the air is saturated with water vapor, it cannot hold anymore. this is why water vapor cannot cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 7:17 am
deserts get freezing cold at night because the air above them has very little water vapor and cannot hold heat, but jungles stay h** at night because of they have plenty of water vapor that prevents infared radiation from escaping to space.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 7:15 am
it seems strange, but its quite brilliant when you think about it. deserts are the h**test places in the world during the day, but jungles are always h**, because deserts have low humidity and jungles have high humidity.
DebtToAmerica - March 6, 2015, 1:35 am
i see you've ignored everything i said about how denying climate change helps the leftist agenda by distracting people from just how bad the leftist solutions are. am i to take this as an admission that you're a leftist?
OTC - March 6, 2015, 1:34 am
Got a tissue?
fauxnews - March 5, 2015, 10:56 pm
...However, the misleading part, and what they don't mention is: that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by excess CO2 even bigger. Again, water vapor is the result, not the cause of today's GW. Excess man-made CO2 is.
fauxnews - March 5, 2015, 10:55 pm
...Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. That's why a small additional amount ADDED OUTSIDE OF WHAT NATURALLY OCCURS has a much more long-term effect. So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor IS the dominant gas...
fauxnews - March 5, 2015, 10:53 pm
...So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work...so....that natural cycle you refer to?
fauxnews - March 5, 2015, 10:52 pm
...Water vapor is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapor varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather is any location...
fauxnews - March 5, 2015, 10:09 pm
...Yes, water vapor is a better greenhouse gas than CO2. But, that isn't the cause of the warming, its a result. The argument falls, thanks to properly using scientific reasoning. You're welcome.
fauxnews - March 5, 2015, 10:09 pm
...Yes, water vapor is a better greenhouse gas than CO2. But, that isn't the cause of the warming, its a result. The argument falls, thanks to properly using scientific reasoning. You're welcome.
fauxnews - March 5, 2015, 10:08 pm
...to deceive people. What deniers say is true, but incomplete. Obviously, what they are trying to say is that climate change is invalid because water vapor is the cause of global warming, not CO2. And, there is the lie....
fauxnews - March 5, 2015, 10:06 pm
...deniers' objection to global warming is that 'Water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere'.This is a really perfect example of how the climate change deniers use false arguments and half truths...
fauxnews - March 5, 2015, 10:05 pm
Ah, water vapor: there in is the difference between denier logic and science. Thank you. When it comes to climate change, deniers don't even understand the basics of phenomena about "water vapour" and are basically BSing their way through the debate...
Zeitguy - March 5, 2015, 9:07 pm
Yeah I know, like evolution is not real cause no one has ever seen a new species formed.
OTC - March 5, 2015, 8:53 pm
Strange cause science says water vapor, which is a natural occurrence, is a bigger greenhouse gas than AGW


Climate Change Denial 'Science' -


TAGS: climate change denial junk science
Rating: 1.5/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

Swampfox - March 4, 2015, 8:23 pm
If that's the best your intellect can muster...


How to become a Climate Change Denier -




climate change denial -




Climate Change -




The Profits of Climate Change Denial. -


TAGS: wei hock soon inhofe snowball climate change denial
Rating: 1.36/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - March 23, 2015, 12:00 am
Well personally I've have not brought up "MMCC suppporters are doing it for the money" and it wouldn't matter to me as long as the science is sound.
DebtToAmerica - March 22, 2015, 10:11 pm
accusations of using ad hominem attacks is a great option when you have no argument. "MMCC suppporters are doing it for the money" doesnt quite have the same ring to it when you're confronted with proof that the other side is taking millions in bribes.
calron - March 21, 2015, 3:11 pm
Still beating that Ad Hominem.


Question... -




Man-made CO2 "causes" temperatures to rise? -




PREV PAGE