Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty4eva
Thanks. I don't think a lot of people will be jealous but if they are I'll take it as a form of flattery. The only reason I posted it was BB_Eye demanded that I prove I had one because he thought I was lying.
And this illustrates something else I've noticed: In this debate the side that supports the global warming myth will often attack their opponents credibility whilst debating them. Take for example Lord Monckton testifying before the Congress. The global warming Congress members don't even bother challenging what he has to say and instead accuse him of not even being a Lord (maybe the only time in your life you will ever see Americans fuss over the legitimacy of British hereditary titles) and even make fun of his name saying he was "appropriately named".
Whenever there is a controversial subject (like global warming, 9/11, etc.) the side that doesn't have the evidence to back up their side will try to sabotage their opponents credibility. |
Yep, those are the typical diversionary tactics of a zealot to deflect attention away from the thrust of an opponent's argument - undermine the character of the critic, and the argument loses its potency. Sadly, you'll get that a lot on this forum.
I have yet to see any hard, indisputable, empirical evidence for the global warming theory. It's precisely because there isn't any that those who want to push the myth will desperately do all they can to impose their beliefs on others by deliberately seeking to surpress any criticism.
Hybrid Mode
