Warmist Logic

December 10, 2013 – 11:02 am

Note: #5 is a trap both sides fall into. Of course, the Climate Realist side has up to 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history on our side, as well as observational data, including from other planets.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

This entry was written by William Teach and posted on at 11:02 am and filed under Global Warming. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Warmist Logic”

  1. Gumballs_Of_Winter says:
    December 10, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    Wait… this sounds … awfully… familiar. It’s almost like this fits J and Z like a glove.

    wow. who knew that when they followed the proverbial carrot, they hung themselves with the stick.

  2. Jeffery says:
    December 10, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    Wow. Data from other planets. Go on…

    So your trust data from other planets that support your cause, but distrust data from this planet??? You do realize it’s easier to measure temps here than on Mars, right? Let me guess, Martian scientists don’t fake data like Earth scientists?

    1. You call those with whom you disagree “warmists”, “hypoocrites” and worse but call yourself a “climate realist.” lol

    1b. You consider AGW refuted because some scientists drive cars, fly on planes and use clothes dryers. lol

    2. You accuse genuine climate realists of wanting to suddenly reduce carbon footprints to zero. lol

    3. It’s cold in Philly and Europe, AGW is refuted. lol

    4-9. You assume because it’s been warm before, that the current warming period is “natural”.

  3. proof says:
    December 10, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    “The 10 Commandments of Logic? Isn’t that what is referred to as an appeal to authority??

  4. Jl says:
    December 10, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    “You consider AGW refuted because….some drive cars, fly on planes…lol. We don’t have to refute anything- it has be proved first, which it hasn’t. See number 4, I think, from the original post “begin the argument with a false premise.” Even bigger lol. “It’s cold in Philly and Europe, AGW refuted.” There’s a severe storm here or there, you consider this proof of AGW. Even bigger lol.”You assume because it’s been warm before, that the current warming period is natural.” You assume because it’s warm before that whatever caused it back then without a doubt couldn’t be causing it now- even though it’s not warming now. Even bigger lol. “You trust data from other planets but distrust data from other planets.” You trust a computer model, which isn’t data, and distrust hard data that shows this warming (that’s stopped) isn’t out of the ordinary. Lol, again.

  5. William Teach says:
    December 11, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    1. You call those with whom you disagree “warmists”, “hypoocrites” and worse but call yourself a “climate realist.” lol

    You call us skeptics and deniers, the last meant to equate people who do not believe in AGW with those who do not believe in the Holocaust. Skeptics I do not mind, because skepticism is a major part of practicing science.

    1b. You consider AGW refuted because some scientists drive cars, fly on planes and use clothes dryers. lol

    No, we primarily consider you hypocrites. And we note that your belief set isn’t enough to change your behavior, hence, we understand that this is a political issue, not a scientific one.

    4-9. You assume because it’s been warm before, that the current warming period is “natural”.

    You assume because a slight increase in a trace gas necessary for life has occurred that Mankind is at fault and life on earth is dooooooomed. Even though nature puts out more CO2 than mankind. Even though the Earth is still recovering from a glacial period. Even though said CO2 increase has seen a generational pause. Even though your models mostly fail.

Pirate's Cove