Over 59538

Soon Politics

MORE WISDOM - "The federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government." Ronald Reagan

soon -

TAGS: soon
Rating: 4.5/5

More politifakes by JGalt

BobbEdwards - May 16, 2013, 11:32 am
Do you mean Schweddy Balls?
Doggit - May 16, 2013, 10:25 am
Speaking of BJ's; didn't that get Clinton's picture on the carton a few years ago?
BobbEdwards - May 16, 2013, 9:42 am
Dream on. And when B & J's comes up with a Crow flavor I don't suppose you'll eat it.

YEAH, YOU... - Your opinion is worthless, we rule the world.

WHAT HAPPENS - when people reach their breaking point....

TAGS: coming soon
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by JGalt

Renza - February 28, 2013, 7:36 am
That really is a good movie (for those who don't know it's "Falling Down") not so entertaining when it happens in real life though...

IT'S COMING - sooner than you think

OBAMA'S WEEK IN REVIEW - Lowest polls ever. Gas passing $4, Chevy Volt still can't sell. Deficit $3.5 trillion higher than thought. Obamacare cost doubles. Afghanistan unravelling. Phoney "War on Women" claims Maher instead of Limbaugh.

TOO SOON - We'll let you know when it's okay, South Korea. Just give it time.

47% PAY NO TAX - Well now, that certainly explains Obama's popularity rating!



USING FAKE SOC. SEC. #'S... - Ruled not a crime. WTF? I guess the "rules" for congress are being extended to illegals. Soon, nothing will be a crime, except for being Republican!


Winter storm in the spring -

U.S. citizen -

TAGS: sooner than later
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by Rudedog

Oyster - May 3, 2013, 6:01 am
No, this guy is nothing more than a pawn to force the US to come to the table and give some aid. It happened in 2009 and Clinton went over to 'negotiate' the release, along with some freebies.

are we there yet? -

The Sooner State -



TAGS: see ya soon
Rating: 4.29/5

More politifakes by foxrecon19d

OTC - April 14, 2015, 9:54 pm
That's not what it's saying
RonaldReagan - April 12, 2015, 11:02 pm
Stupid. Jesus isn't some loan shark who collects on your sins after you croak. Pass

SHARIA LAW - Coming soon


THE OCTOBER SURPRISE - Coming Soon to elect a Democrat near you!

Greenpeace Hypocrisy -

The TRUTH about Dr. Wei-Hock Soon -

Republican Science Deniers -

TAGS: joker republican science deniers wei hock soon
Rating: 4.11/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - June 7, 2015, 3:34 pm
Looks like I pushed your b***ons very well. ;)
fauxnews - May 26, 2015, 3:10 pm
lol..Exactly. ;-) 5L your comment if I could. Cheers
Bandit5906 - May 26, 2015, 3:04 pm
Spell check?

Fairy tales -

TAGS: wei hock soon science deniers funding
Rating: 4.03/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - May 25, 2015, 10:11 pm
Except I didn't defend Soon, I pointed out how someone got what he said wrong. Soon believe that variation in that cycle cause warming, but that is not what he was attacked for.
fauxnews - May 25, 2015, 9:41 pm
And Wei Hack Soon was using 'that' to (falsely) indict the MMCC consensus in the most ignorant of manners. Not that it matters, mate. Following the exposure of his corruption, only a pure ignoramus would defend Wei Soon at this point. You were saying? :-)
calron - May 25, 2015, 9:20 pm
Yeh, you'd think you'd at least get his hypothesis right when you attack it. The output of the sun does change over time and that does affect the earth's climate on a 11 year cycle.
rebeccaolsen - May 17, 2015, 11:57 am
Pretty much,denier.Either,ignorantly or purposely ignoring the irony of his derp, he is basically saying that all that man-made climate change stuff is just the normal seasons "going through the motions" - kinda like the way you are doing right now hun :)
calron - May 16, 2015, 7:57 pm
So he believes in summer and winter?
rebeccaolsen - May 13, 2015, 2:44 am

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

Money for "Scientific" Results -

TAGS: wei hock soon junk science
Rating: 2.71/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

MMessEnnBeeCee - May 28, 2015, 8:11 pm
and that includes government money! Thanks for finally admitting that.

the ultimate failure -

Climate change deniers thought they were bluffing with an Ace under their sleeve. -

TAGS: wei hock soon climate change denier
Rating: 2.45/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

Curlyrocks - February 24, 2015, 9:23 pm
I thought that all those scientists skewing their data was going to be the end of the climate change debate. People blow stuff like this off to fit their narrative on both sides of the issue.

Man-made Climate Change Denial The REAL Hoax! -

TAGS: wei hock soon climate change denier
Rating: 2.45/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

calron - February 22, 2015, 11:30 pm
Enron, BP, and Shell have all done this; http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html
calron - February 22, 2015, 11:29 pm
Considering how big oil has alo funded pro climate change groups and you barely hear a peep out of it, I'd say it is only a scandal if they fund the anti warming groups.
hulksmash - February 22, 2015, 10:31 pm
No matter how much you wiggle and squirm, the data remains the same.
hulksmash - February 22, 2015, 10:30 pm
Or: "history has shown that temps have been higher when CO2 levels were lower, and vise versa."
hulksmash - February 22, 2015, 10:29 pm
Maybe even this line another one of those pesky scientists who don't agree with you: "Last Feb., even IPCC’s chairman R.Pachurii has admitted that world temp data has been flat for the past seventeen years."
hulksmash - February 22, 2015, 10:21 pm
Faux claims that humans are pumping tons of CO2 in the air and that's what ended the Ice Age. Funny, i didn't know 10,000 years ago cavemen were driving cars, i guess he watches too many Flintstone episodes drunk.

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
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. :)

A Republican Science Denier arguing with a real scientist -

How to push the buttons of a denier: tell them the truth. -

Republican Deniers are fun toys -

Global Warming Is Junk Science -

global warming alarmists... -

W e i - H a c k - S o o n -

would man-made global warming be an issue -

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.