Wednesday, December 9, 2009

"But...But...But...I SAID It Wasn't Debunked!"

Just when you think it couldn't get any sillier, Mr. Leftist Blogger keeps finding a new level of silliness. Not only can't he address the fact that AGW has been and is being debunked by climatologists (as quoted in the links I provided in a previous post), he now has issue with the English language! Not only does he dodge the dictionary definition of "debunk", but he goes off on a rant that has nothing to do with the subject matter.

For those who didn't catch it the first time (and for Mr. Leftist Blogger who apparently uses words he doesn't understand in a vain attempt to appear smarter than he actually is), here is the definition of "debunk" from that I posted previously:

tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug.
de·bunk'er n.

And here's another definition from


–verb (used with object) to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.

And here's a definition from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

Main Entry: de·bunk
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)dē-ˈbəŋk\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1923

: to expose the sham or falseness of

de·bunk·er noun

Whoa. Three dictionary definitions, all of which apply to what scientists, skeptics, and I have been doing with the AGW myth all along.

Once again, Mr. Leftist Blogger, you're wrong. And no matter how many times you repeat "97% of scientists say man is causing global warming" (with no links to back up the claim, something you've whined about me never doing and that you've used to "prove" that I'm not telling the truth), it doesn't make it so.

By the way, Mr. Leftist Blogger, are you aware that a chunk of your "97% of scientists" aren't climatologists, either? I guess when you're so desperate to "prove" a myth, you'll cling to anybody with an impressive sounding title to give your lame argument intellectual heft. Of course, I'm sure you could show us all the hard-hitting climate research done by pediatricians and veterinarians, two groups of "scientists" who have signed onto AGW.

And speaking of "resorting to semantics," your definition of "bunk" to "prove" that the hockey stick graph wasn't debunked was pathetic, yet completely hilarious. No wonder you're resorting to ad hominem attacks in your blog against me. (And, yes, contrary to what you posted in your blog, I do understand what the term means. See, I actually understand the English language...which is more than I can say for you, given your aversion to the dictionary definition of "debunk.")

Enjoy your crow and your dessert of humble pie. You've earned it all, along with my well-deserved mockery of your humiliating ignorance.

No comments: