Bullshit Debunked: Environmental Hysteria, Part 1
Top Comments
Video Responses
All Comments (357)
-
honestly, i think personal attacks are part of the point of the show. the problem is when they use them to support an argument that is not factually correct. several episodes are political rather than factual and seem very hypocritical.
-
You sir, are an idiot.
-
Penn Jilette is a self-admitted failure of an academic and even still he puts out more compelling arguments than you did. And fyi, a strawman is where you articulate the oppositions position in a way so that it os easily debunked. Actually having a spokesperson for the side that they are arguing against is the exact opposite of a strawman.
How does it feel to be stupider than a high school dropout?
-
Aaaand of course, the holy cow of the enviromental movement, the ban on DDT. A ban that cost millions of people's lives in malaria. Feeling proud?
She actually did not lie, but since you are biased as all hell and want to read in things, of course you are going to find something.
And again, of course water is a chemical, fail chemistry much?
What they were proving is that with the right set of voice and the right words, you can convince otherwise intelligent people of almost anything.
-
Ok, you seems to be fond of accusing P&T of strawmen, but that is just what you do yourself. You make sweeping accusations and go to vicious attacks against their political views (and you said they made personal attacks).
Not to mention that you have changed the order of the episode to make it look like they are deliberately holding the scientific data.
And yes, water is a chemical, you can't wash out water since it is also in the structure of a vegetable, water can be said to cause extretions
-
i don't take anyone who uses windows movie maker seriously.
-
funny how you use news clips to get your point across. usually enviromentolists and lefties say the news is deceptive, one sided, and even full of lies.
-
@emixolydian If the information is cited correctly, you can go to that citation and look at it instead. If it's not cited correctly, it's not credible info. Wikipedia is often a good source for the casual information seeker, but it is not a credible source to cite when making an argument. Primary sources are always better.
-
@DontMockMySmock How is wikipedia not a credible source? Every claim is cited and the source is listed at the bottom of the page..
Sorry, epic fail. You present NO facts to debunk them. You are voicing a lot of opinion with nothing to back it up. Please, learn the art of debate before stepping in the ring.
TheThunderduck 1 year ago 30
You're not even arguing anything. You're as condescending and insulting towards them as they are to environmental groups.
Pot, meet kettle.
superuberbob 1 year ago 17