Dude. There are literally THOUSANDS of posts supporting my side of the debate. That is our argument. There for all to see. If you read every one, you wouldn't have to ask even one question. The warmists don't do that. This isn't even a debate. You are the one asking for a debate.
And you are STILL trying to say that refusing debate is proof that the truth is not on the side of the debate refusers. I spent several keystrokes telling that it doesn't. You could be totally right in your argument and STILL that doesn't prove the truth.
The warmists could act the way they act and STILL have the truth on their side. In their case, they don't. Nothing you say makes sense. I must insist that the MANNER of debate oreven REFUSAL to debate does not and cannot prove the truth. It can only prove what it is, a manner or refusal to debate. I can't say that any more plainly.
For the love of God, how do you not get this?
Okay. Baby talk time.
You come up to me and say, "Hey Bagster. What color is the sky?? I say, "Not tellin'. I don't like your face and you suck." You say, "The sky is green." I say, "You're a big fat idiot and I hate you." You say, "Ha. Because you refuse to debate me, I have proven the sky is green. Good day."
But, all is not as it seems. For I knew all along that the sky was, in fact, blue. I just didn't like the manner in which you approached me, and I'm a crusty old bastard, so I refused to debate you.
I will now end the suspense and reveal the truth. The sky was blue all along and I had the truth.
In the meantime, you went home, thinking that you had discovered the truth based on your flawed theory.
Grok?
Your example only covers a single instance. My point is that over the course of ~two decades not a single warmest has accepted the denier debate challenge. The conclusion you cannot draw from one isolated example becomes clearer and clearer as the sample size grows into the thousands upon thousands. If the warmists had facts on their side at least *one* of their cabal would have stepped up to the plate by now. Monkton is just one of countless numbers of deniers who is itching—champing at the bit—to debate. Yet not a single warmist can be found to appear in a large-format venue to accept the challenge.
The idea that thousands could have the facts on their side yet to a man and to a woman refuse to debate is not reasonable. The refusal is bc they know they’d get their heads handed to them on a platter. That’s why the idea of reeducation camps holds such allure for them. Rather than having the embarrassment of being called cowards—or of being whipped in a debate—they could simply silence the dissenters in the good old facist way.
The idea that it’s impossible to discern what underlies that approach is not rational. It’s not at all difficult to figure out what’s going on—in fact, it’s a piece of cake.