Home > AGW, Climate Change, Global Warming, Omniclimate, Skepticism > The AGW Debate-Challenged Game – 1- Word List

The AGW Debate-Challenged Game – 1- Word List

a basic lack of scientific understanding
a weak knowledge of science
ASS afflicted pseudo-intellectual
bogus claims
bogus questions
can’t understand
circular arguments
complete moron
completely wrong
compulsive behaviour
deceitful and anti-science nonsense
deceitful personality
deep ignorance of climate science
deeply ignorant
deliberate, clearly joyfully assembled lies and frauds
denier nonsense
denier rubbish
devoid of rational discussion or actual content
discredited individual
dishonest weasel
distorting information
diversionary-transference tactics
egregious epistemological error
evident self-importance
extremely pompous and patriarchal ass
faux civility
flawed reasoning
fraudulent abuse of the real data
half-witted liar
how worthless you are
incapable to learn
inflated ego
intellectual bankruptcy
intellectual dishonesty
intellectual masturbator
intentional stupidity
introductory course in logic
irrelevant, nonsensical computation
justify his own political beliefs
lying denying idiots
on the payroll of ExxonMobil
pompous waffle
poor understanding of the science
profoundly self-absorbed and deceitful personality
profoundly self-absorbed personality
pseudo argumentation
pseudoscience crap
rabidly fanatic
scientifically illiterate
scientifically illiterate comments
selfish and immoral behaviour
slandering scientists
sophomoric rhetorical tricks
spammed=posted a deliberately fraudulent interpretation of research conclusions repeatedly on various sites
telling lies
unwilling to learn
utter b.s.
weak intellect
weak intellect
weaselling denial
write a lot, say very little
your brand of ignorance
your fellow Deniers
your junk science political site

  1. 2011/06/20 at 01:50

    Here are some examples of “sarcastic” comments taken from


    > Perish the thought that […]

    > It’s been almost 20 years from Rio […]

    > How many times does one need to bang one’s head against the same wall before deciding to open the door?

    > What “realism” in continuing along a path that has failed repeatedly?

    > Which bit of “climate change policy is always at square one, or counter-effective” don’t you get?

    > Unless of course you’re in denial […]

    > “greenest government”

    > [I]f the enemy keeps outstmarting you, and you keep trying the same thing over and over again, the problem is not your enemy, is it.

    > [E]ven under most tyrants […]

    > Of course you’ll end up “isolating” the whole world, isolating yourself that is.

    > This situation keeps reminding me of that insane “Islamist” group in Algeria (the GIA, I believe) […]

    > Charge of the Light Brigade, anybody?

    > [I]s that what you’ll call a victory?

    > [A]t the end ofthe day it’s you guys the ones worried about the future.

    > Who’s to blame for the Light Brigade massacre, the shooting enemies or the person who ordered an obviously flawed action?

    > Who’s remembered as heartless idiotic and a failure, the Germans machine-gunning the British troops during WWI or General Haig and his asinine ideas about the importance of suffering casualties?

    > [A]re you looking for a valiant defeat or do you actually care about the planet and future generations?

    > The Haig example was too much for you GP. That’s a shame, alright.

    > Given the cooling experienced thanks to Genghis Khan’s murderous ways, perhaps billions will die, due to the AGW scare pushing some weaker minds towards obliterating most of us, for the sake of the planet.

    > All the worse for the planet then when its “saviors” don’t want to save it…

    > People convinced that the Rapture is coming can follow your exact same logic […]

    > I bet that’s what the Aristotelians were accusing Galileo of saying when he invited them to look through the telescope.

    > what of whatever you’re doing is contributing to save the planet from the disaster you’re convinced is going to befall upon us?

    > You don’t want to explain yourself. That’s fine as it makes sense within the logic of the swashbuckling climate musketeer persona you seem to enjoy.

    > Sarcasm failure. Typical, if you’re at war.

    > For some other weather and climate forecasters, the sole source of data is firmly planted much nearer to the ground, in-between their ears

    > A little adjustment, and the little girl will get boy-fied…

    > [C]an we please show some residual respect for science by stopping calling climate modelers “scientists”

    > All present and future warming is global, all present and future cooling is local. Instead, all past warming was local, and all past cooling was global.

    > NASA is pork.

    > Are you guys in primary school still?

    > Sarcasm is…well, if you don’t get it, it means I can’t explain it to you.

    > Alas, we’ll have to make do with this ignorance of yours.

    > I find it ridiculous in the extreme that people that scour the web in search of a “denier” to bully […]

    > Unless I suggest the opposite of what I mean, expecting the weak-minded knee-jerkers fight-lookers to react accordingly […]

    > There comes another bully. How predictable.

    > In truth, in all these years on the ‘net the only people that have kept trying to bully me, all of them by moving the topic of discussion to my own good self, have been creationists, chemtrailers and AGWers.

    > I’m just so glad the average warmists keep showing themselves as totally unpleasant people.

    > [Y]ou’d lose an election even if running unchallenged on a platform of motherhood and apple pie.

    > [S]o much the better for the sake of worldwide sanity.

    > [O]nly the warmists à la Realclimate have shown the “bunker mentality”.


    The tone troll is wrong when he conflates civility with humaneness. It is quite possible to mock, tease, deride, vex “with all due respects.” Anyone with schooling experience should know that.

    • 2011/06/20 at 05:25

      debate-challenged, you truly are. good for me. say hi to Eli.

      • 2011/06/20 at 14:30

        Two more to the list:

        > [D]ebate-challenged, you truly are.


        > [G]ood for me.

        Hi to Eli.

  2. Luke Warmer
    2009/10/30 at 08:22

    Great list – now all you need is a randomiser to automatically create debunks – a bit like the Dilbert mission statement generator – the debunkalator(TM).

    Of course the ultimate would be a system that works in reverse and removes these crass cliches from the most rabid anti-skeptic comments in order to find the real counter-argument!

  1. 2010/11/20 at 19:08

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: