• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

National Climatic Data Center: 2014 Was the Warmest Year on Record

Verax said:
Its not an ad hominem, you're not able to follow the conversation. Your inability to understand is the root source of the problem. Either that or you are dishonest and just wanted to post a red herring to distract from your losing position.
Click to expand...

To borrow from a quote about debating Creationists, trying to 'debate' anything with him is like playing chess with a pigeon:

"it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory"
 
Threegoofs said:
First, let's establish the tweet wasn't even quoted in the story. Because it wasn't.

Then we can turn to the absurd characterization of Schmidt 'admitting' that 2014 wasn't the warmest year. 'Admitted'? He proactively explained the statistics! The rest of the inaccurate representation has been outlined in earlier posts, and I won't bother to argue with a disembodied head any more.
Click to expand...

The tweet was accurately referenced in the original story, and presented in others. The 38% statement would not have been treated as an admission had the original coverage not been so overblown.
 
Verax said:
At this point I can't tell if these guys are joking or bat**** insane!
Click to expand...

After reading this thread, I'm going with option 2.
 
Jack Hays said:
You said the tweet was not posted or explained. You were wrong.
Click to expand...

The whole world does not revolve around your copy and pastes from conspiracy blogs Jack. Verax and Threegoofs were referring to the Daily Mail UK 'article' by David Rose which started all this nonsense and spawned the bizarre nutty posts on conspiracy blogs. Rose did not post the tweet in his article. Try to keep up.
 
Ceist said:
In your fantasy world, you are the most brilliant man on earth spreading your wisdom to the masses.

In reality, you copy and paste nonsense from conspiracy blogs.

Your efforts to resolve this cognitive dissonance are very amusing.
Click to expand...

Whatever you need to tell yourself.
 
Verax said:
LoL, you're ridiculous man. I explained it all to you twice, you chose to ignore what I said. You're so stuck on trying to prove me wrong or correct me that you will not acknowledge the context of what I was saying. How petty and pathetic is it to do such a thing?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't matter if you explained it 20 times.
 
Last edited:
Ceist said:
The whole world does not revolve around your copy and pastes from conspiracy blogs Jack. Verax and Threegoofs were referring to the Daily Mail UK 'article' by David Rose which started all this nonsense and spawned the bizarre nutty posts on conspiracy blogs. Rose did not post the tweet in his article. Try to keep up.
Click to expand...

No, he did not, but that was not Verax's challenge. Verax claimed the tweet had not been shown anywhere. I refuted that. Please see #339.
 
Last edited:
Verax said:
Consensus?

HurrjOo.gif
Click to expand...

I know. I had the same reaction. It's like he was having a completely different conversation in his head that had nothing at all to do with what you were posting.
 
Threegoofs said:
First, let's establish the tweet wasn't even quoted in the story. Because it wasn't.

Then we can turn to the absurd characterization of Schmidt 'admitting' that 2014 wasn't the warmest year. 'Admitted'? He proactively explained the statistics! The rest of the inaccurate representation has been outlined in earlier posts, and I won't bother to argue with a disembodied head any more.
Click to expand...
He's confused because the tweet was posted in something HE copied and pasted from a conspiracy blog about the Daily Mail UK story, not the original Daily Mail UK article itself that we were referring to and discussing. Perhaps he really believes everyone pays attention to every copy and paste he does.
 
Ceist said:
He's confused because the tweet was posted in something HE copied and pasted from a conspiracy blog about the Daily Mail UK story, not the original Daily Mail UK article itself that we were referring to and discussing. Perhaps he really believes everyone pays attention to every copy and paste he does.
Click to expand...

As noted, I responded to a specific post.
 
Jack Hays said:
The tweet was accurately referenced in the original story, and presented in others. The 38% statement would not have been treated as an admission had the original coverage not been so overblown.
Click to expand...

You claimed it was posted in the original story. You were given the link to the original story to show you it wasn't there - when you falsely claimed it was.

Here it is again:

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure | Daily Mail Online

The original story was the David Rose Daily Mail UK tabloid story. You are referring to the hysterical spin off stories about the Daily Mail article posted on the conspiracy blogs you frequent.


There was nothing "overblown" in the NASA press conference. What was overblown was the hysterical misrepresentations of it by David Rose, followed by a bunch of climate science denying conspiracy blogs making up even more ludicrous 'facts' in their own minds.

None of them seemed to have even watched or listened to the press conference and got what Schmidt was saying completely wrong. In fact, I doubt you watched or listened to the full press conference either.

This is all just another red-herring from you so you don't have to even try to discuss the facts about what NASA was actually saying.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
No, he did not, but that was not Verax's challenge. Verax claimed the tweet had not been shown anywhere. I refuted that. Please see #339.
Click to expand...

Nope. Wrong again. You are really great at being wrong. Must be all the practice you get on these forums.
 
Ceist said:
You claimed it was posted in the original story. You were given the link to the original story to show you it wasn't there - when you falsely claimed it was.

Here it is again:

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure | Daily Mail Online

The original story was the David Rose Daily Mail UK tabloid story. You are referring to the hysterical spin off stories about the Daily Mail article posted on the conspiracy blogs you frequent.


There was nothing "overblown" in the NASA press conference. What was overblown was the hysterical misrepresentations of it by David Rose, followed by a bunch of climate science denying conspiracy blogs making up even more ludicrous 'facts' in their own minds.

None of them seemed to have even watched or listened to the press conference and got what Schmidt was saying completely wrong. In fact, I doubt you watched or listened to the full press conference either.

This is all just another red-herring from you so you don't have to even try to discuss the facts about what NASA was actually saying.
Click to expand...

At no time did I claim the tweet was posted in the original story. I said it was quoted and I stand by that. The fact is that the initial headlines outran the data and Schmidt was caught out. Later, when Verax claimed the tweet had been posted or explained anywhere, I pointed out his error.
 
Jack Hays said:
You have made a plain error of fact.
Click to expand...

You've made a plain fact an error.

But keep telling yourself your conspiracy blogs are all about "The Truth!"
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
No, he did not, but that was not Verax's challenge. Verax claimed the tweet had not been shown anywhere. I refuted that. Please see #339.
Click to expand...

Well, I made it eminently clear I was talking about Roses article. I even re-linked to it.

And you kept saying that Schmidt was 'quoted'!
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, I made it eminently clear I was talking about Roses article. I even re-linked to it.

And you kept saying that Schmidt was 'quoted'!
Click to expand...

He was indeed quoted.

Indirect Quotations

An indirect quotation is when the meaning but not the exact words of something someone spoke is referred to.
 
Jack Hays said:
He was indeed quoted.

Indirect Quotations

An indirect quotation is when the meaning but not the exact words of something someone spoke is referred to.
Click to expand...

LOL. Total Black Knight.

They didn't even get the meaning right. What he meant was 'Are you an idiot? We covered this on the press call.'
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL. Total Black Knight.

They didn't even get the meaning right. What he meant was 'Are you an idiot? We covered this on the press call.'
Click to expand...

That may be what he later tried to claim he meant, but it's not what the tweet conveyed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom