• 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!

Scientists FlipFlop Back to Global COOLING?

Threegoofs said:
I think your goal is to just obfuscate and pretend you didnt actually mean what you really meant.. that the other thread was a news story (when it was actually a scientific study).

You can hang your head in shame and slink away now - its probably best if you cut your losses anyway.
Click to expand...

I meant you were painting a sensationalist picture with your thread title, and you did, you know it, and so does Deuce. And it came right on the heels of Deuce making a claim that such a thing was a serious problem with "deniers" or whatever childish name you two have latched on to today. OTOH, you aren't very creative, so I suspect you'll be stuck on denier until somebody else comes up with something.
 
humbolt said:
I meant you were painting a sensationalist picture with your thread title, and you did, you know it, and so does Deuce. And it came right on the heels of Deuce making a claim that such a thing was a serious problem with "deniers" or whatever childish name you two have latched on to today. OTOH, you aren't very creative, so I suspect you'll be stuck on denier until somebody else comes up with something.
Click to expand...

The thread title was factual.

Sorry if you didnt like the truth - I know its inconvenient.
 
Threegoofs said:
The thread title was factual.

Sorry if you didnt like the truth - I know its inconvenient.
Click to expand...

Uh huh, Al. You guys have little familiarity with the truth, but you do well with hyperbole.
 
humbolt said:
Sad though they are, I respect journalists more than that. You understood what I meant. You just didn't like it that you made a statement that's disproven by that thread title from an AGW true believer like you.
Click to expand...

You called it sensationalist journalism based on the thread title.
Let's examine this.

You are so ingrained with the idea that AGW proponents are sensationalist that you didn't even click the thread. You didn't read the thread. You didn't read the article linked in the thread. You didn't even read the title of the article. You just read threegoofs' thread title.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt with calling him a journalist, but it turns out you just don't give enough of a **** to even click on threads before judging their content. Because if you had ****ing read the article you'd see that the article headline isn't the same as that thread title.
 
Deuce said:
You called it sensationalist journalism based on the thread title.
Let's examine this.

You are so ingrained with the idea that AGW proponents are sensationalist that you didn't even click the thread. You didn't read the thread. You didn't read the article linked in the thread. You didn't even read the title of the article. You just read threegoofs' thread title.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt with calling him a journalist, but it turns out you just don't give enough of a **** to even click on threads before judging their content. Because if you had ****ing read the article you'd see that the article headline isn't the same as that thread title.
Click to expand...

3G's title was all I needed to disprove your flappy-gummed and disingenuous claim. If you had any ****ing decency, you'd admit it and move on.
 
humbolt said:
3G's title was all I needed to disprove your flappy-gummed and disingenuous claim. If you had any ****ing decency, you'd admit it and move on.
Click to expand...

The title, again, is:

"Today's warming is going to get worse, even if we totally stop GHG emissions today."

And you seem to be afraid to open the thread, so maybe you can tell us what was wrong with the title here.

And, for bonus fail points, you can try to explain what this has to do with 'journalism'.
 
Threegoofs said:
The title, again, is:

"Today's warming is going to get worse, even if we totally stop GHG emissions today."

And you seem to be afraid to open the thread, so maybe you can tell us what was wrong with the title here.

And, for bonus fail points, you can try to explain what this has to do with 'journalism'.
Click to expand...

Ask Deuce. He was blabbering about the hyperbole in skeptic thread titles and so on when you posted yours, which is obviously hyperbolic in the extreme. You two do blabber a lot, but you never say much of substance.
 
humbolt said:
3G's title was all I needed to disprove your flappy-gummed and disingenuous claim. If you had any ****ing decency, you'd admit it and move on.
Click to expand...

You claimed there was "sensationalist journalism" going on and your evidence was a thread title written by someone who isn't a journalist. What was my claim, again?
 
From NOAA in 1974:

CLIMATE: A KEY TO THE WORLDS' FOOD SUPPLY

Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere
increased rather dramatically from about 1880 through 1940,
but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged
about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in
higher latitudes.
Click to expand...

Looks like NOAA changed the data and changed their tune.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom