★ Have you made up your mind on climate change, yet?
- Thread starter Ceiling Cat
- Start date
Glad to hear that your point is that you've tried to cheat the bet 5 separate times now.
The Five attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts' of Moviefan:
#1 - 0.86ºC
#2 - 0.766ºC
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...made-up-your-mind-on-climate-change-yet/page8
#3 - 0.89ºC
#4 - 0.745ºC and 0.85ºC in the same bad post
#5 - Trying to replace the chart specified in the bet with a different chart at a different web address.
So many lies from you, so many times, such a weasel:
This was the bet:
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!
0.87ºC
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/t
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop being a weasel.
You lost the bet.
As loser you must buy these two books, read them and review them here:
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/05...=as2&tag=grlasbl0a-20&linkId=F7NQQFQ4THAO2JDE
Sorry, weasel.
That's not the link we used for the bet, that's just you being a weasel and trying to cheat the bet yet again.
This was the bet, including the link to the correct chart:
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!
0.87ºC
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/t
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop being a weasel.
You lost the bet.
As loser you must buy these two books, read them and review them here:
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/05...=as2&tag=grlasbl0a-20&linkId=F7NQQFQ4THAO2JDE
More deliberate quotes taken out of context, in this case taking quotes about your dodgy use of photobucket weasel dick pictures.
Time to up the tally:
The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts' of Moviefan:
#1 - 0.86ºC
#2 - 0.766ºC
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...made-up-your-mind-on-climate-change-yet/page8
#3 - 0.89ºC
#4 - 0.745ºC and 0.85ºC in the same bad post
#5 - Trying to replace the chart specified in the bet with a different chart at a different web address.
#6 Deliberate use of quotes out of context.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5475426&viewfull=1#post5475426
Quotes for a weasel.
Odds of moviefan being correct in his claim that all climate change we are experiencing is natural, as he likes to say.
0.01%
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...e-change-study
The difference between me and Crybaby Frankfooter, of course, is that I stand behind my quotes.
:thumb:NASA said:
Really, which of these quotes do you stand by?
All of them, along with these.
Thanks for confirming that you are a clown who uses weasel words.
Those quotes have you claiming:
The bet was not based on a year over year time frame, as you have claimed.
The bet was for 0.83ºC, and that you confirmed you would hold yourself to that number.
Your 'math' attempt makes you a liar who won't honour his own words for trying to adjust a bet you said was 0.83ºC.
Now lets look at the quotes you dishonestly took out of context:
Frank is it obvious that you using CIMP5 is a mistake. Anyone other than yourself would just admit to the mistake as it is obvious. You do not admit your mistake and instead blabber on about this and that, and accuse me of thought crime as a distraction. It speaks about your character rather than speaks about global warming, regardless of the scientific merit of AGW, you are the last person that should speak on it's behalf.
Nonsense, tell me what exactly makes you think that using CIMP5 is a mistake?
Show me exactly what you think is wrong with the science behind CIMP5.
As someone who claims to more about AGW then the vast majority of scientists in North America, someone who calls the work of the IPCC, 'non-science', show me exactly what grounds you are using to call CIMP5 a 'mistake'.
Frank, I am only saying you are retarded to use 2 years worth of predictions as evidence that the IPPC has been quite accurate. That is all I am saying at this moment.
CIMP5 could be all BS, or it could be perfect, in either case, 2 years worth of predictions is not evidence that the IPCC has been quite accurate.
If I am attacking anything, I am attacking your intellect or lack thereof, I am attacking your inability to admit when you are wrong when it is obvious you are wrong. Basically I am calling you a retard without a backbone.
CIMP5 could be all BS, or it could be perfect, in either case, 2 years worth of predictions is not evidence that the IPCC has been quite accurate.
If I am attacking anything, I am attacking your intellect or lack thereof, I am attacking your inability to admit when you are wrong when it is obvious you are wrong. Basically I am calling you a retard without a backbone.
'Retarded'.
(I'll humour your use of that word for now)
CIMP5 builds on the work of CIMP3, which I showed you has what moviefan would call 'spectacularly accurate' projections, and a longer track record to prove it.
If you want 'retarded' claims, take a look at moviefan's statements, such as his belief that the fact that 15 of the 16 warmest years happened this century is all due to 'natural variability', a view which has been given a 0.01% chance of being correct.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...e-change-study
That is a 'retarded' claim.
If you've been following this thread, you'd know that the bet was based on how accurate the IPCC's projections are, it turned out they were quite good just as it turned out moviefan is a weasel who won't honour his word. Just as you've been shown that the earlier work of CIMP3 has been shown to be good, there is no reason to doubt that a new and improved projection would be better.
Now given that the IPCC has a much better track record then moviefan, wattsupwiththat, Tim Ball, Judith Curry or any of the other deniers, you have to look at the chart and accept that both the work seems accurate and the projections they are making into the future should worry you. Unless you're a cook who thinks that the vast majority of scientists are wrong and that work is 'non-science'.
