Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

Frankfooter said:

No, the only one spectacularly wrong is the idiot who bet against the IPCC....

Click to expand...

More fairy tales. We all know what that means.

It's punishment time. Here's the updated list again (with the Michael Mann idiocy revised to make Franky happy).

- Nov. 10, 2015 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404144&viewfull=1#post5404144

- Nov. 21, 2015 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

- Nov. 27, 2015 -- This is still one of my favourites. He posted a graph that he said shows the "IPCC's projection" for 2015: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5410384&viewfull=1#post5410384. Then, after it was explained to him that the graph shows the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, he said it was "not an IPCC projection" and ran away from his own graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739

- Nov. 29, 2015 -- He said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of the global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.

- Dec. 1, 2015 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5414060&viewfull=1#post5414060

- Dec. 5, 2015 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416886&viewfull=1#post5416886. In fact, the graph came from Columbia University and uses the entirely different NASA data.

- Jan. 8, 2016 -- He said NASA has "never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings....": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5443355&viewfull=1#post5443355

- Jan. 10, 2016 -- He said I was "lying" when I said that a temperature change from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC is an increase of 0.15ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5445053&viewfull=1#post5445053

- Feb. 3, 2016 -- He said the calculation that the average of 0.75 + 0.82 + 0.84 + 0.71 + 0.71 is 0.766 is "denier math": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466417&viewfull=1#post5466417

- Feb. 4, 2016 -- He called it "lying your face off" when I said the difference between 0.43 and 0.68 is 0.25: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466781&viewfull=1#post5466781

- Feb. 8, 2016 -- A gem. He said the graphs on NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet page were "fake": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5470561&viewfull=1#post5470561. He repeated the claim on Feb. 13 when he said the NASA graphs had been "possibly doctored": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5473971&viewfull=1#post5473971

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He dismissed NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's graph of temperature anomalies as "dodgy": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472913&viewfull=1#post5472913

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He said NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's Twitter account isn't "legit": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472991&viewfull=1#post5472991

- Feb. 20, 2016 -- He said it was a "blatantly false claim" that the difference between 0.74 and 0.84 is 0.10: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5479780&viewfull=1#post5479780

- March 3, 2016 -- He said it's "not possible" for 0.89 to equal 0.89: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-change&p=5489838&viewfull=1#post5489838

- March 27, 2016 -- He said it was "incredibly stupid" to conclude that half of 2ºC is 1ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Early-April&p=5509136&viewfull=1#post5509136

- April 23, 2016 -- He tried to claim that 0.75 and 0.87 are the exact same number: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531128&viewfull=1#post5531128

- April 23, 2016 -- He claimed the average temperature for the period from 1961 to 1990 is a "different baseline" than the average temperature for the period from 1961 to 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...believers%92&p=5531216&viewfull=1#post5531216

- May 1, 2016 -- He said that a climate researcher who thinks warming is 99% due to natural causes believes that "anthropogenic" climate change is happening: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5537250#post5537250

- May 11, 2016 -- He said all of the warming since 1850 was caused by humans (even the IPCC doesn't support him on this one): https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5546112#post5546112

- May 12, 2016 - He said the warming "slowdown" in the 21st century "still fits" Michael Mann's hockey stick graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5547096&viewfull=1#post5547096

Frankfooter said:

Really, go back and find that one and prove it.

Click to expand...

OK. Here's one from November 2015, where you said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of global anomalies:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862

What do you think SST stands for?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Frankfooter said:

You are so stupid.
Add the new data and a couple of years onto the left hand section of the chart and you will find that the 'blade' part of the hockey stick is still well represented.
Can't you figure that out, are you that stupid?



They added their own projections to Mann's reconstructions, pasting together Mann's historical chart with model projections.
Mann's historical reconstruction 'hockey stick' chart didn't have projections on it.
Its so basic its actually written on the chart, the different sections from reconstructions and projections.
Such an incredibly stupid mistake again.



Go ahead, each and every one of those greatest hits only shows how stupid and troll like you are.
Each one will be resolved by either your troll actions or your stupidity, my guarantee.

This latest one is a perfect example of how fucking stupid you are.

Click to expand...

So, apparently you can use Mann's graph to determine whether the current trend "still fits".

Or, maybe you can't. Franky seems to be taking both conflicting views in the same post.

Whatever. To make him happy, I altered his greatest hit on this one to use his precise wording. It looks just as stupid. :thumb:

Frankfooter said:

I made a mistake, admitted it and didn't make it again.

Click to expand...

Really?

Earlier today, you said you could prove that what I posted was wrong. In fact, all of your greatest hits are accurate and I have provided links to each and every one of them.

Frankfooter said:

But since I have class and the troll doesn't, I'll stop posting over and over again if he admits he made a mistake and apologizes for his faulty 'greatest hits' list.

Click to expand...

All I did was cite what you had said. You're the guy that said the 21st century temperature trend "still fits" the Mann graph that went to the year 2000.

You seem to think that extrapolating what the future trends would look like using Mann's graph is somehow different from "predicting" what the future trends would be using Mann's graph. I don't see the difference, but to make you happy, I amended the wording in your greatest hit.

The abject stupidity of the statement remains.

Frankfooter said:

I said I could prove either you were acting like a troll or you are wrong.
In that case you were acting like a troll, since I made a mistake, admitted it and have never made it again.

So while you could claim I made that error once, to repeat your accusation that I still make that claim is totally wrong, and totally troll behaviour.

Click to expand...

Boo hoo.

The citation was accurate. Your challenge has failed. :thumb:

Frankfooter said:

Bullshit, I never said that Mann's chart had 'predictions' like you did.

Click to expand...

Frankfooter said:

Mann's historical reconstruction 'hockey stick' chart didn't have projections on it.

Click to expand...

I never said that Mann's graph had "projections on it."

For the record, my description of your statement said the predictions were made "from" the graph, not "on" the graph.

Mann was a lead author on the IPCC report that used the hockey stick graph as the source for its predictions. In fact, that was the basis for Mann's false claim that he was the recipient of a "Nobel Peace Prize."

Frankfooter said:

Liar.

Click to expand...

"From," my boy. The word I used was "from", not "on" (and I was summarizing your statement, not my views).

If you're going to insist on an amendment to your idiotic statement, then you can't take wild liberties when you're quoting me.

Furthermore, the point about the total idiocy of your statement stands. The predictions that were made using Mann's graph were completely wrong.

A mere six years later, the IPCC had to dramatically cut its predictions (although the predictions still remained too high) and was doing everything it could to distance itself from Mann and his rubbish.

Frankfooter said:

Nonsense, your accusation is that of a troll, you accuse me as if it were a continuing claim, yet it was a one time mistake, admitted and never repeated.
That is troll behaviour.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. I cited the date.

And it wasn't a one-off. What the greatest hits compilation shows is a running pattern of ignorance and bullshit.

omegaphallic said:

There is a massive energy revolution coming that will change everything about this debate.

Click to expand...

Putting aside your unkind comments about my carefully researched thread peace, you raise an interesting point.

I've often said that I share the views that were articulated in a lecture that was given by the late Michael Crichton. A key point that he made was that even if the climate researchers had the science right (and Crichton didn't believe that was the case), they had the sociology wrong.

What he meant is that the entire hypothesis is based on the premise that mankind's activities on this Earth will be the exact same 100 years from now as they are today.

Obviously, that's insane. Progress will continue to be made and we can't even begin to guess how societies will get their energy in the future.

The proponents of AGW insist it's all about the "science" and I'm quite happy to debate the incredibly dubious assumptions behind that claim.

But when it comes to the bigger picture, it doesn't matter. The future is unknowable and cannot be predicted, regardless of whether the climate researchers are right or not.