He said he didn't know anything about the 'technical facts'.
Um... that actually proves that I'm right. He isn't quibbling with any one set of individual results. It is the entire approach of focusing on computer model predictions (rather than real-world evidence) that he is questioning.
I may be open to a bet, but your characterization of the bet is misleading. And you have the stakes backwards.
Let's start with the bet.
The bet is whether or not
Mann willingly made the computer codes and
all of the raw data available.
I'm not sure how you plan to fulfil this, but let's be clear on the required proof (
Hint: That means you actually have to read this part, Groggy):
-- You would have to provide evidence from an impartial, third-party source (ie., not skepticalscience.com or realclimate.org) that all of the raw data and the computer codes were provided.
-- It has to be all of the raw data, not some data.
-- The source of your evidence cannot be Mann himself, given all the problems the fake "Nobel laureate" has demonstrated when it comes to providing accurate information.
-- It must be clear in the evidence that Mann turned over the data voluntarily, not through a Freedom of Information request.
Now, on to what is being waged.
I'm surprised you don't know this, but let me explain to you what "double or nothing" means. It means that if the person who lost the previous bet loses again, he owes twice as much. If the person who won the previous bet loses, neither party owes anything.
The wager:
If you win, neither of us owe anything.
If I win, you have to purchase the Delingpole book from the previous bet, and you have to make a $25 contribution to Mark Steyn to support his legal fight against Michael Mann:
http://www.steynonline.com/6159/stick-it-to-the-mann-and-win-one-for-free-speech
I will need a clear answer. You must post the following:
I, Groggy, accept the terms of the bet in the exact way they have been described by MF-2 in post 698, and I accept the wager exactly as it has been described by MF-2.
If you post the above sentence, we have a bet.