Final decision - Frankfooter lost the bet on global warming
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
Moviefan bet that the global anomaly wouldn't hit 0.83ºC this year.
Last year was reported as 0.74º by NASA, and we did an estimate that with IPCC projections that should it hit 0.83ºC in 2015 it would show both that the IPCC projections were accurate and moviefan's continual claims would be shown as false. Moviefan felt he was safe, as he doesn't believe in climate change.
But he's an idiot, and wasn't aware that both climate change was moving on and we were about to hit an El Nino year.
It hit 0.84ºC this November, moviefan said he wanted to settle early then started whining about old data.
Moviefan lost the bet.
He needs to pay up.
True, I should have known better then to think that a denier like moviefan could admit he was wrong and actually honour his own word and pay up.
Sigh.
I call bullshit.
You picked NASA as the most legit data and are only whining about them now that you are losing the bet.
They were your choice.
And for the record, we hit 0.84ºC by NASA's numbers.
That means you lost the bet.
Loser.
You two are something else, huh? You're both convinced you're right when you're both wrong. Your justifications for why the data supports your claims are biased by your viewpoints. The bet is unverifiable and therefore should be annulled.
I see you're responding to the voices in your own head again.
I didn't say they were "intentionally lying." But they have rushed to adopt a rather dubious methodology and change all of their numbers, while serious questions remain about their methodology and their calculations (you'll recall that representatives for the IPCC and the Met Office are among those who have challenged the findings).
Essentially, Frankfooter is arguing that 83 km per hour and 83 mph are the same speed, since they both say "83".
Moviefan-2
Please remember that this Frankfooter is not even a serious poster. He is a fifteen year old kid that regurgitates what his leftist teachers blurt out in an attempt to cry out for acceptance because, in his mom's basement, he has no other means of contact with the outside world. Note that he never posts a review, since he is too young to see women. His next fuck will be his first.
Actually, the reason that I made the bet is that future outcomes can't be "biased" by my viewpoints or the viewpoints of anyone else.
It is unfortunate that NASA made a total mess of the data mid-way through the year.
Let's put the bet aside. It remains a fact that the various comparisons of the IPCC's predictions with observed temperatures have shown that the IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong.
For example, here is a graph that was posted by Frankfooter (it comes from Hotwhopper.com) that compares the predictions with the HadCRUT4 data. It's up to date to the end of October. It shows that throughout the 21st century -- even in this super El Nino year -- the observed temperatures are well below what was predicted.
Indeed, in its own AR5 report from two years ago, the IPCC concluded that 111 of the 114 model runs that it uses for its predictions got it wrong. And that the three model runs that got it right had predicted stagnant temperatures.
You can disagree with me about the outcome of the bet. But you can't dispute that the IPCC's have been spectacularly wrong. That's undeniable.
By the way, I did a side by side comparison of the data sets for the months from January 2012 to May 2015 (the last month for which data exists on the old graph).
Every month is higher on the new graph.
Furthermore, if you check the past five full years (2010 to 2014), you find the difference for each year is at least 0.05ºC.
Thus, my conclusion that the final anomaly on the original graph would have been about 0.05ºC lower isn't just "biased" by my viewpoint. It is supported by the data.
And since the revised NASA graph shows the temperature today is lower than it was at the time we made the bet (and Frankfooter was losing at that time), the conclusion that I won the bet is overwhelmingly supported by the data.
We can't know what the exact number would have been on the old graph but we can confidently determine -- based on the data -- that it would have been far enough below 0.83ºC to conclude that I won the bet.
Last edited:
Right. You think they used a faulty methodology in their intentional attempt to make it look like there was no pause.
You claim it was a conspiracy while saying it wasn't a conspiracy.
Poll results: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?548822-Poll-who-has-won-the-global-warming-bet
Time to pay up, Frankie.
Sure do.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/was-the-global-warming-pause-a-myth/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rnment-for-records-in-global-warming-dispute/
Your problem is that you like to throw the word "conspiracy" around but you don't know what it means.
I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think they have been quite transparent in what they were doing.
Not sure about the details and stats but man made global warming / climate change is real.
My thinking is simple: more GHG (greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere = earth warms up due to sunlight trapping etc etc (what we learned in high school)
Man dig up fossil fuel and constantly creates this growing rate of EXTRA carbon dioxide in the air than it naturally would have. Population is growing exponentially, we'll reach 8 billion soon enough and we will consume more energy, which means man made CO2 rate increases all the time.
Man cut down trees which are nature's way of converting CO2 to O2, hence the rate of that is slowed constantly.
So, rate of CO2 in the air grows constantly.
Rate of natural transformation of CO2 to O2 decreases constantly.
Ermm, something got to give.
We either reduce emissions drastically or accept the consequences.
We are warming up in an unnatural way and I have no idea why there are still climate change deny-ers.
Lol, it's like talking to someone who is deteriorating when he's in his 40s and he'll come back and tell you it's not because of the hazardous environment he's working in but it's natural that we grow old and deteriorate. Lol... sure!
My thinking is simple: more GHG (greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere = earth warms up due to sunlight trapping etc etc (what we learned in high school)
Man dig up fossil fuel and constantly creates this growing rate of EXTRA carbon dioxide in the air than it naturally would have. Population is growing exponentially, we'll reach 8 billion soon enough and we will consume more energy, which means man made CO2 rate increases all the time.
Man cut down trees which are nature's way of converting CO2 to O2, hence the rate of that is slowed constantly.
So, rate of CO2 in the air grows constantly.
Rate of natural transformation of CO2 to O2 decreases constantly.
Ermm, something got to give.
We either reduce emissions drastically or accept the consequences.
We are warming up in an unnatural way and I have no idea why there are still climate change deny-ers.
Lol, it's like talking to someone who is deteriorating when he's in his 40s and he'll come back and tell you it's not because of the hazardous environment he's working in but it's natural that we grow old and deteriorate. Lol... sure!
I had a feeling that both subscribe to different premises, so there's still no winner.
Your belief that scientists are intentionally misleading the public for what you consider nefarious purposes does reach the insanity required for a conspiracytheory.
- Status
