Poll - who has won the global warming bet

[fuji]

I did not vote.
But this board consists of forums participants that are mostly Conservatives and Centrist "liberals," so movie-fan is just getting the nod from his peers.
The scientific knowledge of most of the posters on Terb is on par with the average Stormfronter on race/genetic issues.

You are describing yourself. You are just about the most ignorant person on this board, and what you just admitted in this post is that you don't consider facts when forming an opinion.

You are clearly stating that you would judge who won the bet based on which side of the issue you are on. Rather than the facts.

For the record, I disagree with MF on this issue and believe we need to do more to combat climate change which clearly had a human cause.

But that does not mean MF lost this bet, and I cringe that a nitwit like groggy is trying to argue for climate change. Just like he utterly discredited the Palestinian cause with his incessant lying, he here is making it seem like only morons and liars think the science shows human causation for global warming.

The bet itself was pretty stupid and certainly wasn't any indicator of whether the science is right or wrong, so who won it is a question of fact to be answered without regard to your view on the issue.

But a biased, ignorant troll like you can't see objectively so you don't get that.

 

[twizz]

You are describing yourself. You are just about the most ignorant person on this board, and what you just admitted in this post is that you don't consider facts when forming an opinion.

You are clearly stating that you would judge who won the bet based on which side of the issue you are on. Rather than the facts.

For the record, I disagree with MF on this issue and believe we need to do more to combat climate change which clearly had a human cause.

But that does not mean MF lost this bet, and I cringe that a nitwit like groggy is trying to argue for climate change. Just like he utterly discredited the Palestinian cause with his incessant lying, he here is making it seem like only morons and liars think the science shows human causation for global warming.

The bet itself was pretty stupid and certainly wasn't any indicator of whether the science is right or wrong, so who won it is a question of fact to be answered without regard to your view on the issue.

But a biased, ignorant troll like you can't see objectively so you don't get that.

Facts are facts, you have a right to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Climate change and it's man made effects have been proven. If you MF cannot read a graph properly or stop cherry picking data then that's his fault. You need to stop twisting my words around, because it is a fact that most climate change deniers are Conservative. I'll the scientists who dedicate their lives to studying climate change over oil company shills anyday with respect to this topic.

You have the least credibility on this site with your support of war crimes, the breaking of international law, and of course the occupation by an open air prison where a recognized nation is being held. Not to mention your racism to blacks and arabs

 

[fuji]

Facts are facts, you have a right to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Climate change and it's man made effects have been proven. If you MF cannot read a graph properly or stop cherry picking data then that's his fault. You need to stop twisting my words around, because it is a fact that most climate change deniers are Conservative. I'll the scientists who dedicate their lives to studying climate change over oil company shills anyday with respect to this topic.

You have the least credibility on this site with your support of war crimes, the breaking of international law, and of course the occupation by an open air prison where a recognized nation is being held. Not to mention your racism to blacks and arabs

The question on this thread has almost nothing to do with the validity of climate change.

You just post mindedness bullshit.

First you admitted that you form your opinions without regard to facts, based on your biases alone, and now it is obvious that you don't even know what is being discussed here.

 

[Frankfooter]

Its quite sad that moviefan thinks the only way he can win the climate change bet is by a poll.

Here are facts.
Moviefan bet that the 2015 anomaly wouldn't hit 0.83ºC.
It hit 0.84ºC in November.

Moviefan complained that NASA changed some measurements, which negatively affected his side, and he tried to cancel the bet.
But he grudgingly agreed to continue.

Now, he claims that he won, despite having lost by the terms of the bet and despite being caught out agreeing to continue the bet with the NASA changes.

Moviefan lost.

 

[Insidious Von]

To all climate change deniers, you're all a bunch of Neros. Wanking off while Rome burns.

The latest evidence is the flooding in England, Yorkshire is almost under water, the city of York is getting tagged as the Venice of the North. The Lake District of Cumbria used to get soaked once a century, it has been hit with flooding three times in the past decade.

But hey, who am I to call the lot of you nimrods. Whatever makes you sleep at night.

 

[FAST]

To all climate change deniers, you're all a bunch of Neros. Wanking off while Rome burns.

The latest evidence is the flooding in England, Yorkshire is almost under water, the city of York is getting tagged as the Venice of the North. The Lake District of Cumbria used to get soaked once a century, it has been hit with flooding three times in the past decade.

But hey, who am I to call the lot of you nimrods. Whatever makes you sleep at night.

So a lot of rain, NOT oceans rising,... is flooding parts of England, is because of global warming ?

Meanwhile,...http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Uploads/2014/09/o-hurricanes.png

FAST

 

[fuji]

So a lot of rain, NOT oceans rising,... is flooding parts of England, is because of global warming ?

Meanwhile,...http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Uploads/2014/09/o-hurricanes.png

FAST

True. Though, sea levels have been rising too.

 

[Frankfooter]

So a lot of rain, NOT oceans rising,... is flooding parts of England, is because of global warming ?

Meanwhile,...http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Uploads/2014/09/o-hurricanes.png

FAST

How about the North Pole being above freezing around new years, care of Storm Frank, a hurricane strength storm?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ushes-north-pole-above-freezing-a6792141.html

That kind of freak storm is becoming very common.
More extreme weather and storms are what we should be expecting now.

And I note that moviefan is now staying off these threads since he's been caught out at promising to hold to the bet then lying and saying he didn't.

Moviefan lost the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This has all been explained to Frankfooter:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544

Regrettably, Franky is both illiterate and innumerate.

 

[FAST]

How about the North Pole being above freezing around new years, care of Storm Frank, a hurricane strength storm?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ushes-north-pole-above-freezing-a6792141.html

That kind of freak storm is becoming very common.
More extreme weather and storms are what we should be expecting now.

Will you please STFU about moviefan,...I did NOT mention him in my quote,...so why the hell would you.

As far as the weather at the north pole,...has happened before,...so again, nothing new,...is it,...!!!
And another "minor" point,..."There are no weather stations at the North Pole. But the findings came from weather forecast models run by the US government, which pulls together information such as data from satellites to estimate what the temperature would be in a specific area"

And still,...contrary to the Climate Change Cult,...hurricanes energy is down,...over the last 50 years, but I guess YOU don't classify hurricanes as
extreme weather??

As you enjoy name dropping,...here is another one of your hero's whoppers.

On the 13th of December 2008, in Saarland, Germany, at the opening of the new prehistoric exhibit, Gondwana Park, Al Gore stated that the “entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years.”

FAST

 

[bishop]

True. Though, sea levels have been rising too.

I am sure you know that sea level rise prior to the 20th century happened at roughly the same rate as after the 20th century and rate of sea level rise between 20k -100k years ago was much higher than it is today, you are just pretending to be ignorant and towards that end you are an unequivocal success.

 

[fuji]

I am sure you know that sea level rise prior to the 20th century happened at roughly the same rate as after the 20th century and rate of sea level rise between 20k -100k years ago was much higher than it is today, you are just pretending to be ignorant and towards that end you are an unequivocal success.

What I know is that it was higher rate 10k yrs ago when some big ice sheets completely melted, slowed after that, but was much faster in the 20th century than in the centuries preceding. That indicates much more warming in the last hundred years than previously.

I also know that the rate of rise itself has been accelerating for the last fifty years.

 

[Frankfooter]

This has all been explained to Frankfooter:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544

Regrettably, Franky is both illiterate and innumerate.

Regrettably, moviefan claims the bet is off because NASA changed how they weighted temperature readings by buckets in ships.
What he refuses to admit is that we had this discussion during the bet and he twice confirmed he would continue the bet with the new NASA numbers.

First, the confirmation that we discussed these NASA changes during the bet.

I conceded that NASA reported the anomaly figure for 2014 as 0.68, but I don't have any faith in NASA's numbers. More to the point, you can't take that anomaly number and insert it into an entirely different graph that is reporting entirely different numbers.

And then moviefan's very next post:

You say your position on the May 2015 bet is "the bet stands."

Fine. My position will also be that the May 2015 bet stands.

If you want to wait until January 2016 to settle up, that's fine with me. It's not going to help you. You're still going to lose.

and repeated again:

In any event, it's settled. The bet that you and I made on May 10, 2015, stands.

Moviefan claims the bet shouldn't have continued because NASA changed some weighting of measurements, but the problem is he already agreed to continue the bet.
Moviefan should stand by his own words and admit he lost the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Regrettably, moviefan claims the bet is off because NASA changed how they weighted temperature readings by buckets in ships.
What he refuses to admit is that we had this discussion during the bet and he twice confirmed he would continue the bet with the new NASA numbers.

It's funny how you like to quote me -- but you don't actually read my quotes.

There is nothing in any of my quotes that says I agreed to let you transfer the bet to a different NASA data set.

Nor did I say the "bet is off". I said you lost. Try reading the headline a little more carefully: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544

---

By the way, you missed the point in the second sentence from my first quote.

More to the point, you can't take that anomaly number and insert it into an entirely different graph that is reporting entirely different numbers.

Hmm ... it looks like I wasn't agreeable to mixing and matching numbers from different data sets without making the appropriate adjustments, as you're now trying to do.

And here was your response:

You can quite clearly use data from different sources if you adjust for the different baselines.

Gotcha!

 

[Frankfooter]

It's funny how you like to quote me -- but you don't actually read my quotes.

There is nothing in any of my quotes that says I agreed to let you transfer the bet to a different NASA data set.

Good, because there is no 'different data set'.
That claim, like most of what you write, is pure bullshit.

We've been over this again and again, NASA has never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings from ships with better information on the techniques used to make those measurements. In this case, the use of buckets for temperature readings altered the readings vs reading water temperature recorded in the water. This is the big change that makes you think that NASA 'altered' their data and that somehow makes their numbers no longer valid. But again, this kind of update goes on constantly from NASA, as previously noted with quotes from their FAQ page. It was up to you to be aware how NASA works when you took the bet. Those minor changes could have gone either way, but they aren't representative of 'a new data set', nor are they 'altered data'.

Its the same data set.

You bet that NASA wouldn't report 0.83ºC as the global anomaly for 2015, but its already hit 0.84ºC.
Those are the terms of the bet.

You lost.

 

[Moviefan-2]

To recap, Frankfooter's positions are:

-- "The bet stands" / The bet was changed.

-- NASA's data set was changed / NASA's data set wasn't changed (remarkably, as in the post above, he sometimes makes these competing claims in the same sentence :biggrin1.

-- You can compare numbers from different data sets if you make adjustments so the numbers are comparable / You don't have to make adjustments to compare numbers from different data sets.

It's a never-ending stream of bullshit. When one bullshit line is exposed, he just goes back to a different (and previously exposed) line of bullshit.

Clearly, Frankfooter has never understood what he was talking about. But that's his problem. The reality continues to be that he lost.

 

[Moviefan-2]

NASA has never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings from ships with better information on the techniques used to make those measurements.

I'm at a loss for words. :crazy:

 

[Frankfooter]

To recap, Frankfooter's positions are:

-- "The bet stands" / The bet was changed.

The bet was on what NASA would report as the 2015 global anomaly on this page:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
That chart will be updated and the final numbers will be added probably in a week or so.

-- NASA's data set was changed / NASA's data set wasn't changed (remarkably, as in the post above, he sometimes makes these competing claims in the same sentence :biggrin1.

Nope. The 'data' has never changed, only the weighting of some measurements.

-- You can compare numbers from different data sets if you make adjustments so the numbers are comparable / You don't have to make adjustments to compare numbers from different data sets.

There are no different data sets.
Same data, updated weighting to work with new data on bucket use in ship measurements.

Clearly, Frankfooter has never understood what he was talking about. But that's his problem. The reality continues to be that he lost.

0.84ºC is clearly higher then 0.83ºC, as reported by NASA.
That is what we bet on.

Whining about NASA updated their weighting of measurements, when its well known its something they do often, is only just whining.
You lost fair and square.

This was the bet:

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm at a loss for words. :crazy:

This is from a NYT article that you linked to about the changes in the weighting of the measurements:

When adjustments are made to compensate for recently discovered problems in the way global temperatures were measured, the slowdown largely disappears, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared in a scientific paper published Thursday.
....

For many decades, into the mid-20th century, the main measurements came from sailors hauling up buckets of seawater and plopping thermometers into them.

The buckets varied, the thermometers varied, and some of the sailors were more diligent than others about following instructions. On average, scientists believe, the water tended to cool off a bit before the temperature was recorded.

NOAA had long believed the data glitches from the buckets had largely disappeared after World War II, but new information suggests that bucket measurements continued on some commercial vessels long after the war. The new NOAA data set attempts to correct for this and other problems in the ocean records.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/s...nce-against-a-global-warming-hiatus.html?_r=0

Again, the 'data', the original measurements have never changed, those historic temperature readings from ships logs will never be 'altered' into a new data set, all that happened was those temperature readings were weighted differently to include new understandings of how those readings were made and the inaccuracies of those techniques. Calling this 'altered data', is a dishonest way to try to cop out of admitting that you lost the bet, moviefan.

 

[FAST]

I'm at a loss for words. :crazy:

"We've been over this again and again, NASA has never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings from ships with better information on the techniques used to make those measurements. In this case, the use of buckets for temperature readings altered the readings vs reading water temperature recorded in the water. This is the big change that makes you think that NASA 'altered' their data and that somehow makes their numbers no longer valid. But again, this kind of update goes on constantly from NASA, as previously noted with quotes from their FAQ page. It was up to you to be aware how NASA works when you took the bet. Those minor changes could have gone either way, but they aren't representative of 'a new data set', nor are they 'altered data'".

YA,...the guy must not even read his OWN posts, let alone anybody else's.

They made changes, but that's not altering data.

Must be a new language,..."I altered it, but I didn't change it", or is it, "I changed it, but I didn't alter it",...!!!

And it was your responsibility to have known at the outset that NASA was going to "be aware how NASA works",...I:E,...how they revise how data is represented,...which obviously makes their original data, no longer valid.

Plus, as has been said many times, why "update", is it because the previous data was wrong, OH I'm sorry, its just..."better information", if not, why update ?

And the latest, "new understandings of how those readings were made and the inaccuracies of those techniques"

FAST