Franky is both illiterate and innumerate.They made changes, but that's not altering data.
Very amusing, now you seem to think NASA has the power to actually change sea surface temperatures. NASA takes the data, the temperature reports from thousands of stations, and balances them to give us their best guess on the global temperature. The 'data' are the station reports, NASA never changes those.Franky is both illiterate and innumerate.
He clearly doesn't know what the word "altered" means and I'm convinced he doesn't know what the word "data" means.
(As an aside, in my original post about the bet and in all subsequent posts in that thread, I didn't use the word "altered." I said there had been "changes" to the sea surface temperatures: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544).
As stupid as your bet was, you are even stupider for lying about it. When the model change he posted saying that he did not want to continue in light of it. All you are doing here is lying, just like you always lie, in practically any debate you get into.Very amusing, now you seem to think NASA has the power to actually change sea surface temperatures. NASA takes the data, the temperature reports from thousands of stations, and balances them to give us their best guess on the global temperature. The 'data' are the station reports, NASA never changes those.
Regardless, you agreed to the bet, you agreed to continue with the bet after these changes and now have lost.
Deal with it.
There is no lying on my end.As stupid as your bet was, you are even stupider for lying about it. When the model change he posted saying that he did not want to continue in light of it. All you are doing here is lying, just like you always lie, in practically any debate you get into.
I happen to think MovieFan is wrong, and that global warming is a real thing, caused by humans. All you do is give people like MF the illusion that he has a point, by being such a lying clown that you discredit any cause you associate to. So please don't. There may even be people on terb who have come to doubt global warming after reading your posts--you're just that counterproductive.
Actually, what I said is that if we conclude that the May 2015 bet "stands," then we will be sticking with the ESSRTv3b graph that doesn't include "the changes."In post #33 there are quotes from movie fan agreeing to continue the bet after discussing the changes.
Realizing it is pointless debating with you, and that you had boxed yourself into an unwinnable position, I confirmed that the May 2015 bet on the ESSRTv3b graph "stands" and that I would agree to wait until the end of the year to settle up. And you agreed to that.Indeed, the ERSSTv4 chart didn't even exist when we made the bet in May. The bet was on the ESSRTv3b graph.
If you insist that the ESSRTv3b bet "stands," then there is no reason to wait until the end of the year to determine the results, as NASA has confirmed there will be no further updates to the ESSRTv3b chart.
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.
Let's not forget Frankfooter's response when I specifically asked him about including the newly weighted sea surface data in the bet. He said: "No."I have no idea what drugs you are on about other bets, but this one stands then.
I'm glad you're not going to weasel out.
Good on you.
You agreed to the terms, trying to change them now is cheating.
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 was Franky who ruled out any use of the "new NASA numbers" in the bet. As Fuji has correctly noted, Frankfooter is lying.You agreed to the terms, trying to change them now is cheating.
Perhaps. However, it's equally possible that some of the people who voted for Franky only voted that way because they don't care for my views on man-made global warming.In other words, some people who voted for moviefan, did so, simply because the other choice was footer.
No, that is a total lie.Actually, what I said is that if we conclude that the May 2015 bet "stands," then we will be sticking with the ESSRTv3b graph that doesn't include "the changes."
Wrong, the bet was never about the ESSRTv3b numbers, the bet was on the global anomaly that NASA reported on this page:Realizing it is pointless debating with you, and that you had boxed yourself into an unwinnable position, I confirmed that the May 2015 bet on the ESSRTv3b graph "stands" and that I would agree to wait until the end of the year to settle up. And you agreed to that.
07/17/15 - moviefan finds out about the changes, starts whining and tries to change the terms of the betThe important thing for me was to reaffirm that the bet was on NASA's numbers. I will keep this post bookmarked in case you try to weasel out of the bet in January.
07/18/15 - moviefan accuses NASA of fraud, tries again to change the terms of the betThe NOAA-adjusted bet between MF-2 and Frankfooter
…
Sadly, with all the Obama-driven revisionism that's been going on with NOAA's and NASA's temperature anomalies, we are left with no choice but to revisit the bet that Frankfooter and I made in May about the year-end anomaly for 2015.
…
Everything was going along fine, until the American NOAA rewrote all of the temperature figures to please the Obama administration. Using spurious methodology, NOAA rewrote the numbers to create the false impression the Earth's temperature has been warming in the 21st century (it hasn't).
…
If Frankfooter wants to accept the revised number, the bet continues.
Confirmation that the terms of the bet were for a global anomaly of 0.83ºC as reported by NASA on their climate change site:Sorry, but Enron-style accounting doesn't qualify as an actual temperature increase.
..
The adjusted bet is 0.86 degrees Celsius. Take it or leave it.
You have until the end of Sunday to decide whether or not you are taking the adjusted bet.
07/18/15 Moviefan still trying to cancel the bet or changes the terms of the bet:Nope, we bet on the global temperature for the year of 2015, weasel, bets not done until the end of the year unless you're ready to concede defeat already.
Nice try.
Same chart, new and improved calculations that are more accurate.If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
07/19/15 Moviefan agrees to continue the bet with no changes.So go ahead, weasel out and prove that you have no honesty.
Your choice.
And again, same day, moviefan agrees that the original bet stands.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.
By the terms of the original bet, which its clear moviefan agreed to, he has lost.In any event, it's settled. The bet that you and I made on May 10, 2015, stands.
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.
Regardless, you agreed to the bet, you agreed to continue with the bet after these changes....
No, that is a total lie.
You agreed to continue the bet as it stood with no changes.
Absolutely.Pretty well every prediction that has been made by the IPCC and the Rev Al Gore have been supremely incorrect.
You've been exposed as lying about agreeing to continue the bet on it its original terms now.Far more significant than the fact that he lost the bet is that Frankfooter is clearly insane.
For example:
And what do those numbers now read?If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
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.
Frankfooter says:No, that is a total lie.
You agreed to continue the bet as it stood with no changes.
No contradiction.Let's review this again, since Franky seems to be struggling to see the blatant contradiction.
Frankfooter says:
-- I agreed to use (some of) the new NASA numbers in the terms of the bet / I agreed to continue the bet as it stood with no changes.
Again, no contradiction.-- NASA's data sets are the "exact same" / NASA's updated graph has "new NASA numbers".
No, on this point you are lying, the terms of the bet were made on were based on the decadal projections by the IPCC, not your personal 'year to year' increase.For what it's worth, the original bet was whether the Earth would see a minimum temperature increase of 0.15ºC from 2014 to 2015 (an increase from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC).
The "new NASA numbers" only show an increase of 0.10ºC from 2014 to 2015. Yet, astonishingly, Franky still claims that he won.
By the way, the new numbers are coming in for December, though NASA's won't be out for about a week.We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.
For example, your NASA chart that shows 1995 at 0.43 degrees Celsius put 2014 at 0.68 degrees in 2014: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
For what it's worth, the original bet was whether the Earth would see a minimum temperature increase of 0.15ºC from 2014 to 2015 (an increase from the 2014 anomaly of 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC, according to the data that existed at the time of the bet).
From the original terms of the bet:No, on this point you are lying....
So, there we have it. Frankfooter says I am "lying" when I say that 0.83 - 0.68 = 0.15.For example, your NASA chart that shows 1995 at 0.43 degrees Celsius put 2014 at 0.68 degrees in 2014: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
Here is the post previous to your agreeing to the bet:From the original terms of the bet:
So, there we have it. Frankfooter says I am "lying" when I say that 0.83 - 0.68 = 0.15.
Remember now?You are cherry picking.
You just won't admit it.
There are only 2 dates you'll take of this bet, aren't there?
Doesn't that show how fucking lame your case is?
I can give you a whole ton of possible start dates, but your bet only has a small, tiny chance of working from 1995 or 2007.
That's the definition of cherry picking.
And you know what?
Even your 1995 bet stands a really good chance of losing.
You picked 1995 because it was a warm year.
0.43ºC anomaly according to NASA.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?
Did you check the temperature lately?
Do you know what the anomaly was for March of this year?
0.85ºC
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201503
How about the year to date?
0.82ºC
I think I'll take you up on your cherry picked date, but lets up the payoff.
2 books each, winner chooses the books, loser has to read the book and review it here to prove they read it.
Deal?
Is the bet on?
