Poll - who has won the global warming bet

[Frankfooter]

Here you go:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5445145#post5445145

Great, so this is the statement in full that you say we are in agreement on:

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet. But the terms of the bet were clear, they were based on the global anomaly hitting 0.83ºC, not 0.83ºC + 'whatever it takes to make moviefan win'.

I'm glad you are on agreement with that statement, and not trying to dishonestly misquote me.
As you and I now clearly agree, the bet was on the IPCC decadal projection for 2015 at 0.83ºC, not the year over year difference.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Great, so this is the statement in full that you say we are in agreement on:


I'm glad you are on agreement with that statement, and not trying to dishonestly misquote me.
As you and I now clearly agree, the bet was on the IPCC decadal projection for 2015 at 0.83ºC, not the year over year difference.

That's odd. After you accused me of lying, you neglected to acknowledge that you did accept that it was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC. Nor did you apologize for falsely accusing me of lying.

To be honest, who really cares whether you're prepared to acknowledge that 0.83 minus 0.68 equals 0.15. That is an irrefutable truth, whether you acknowledge it or not.

NASA reported that the year-over-year increase was only 0.13ºC -- less than the year-over-year minimum increase of 0.15ºC that was in the bet.

The 0.83ºC number came from the pre-adjusted graph. If you want to use that graph to measure the results (which is actually what we both agreed to in July), that's fine with me.

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

Franky, I really hope you're not going to go back to arguing that 83 km per hour and 83 mph are the exact same speed because they both have "83" in them. :biggrin1:

We bet on a number, not a formula.

 

[Frankfooter]

Let's review some of the highlights from Frankfooter's various postings.

-- Frankfooter doesn't know what "weighting" is.

-- Frankfooter doesn't know what the word "adjusted" means.

-- Frankfooter doesn't know what the word "data" means.

-- Frankfooter insists there is no one at NASA who knows how to change the content on a web page.

-- Frankfooter says "only in denier math" is it believed that 0.43 plus 0.4 must add up to the same thing as 0.68 plus 0.15.

-- Frankfooter said I was "lying" when I said that 0.83 minus 0.68 equals 0.15.

-- Frankfooter said I was "lying" and that it is "ridiculous" to believe that 0.74 plus 0.15 equals 0.89.

Frankfooter is both illiterate and innumerate.

He doesn't understand science, he doesn't know how to read graphs and table sets, and he can't even do basic math.

The only statement in that list that is correct is this one:

-- Frankfooter says "only in denier math" is it believed that 0.43 plus 0.4 must add up to the same thing as 0.68 plus 0.15.

Lets be clear, your use of the number 0.89ºC is total bullshit.
Any inclusion of 2014 in a bet on the change between 1995 and 2015 is total bullshit.
Any claim that the bet was on the difference between 2014 and 2015 is total bullshit.
Any claim that the bet should be changed because of any changes in NASA's weighting or reporting of temperatures is total bullshit, moviefan agreed to continue the bet on its original terms after those changes.

This was the bet and note that the bet was on 2015 hitting 0.83ºC, nowhere in that bet is there a mention of 0.89.

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.

And here's moviefan's statement on how we arrived at that bet.

The bet was based on the IPCC's predictions of temperature increases of 0.2ºC per decade, not numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.

Any attempts to try to reference 2014 in a bet on the difference between 1995 and 2015 are total bullshit denier math.
Or as moviefan calls it in that quote, ' numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.'

Its too bad his word is worth shit.

Moviefan, you lost the bet.
Buy the books.

 

[Frankfooter]

That's odd. After you accused me of lying, you neglected to acknowledge that you did accept that it was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC.

To quote a statement in which I declared that it had nothing to do the bet and then to claim that I 'agreed' with you that was part of the bet is about as low as I've seen you go moviefan.
And that's impressive.

You tried to misquote me, used a bad link to try to get away with it, and now have been shown to still be trying to deliberately lie about a statement I made.
You are pathetic.

You should apologize.

 

[Moviefan-2]

To quote a statement in which I declared that it had nothing to do the bet and then to claim that I 'agreed' with you that was part of the bet is about as low as I've seen you go moviefan.

Actually, you challenged me to provide a quote that proved that you agree that my calculation of the year-over-year increase was correct. The quote I provided confirmed that point.

The 2014 anomaly was clearly described in the terms of the bet. You know that.

What's worse is that you're now arguing that 0.83 minus 0.68 only comes to 0.15 if you "agree" to it? I'm adding that to the list.

Here is the updated list of Frankfooter's highlights.

-- Frankfooter doesn't know what "weighting" is.

-- Frankfooter doesn't know what the word "adjusted" means.

-- Frankfooter doesn't know what the word "data" means.

-- Frankfooter insists there is no one at NASA who knows how to change the content on a web page.

-- Frankfooter says "only in denier math" is it believed that 0.43 plus 0.4 must add up to the same thing as 0.68 plus 0.15 (he reaffirmed his claim in post 185 above).

-- Frankfooter said I was "lying" when I said that 0.83 minus 0.68 equals 0.15.

-- Frankfooter says 0.83 minus 0.68 doesn't necessarily equal 0.15. It depends on whether or not he has "agreed" to that answer.

-- Frankfooter said I was "lying" and that it is "ridiculous" to believe that 0.74 plus 0.15 equals 0.89.

 

[K Douglas]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/

Good discussion of 2015. According to RSS dataset 2015 is the 4th warmest year on record (since 1979). And this with a record El Nino.
Also important to note that Dr Spencer's blog has been under attack for the past month trying to silence his voice. Wonder why that is.

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, you challenged me to provide a quote that proved that you agree that my calculation of the year-over-year increase was correct. The quote I provided confirmed that point.

The 2014 anomaly was clearly described in the terms of the bet. You know that.

The 2014 anomaly was only used in reference to identifying the NASA chart that we used for the bet.
Otherwise it had nothing to do with a bet on the change from 1995-2015, as stated by the quote.

What's worse is that you're now arguing that 0.83 minus 0.68 only comes to 0.15 if you "agree" to it? I'm adding that to the list.

False.
Once again, the bet clearly was on the number 0.83ºC, 0.68 was referenced only in identifying the chart we agreed to use for the bet.
We did not bet on 0.68.

Here is the updated list of Frankfooter's highlights.

-- Frankfooter says "only in denier math" is it believed that 0.43 plus 0.4 must add up to the same thing as 0.68 plus 0.15 (he reaffirmed his claim in post 185 above).

Denier math:
Stating that 0.43 + 0.4 = 0.68 + 0.15 = 0.89
That's denier math.

-- Frankfooter said I was "lying" when I said that 0.83 minus 0.68 equals 0.15.

Nope, more bullshit.

-- Frankfooter says 0.83 minus 0.68 doesn't necessarily equal 0.15. It depends on whether or not he has "agreed" to that answer.

Nope, more irrelevant bullshit.
You can pride yourself on getting one simple math addition correct as much as you like, but as you clearly stated, the bet was on 0.83ºC.

-- Frankfooter said I was "lying" and that it is "ridiculous" to believe that 0.74 plus 0.15 equals 0.89.

Nope, more irrelevant bullshit.
You can pride yourself on getting one simple math addition correct as much as you like, but as you clearly stated, the bet was on 0.83ºC.


One more time, this was the bet:

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.

The chart at that same address reads 0.87ºC, you lost.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Moviefan's statement confirming that he was continuing with the bet on the original terms of the bet after we discussed the NASA changes.

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.

The attempt to 'retroactively' adjust the bet to a different number based on NASA changes is in direct conflict with your statement that you were continuing the bet on its original terms.
Have you no shame?
You lost the bet, pay up.

 

[Frankfooter]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/

Good discussion of 2015. According to RSS dataset 2015 is the 4th warmest year on record (since 1979). And this with a record El Nino.
Also important to note that Dr Spencer's blog has been under attack for the past month trying to silence his voice. Wonder why that is.

Spencer makes this claim by ignoring all surface temperature reports and looking only at less accurate satellite recordings of the lower troposphere.
If you also live in the clouds, or the lower troposphere, then by all means use this as your climate record.
For the rest of us humans who live on the surface, we can safely ignore Dr Roy Spencer.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The 2014 anomaly was only used in reference to identifying the NASA chart that we used for the bet.
Otherwise it had nothing to do with a bet on the change from 1995-2015, as stated by the quote.

Once again, the bet clearly was on the number 0.83ºC, 0.68 was referenced only in identifying the chart we agreed to use for the bet.

More Frankfooter insanity.

In addition to his repeated assertion that no one at NASA knows how to change a web page, he is now providing his analysis of what was going through my mind when I wrote the terms of the bet.

Thank goodness we have access to a magical guy like Frankfooter, who's able to retroactively read my mind and tell me what I was thinking back in May. :thumb:

Meanwhile, let's not forget this pledge:

I'm content to honour the bet as we made it.

The year-over-year increase that was described in the terms of the bet was a minimum of 0.15ºC, and Franky said he would "honour the bet as we made it."

 

[bishop]

Spencer makes this claim by ignoring all surface temperature reports and looking only at less accurate satellite recordings of the lower troposphere.
If you also live in the clouds, or the lower troposphere, then by all means use this as your climate record.
For the rest of us humans who live on the surface, we can safely ignore Dr Roy Spencer.

You moron, you have no idea why satellite data is a much better dataset. satellites give a consistent set of data using a consistent set of measuring tools.

You know what the alternative is? the alternative is that NASA/NOAA gets to adjust their bucket temperature whenever they want to. The alternative is to find places on earth that are consistent with each other, you will not find even 2 places on earth with exact same conditions. The alternative is to change all the electronics in each temperature probe on earth so that it uses the exact same electronics. Guys like you love to use ground based reading because there is a large enough variance in methods, tools, placements, etc... that you can insert your AGW unicorn of a theory through there.

Frank you are just a moron of the highest degree. You lost the bet, accept it, stop acting like a child, you lost because you are stupid, you can only blame your own stupidity.

 

[Frankfooter]

The year-over-year increase that was described in the terms of the bet was a minimum of 0.15ºC, and Franky said he would "honour the bet as we made it."

Again, the bet as you described it was not a year over year bet, it was based on a 0.2ºC per decade IPCC projection between 1995 and 2015.

The bet was based on the IPCC's predictions of temperature increases of 0.2ºC per decade, not numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.

Lets look at the bet, one more time.
This time lets start with my challenge and then your reply.
My challenge:

So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?

Your reply:

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.

Note that the first sentence of your reply says we need to confirm what chart we used for the results
Your second sentence identifies the chart with references to data on the chart at the time, then confirms the chart with a web address.
The third sentence contains the terms of the bet, that sentence makes it clear the bet was on the global anomaly hitting 0.83ºC as reported by NASA.

That, you idiot, is the bet as we made it.

As for this idiotic statement:

In addition to his repeated assertion that no one at NASA knows how to change a web page,

Its a stupid statement that has no bearing on anything I've said or reality.
The web page referenced in the bet showed NASA's most current reports on the global temperature, enter the same web address today and you find NASA's most current reports on the global temperature, including a chart updated with the latest reports.

Those reports record 2015's anomaly as 0.87º, which shows that I won the bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

You moron, you have no idea why satellite data is a much better dataset. satellites give a consistent set of data using a consistent set of measuring tools.
.....
Frank you are just a moron of the highest degree. You lost the bet, accept it, stop acting like a child, you lost because you are stupid, you can only blame your own stupidity.

Bishop, I had no idea you were that stupid.

Do you also think that 0.87 is lower then 0.83?
Do you also think that the best place to measure surface temperature is in the clouds, or the lower troposphere?
Are you aware of temperature reports from higher up in the atmosphere, do you think those are also relevant?

Are you accusing NOAA, NASA, MET, Berkely, Japan and all other climate monitoring groups of fraud, of 'adjust their bucket temperature whenever they want to'?
That's an accusation of fraud, that all of those organizations are all fraudulently adjusting their reporting in sync.
And your source for this information is a creationist, Dr Roy Spencer?

If you're going to get into this debate, you need to do your homework first.

 

[bishop]

That is the problem, you are too stupid to know that you are stupid.

 

[Frankfooter]

That is the problem, you are too stupid to know that you are stupid.

You accused NOAA, NASA and the MET office of fraud.
You believe the words of a creationist, Roy Spencer, on science over the words of NASA and the IPCC.

And then you accused me of being stupid.
Sorry dude.
Eat it.

 

[bishop]

Frank do you know anything about statistical models? I am sure you think you do but you do not, there is a concept called garbage in garbage out. Now to me a stastistical model without controls is not science, a statistical model based on a non consistent dataset without controls is worse than the former, I would call it retardience.

I do not know if roy spencer is a creationist, I am only saying that satellite data is a better dataset because it is consistent and can measure the entire temperature of the atmosphere around earth. If roy spencer believes that gravity is falls by the square of the distance, would you say he is wrong because he is a creationist? Hint: gravity does fall by the square of the distance.

Anyways all you care about is titles, if someone with a PHD says you are the sharpest knife in the drawer, you would believe it but only because you are duller than a spoon.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank do you know anything about statistical models? I am sure you think you do but you do not, there is a concept called garbage in garbage out. Now to me a stastistical model without controls is not science, a statistical model based on a non consistent dataset without controls is worse than the former, I would call it retardience.

I do not know if roy spencer is a creationist, I am only saying that satellite data is a better dataset because it is consistent and can measure the entire temperature of the atmosphere around earth. If roy spencer believes that gravity is falls by the square of the distance, would you say he is wrong because he is a creationist? Hint: gravity does fall by the square of the distance.

Anyways all you care about is titles, if someone with a PHD says you are the sharpest knife in the drawer, you would believe it but only because you are duller than a spoon.

The only reason Spencer or Watts or any of the other deniers keeps focusing on satellites is that there has been a divergence between satellite and surface temperatures since about 2012. And since the satellite temps show a tiny bit cooler, Spencer et al will only look at them. Satellite data has issues, as all methods, good science adjusts for those. For instance all satellite's rely on balloon data for calibration, yet the recent balloon data doe not show good confirmation with the microwave based satellite data. For a serious look, with proper references, on the issue read this:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/ted-cruz-just-plain-wrong/

And if you are so set on the infallibility of satellite data, I assume you have to also accept their reports of sea level rising, which confirms one of the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

Roy Spencer is a creationist, he testified to the senate that the theory of creation has more scientific credence then the theory of evolution:
Check this video @ 3h 23m 10 seconds
http://www.senate.gov/isvp/?type=live&comm=epw&filename=epw071813

And finally, the satellite data show that the last three months were the warmest ever recorded.
Do you agree with those findings?

Do you also agree with the satellite findings show on these graphs?

 

[bishop]

The only reason Spencer or Watts or any of the other deniers keeps focusing on satellites is that there has been a divergence between satellite and surface temperatures since about 2012. And since the satellite temps show a tiny bit cooler, Spencer et al will only look at them. Satellite data has issues, as all methods, good science adjusts for those. For instance all satellite's rely on balloon data for calibration, yet the recent balloon data doe not show good confirmation with the microwave based satellite data. For a serious look, with proper references, on the issue read this:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/ted-cruz-just-plain-wrong/

And if you are so set on the infallibility of satellite data, I assume you have to also accept their reports of sea level rising, which confirms one of the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

Roy Spencer is a creationist, he testified to the senate that the theory of creation has more scientific credence then the theory of evolution:
Check this video @ 3h 23m 10 seconds
http://www.senate.gov/isvp/?type=live&comm=epw&filename=epw071813

And finally, the satellite data show that the last three months were the warmest ever recorded.
Do you agree with those findings?

Do you also agree with the satellite findings show on these graphs?

It does not matter what their motivations are to argue correctly that satellite data is more accurate, it does not change the fact that satellite data is more accurate.

Do you know that Newton kept a kiln next to him at all times, do you know why? It is because that crazy motherfucker believed in alchemy, now are you going to throw out his work on gravity because he had ambitions to turn lead into gold?

Do you know that stephen hawking is a selfish prick? That he dropped his wife who took care of him for years for a younger woman. Does that invalidate his work on black hole physics?

Science does not give a sh*t about motivations, about assholes, about anything other than provable and testable theories. You care about motivations because AGW is not scientific, it is political and in the world of politics it is about about surface BS.

I expect satellite data to sometimes have issues, but you are telling me that there are less issues with 10000 temperature probes spread across the world and people taking water temperature measurements using a bucket? If one guy dies from a bad reaction to insulin, does that mean all diabetics should stop taking insulin?

I have no idea if the last 3 months was warmest, I will give you that, I will give you that the last 3 years was the warmest, f*ck I will give you that the last 30 years was warmest. Where is your control to show the statistical significance ? You got none. It is the same as me saying that Apple stock fell 5% last week, and thus after 20 weeks that Apple will be bankrupt. Or me walking into a casino, betting on red 3 times, winning and concluding that if I continued to bet on red then I will be the richest man on earth.

 

[Frankfooter]

It does not matter what their motivations are to argue correctly that satellite data is more accurate, it does not change the fact that satellite data is more accurate.

We are not talking motivations, we are talking about the scientific credibility of someone who thinks that the bible is more true then Darwin and evolution, someone who believes in a faith that says the earth is 6000 years old.
If that's your idea of scientific credibility, and you have based on your total trust in Spencer against the work of all of NASA, AAAS, NOAA and the IPCC aren't, then your confirmation bias is really outstanding.

I expect satellite data to sometimes have issues, but you are telling me that there are less issues with 10000 temperature probes spread across the world and people taking water temperature measurements using a bucket? If one guy dies from a bad reaction to insulin, does that mean all diabetics should stop taking insulin?

I thought you said you understood statistics, didn't you just say this?

Frank do you know anything about statistical models?

Do you not think 10,000 samples gives a better chance of accuracy then just a handful?
Use your stats, buddy.

 

[bishop]

You only need to look at credibility if you do not have a clue about what people are talking about. For things that you can comprehend, you can use your own mind and not rely on others. Of course that is foreign to you because you know nothing and just rely on people with titles to tell you what to think. Science does not care about credibility, it cares about testable and provable theories. A patent clerk can change the world of science without a proper title or credentials, a serbian immigrant who grew up in a religious household and schooling can change the world of science and electrify the world, a lowly shop boy with no formal education can reconcile electricity and magnetism. In case you have no idea what i am talking about, which I am sure you do not, the first is Einstien, the 2nd is Tesla, the 3rd is Faraday. Those are the ones I know off the top of my head.

For the record I do not know who spencer is, I do not give a shit who he is. I am responding to your post that Satellite data is garbage and taking measurements using inconsistent methods is better.

Do you not think 10,000 samples gives a better chance of accuracy then just a handful?
Use your stats, buddy.

That is not stats you idiot, you are mixing up quality with quantity, knowing the difference between the two has nothing to do with stats.

 

[Frankfooter]

You only need to look at credibility if you do not have a clue about what people are talking about. For things that you can comprehend, you can use your own mind and not rely on others. Of course that is foreign to you because you know nothing and just rely on people with titles to tell you what to think. Science does not care about credibility, it cares about testable and provable theories. A patent clerk can change the world of science without a proper title or credentials, a serbian immigrant who grew up in a religious household and schooling can change the world of science and electrify the world, a lowly shop boy with no formal education can reconcile electricity and magnetism. In case you have no idea what i am talking about, which I am sure you do not, the first is Einstien, the 2nd is Tesla, the 3rd is Faraday. Those are the ones I know off the top of my head.

For the record I do not know who spencer is, I do not give a shit who he is. I am responding to your post that Satellite data is garbage and taking measurements using inconsistent methods is better.

Spencer is the one who is trying to claim that the surface temperatures used by the MET, NASA, NOAA, Berkely and Japan don't count as much as satellite data. So far you accused NASA and NOAA of fraud, or fixing the numbers, and your only source has been the creationist, Roy Spencer. If you are going to slander all of NASA and NOAA, you really should check where you bought your slander.

If you note my replies I've given you summaries in my own words, with links to back up my points, with reasons why its idiotic to use only readings from the lower troposphere from satellites in a debate about surface temperatures, including reasons and questions you can't answer, like why are satellite temp readings different from balloon temp readings, since satellites use balloons for calibration.

You can go on trying to compare the creationist, Spencer, with Einstein and Tesla if you really want. But all its doing is confirming your views are based on confirmation bias, not reason.

I am responding to your post that Satellite data is garbage

I said that satellite reports in the lower troposphere are not relevant in a discussion about surface temperatures, I'm really shocked that you fell for such a lame and basic denier spin, I had thought you smarter then that. Spencer fooled you into making claims about the lower atmosphere as if they were surface temperature readings or as if they somehow 'proved' that the NASA and NOAA surface temperatures had been 'manipulated'. But its just as ridiculous as claiming sea surface temperatures show that its warm in death valley. Its really that stupid a claim, propagated by a creationist who is funded by the oil industry.
Stoooopid.

Enough of this.

Its still time for moviefan to stop trying to cheat, lie, fake quotes and generally avoid admitting that he lost the bet.

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.

That was the bet.
That chart now reads 0.87ºC.

Moviefan lost.