Poll - who has won the global warming bet

[bishop]

Look frank, my opinion is that satellite data is a more consistent set of data, if it was me doing the analysis; I would use satellite data, unless specifically the analysis was for ground temperatures. In the context of global warming, you can use satellite data or you can use ground data, so long as you acknowledge the source. Now that is my opinion, if other people think differently, that does not mean I am accusing them of fraud. Can you get that through your stupid head?

My source is logic, it is not this spencer guy. Do you understand logic? Do you understand that it is better to measure a large area of temperatures using a single tool and method rather than making a large number of individual non consistent measurements?

You lost the bet because you are stupid, stop being a child, accept the loss and move on.

 

[FAST]

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.
.

Here's the problem with your lack of understanding,...I'm being polite here.

Were do you think Japan for example,...gets its data,...and I'm using the term "data" loosely here,...from,...???

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

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.

Going from the second sentence to the third sentence, we confirmed that we were betting on an increase from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC.

That's an increase of 0.15ºC, regardless of whether or not you "agreed" with that math.

The reality is this: Your numbers don't add up. You keep getting a different temperature anomaly for 2015, depending on what year you start with. And you want to avoid your failed math by simply ignoring the numbers that prove your calculations don't add up, such as the year-over-year increase from 2014.

The Earth only has one temperature and NASA can only have one temperature anomaly for 2015.

Unlike you, I get the same number for the IPCC prediction regardless of whether I start from 1995 or 2014. And that number is 0.89ºC.

 

[Frankfooter]

Going from the second sentence to the third sentence, we confirmed that we were betting on an increase from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC.

Nope, more bullshit.

Lets look at the bet, one more time, including a more detailed look at my challenge and your reply and we'll back up a couple of posts:

The challenge part 1:

Nope.
My terms are either:
1985 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade
1986 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade

or
1996 for 2 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade


Why won't you take them?
Cherry picking issues?

If you think the IPCC work is crap, then it shouldn't matter in the least which date you take?
Why won't you take those dates?

Is it because of cherry picking, your argument only works on one or two years?

C'mon take the bet.

You replied with your choice of dates

The IPCC report was released in 1995. The only way to make it fair and to avoid any concerns about "cherry picking" is to use 1995 as the starting date.

Otherwise, I might be more inclined to pick 1997 or 1998 as the starting dates.

But we can't cherry pick. The only way to make it fair is to pick 1995 as the starting date.

Do we have a bet?

I confirmed 1995 as the starting date.

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?

Note all references to dates were based on the 0.2º per decade IPCC projection based on a starting date of 1995.
Not 2014.
There is not one single reference to this bet having anything to do with a year over year increase or 2014 in the picking of dates.

And finally you confirmed the bet as a decadal bet from 1995-2015, adding extra care to confirm which chart published by NASA we'd use to judge the results.

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 finally, my confirmation of the bet, with an extra note that you were foolish enough to take this bet on an El Nino year.

Ok bets on.
Using that NASA figure of 0.43ºC anomaly for 1995 and waiting for the 2015 NASA anomaly figures to come out.


Hey, did you hear about El Nino.
70% chance it continues past June.
Its gonna be a hot one this year.

Bookmark this page, loser.

And once more, confirmation from you that the bet was decadal, not based on 2014-2015.

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.

I ask you once again:
Were you lying when you said the bet was based on the IPCC's projections of 0.2ºC decade based off a 1995 start?

 

[Frankfooter]

The reality is this: Your numbers don't add up. You keep getting a different temperature anomaly for 2015

No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.
The bet was on the number that NASA reported as the global anomaly, all you need to do is read the number.

The temperature anomaly is 0.87ºC as reported by NASA on chart of Global temperatures published on the page referenced in the bet.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

You don't need denier math to read that number.

The bet was whether it would hit 0.83ºC.
You lost.

 

[GPIDEAL]

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

This would destroy his credibility, but perhaps on this one area, as I know a very smart gent with many credentials and who has done great research and papers on the Kennedy Assassination (pro-conspiracy), but who has written a paper on why he has problems with evolution.

However, the world is older than 4,000 years (or whatever Creationists say) by many, many other examples (eg. claim that weapons of war were found in 10,000 year old fossils by anthropologists, or that there's evidence of the greatest volcanic eruption on Earth, located in Italy (Rome/Naples area IIRC) that has been carbon dated to 35,000 years ago).

 

[GPIDEAL]

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.

I gave an example of a very smart gent (Michael T. Griffith) who has researched the Kennedy Assassination better than any defense attorney and who can easily make a case for conspiracy based on evidence (scientific, forensic, legal & other), but who questions evolution. He is a devout Mormon. Ironically, those who cling to the lone assassin theory (almost with religious fervor), discredit Griffith based on his embrace of Creationism.

Having said that, when you speak of 'motivations', I think it goes beyond that. Creationism to me is an ad hoc or convenient renunciation of science, a cherry picking if you will, based on religious blind faith, and not reason. Can it invalidate a denier of AGW? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[Frankfooter]

Creationism to me is an ad hoc or convenient renunciation of science, a cherry picking if you will, based on religious blind faith, and not reason. Can it invalidate a denier of AGW? Maybe. Maybe not.

Agreed, there are good scientists who are religious. Creationism is a pretty wacko branch for a scientist however, at the very least it should make you look into his claims before you start supporting them. And in this case Spencer's work for the Heartland Institute, amongst others, clearly labels him as more of a lobbyist then a scientist, which is also shown in that he hasn't published any respectable work on the issues either. So here its easy to pick out his anti-science bias through creationism, work for oil industry funded lobbyists like the Heartland Institute and then its also quite easy to pick his claims to pieces as well. It just doesn't stand up on any level.

 

[Frankfooter]

The reality is this: Your numbers don't add up. You keep getting a different temperature anomaly for 2015
....

The Earth only has one temperature and NASA can only have one temperature anomaly for 2015.

The bet requires no math, the number we bet on was specified in the bet as a fixed number, 0.83ºC.
And as you stated, NASA only has one temperature anomaly for 2015 as reported, and that's 0.89ºC.
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?

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.

No math required, all you need to do is read the chart linked to in the bet.
It shows you lost.

 

[Moviefan-2]

No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.

We now have official confirmation that Frankfooter's numbers don't add up. :thumb:

Apparently, in his world, "no math is needed" when you transfer a bet from one data set to an entirely different data set.

In the real world, however, ... :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

Allow me to share a quick -- and relevant -- story that involves Dr. Roy Spencer.

Back in 2014, Frankfooter -- who was then posting as Groggy -- made his first-ever bet with me on an anthropogenic global warming matter. In that case, the bet was whether or not I could name three climate researchers at publicly funded universities (because we know how much people like Groggy hate anyone who works in the private sector) who don't support the IPCC's position on global warming.

I quickly provided three names -- Dr. John Christy, Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Roy Spencer. All three fulfilled the terms of the bet, in full.

Frankfooter (Groggy) immediately threw a temper tantrum. He blathered on about Spencer's religious views (which had nothing to do with the terms of the bet) and said the bet was unfair because he hadn't actually read the terms of the bet when he accepted it.

Old-fashioned stick in the mud that I am, I explained to him that when you accept a bet, the expectation is that you read the terms before you agreed to them.

Sadly, the way he is behaving after he lost this most recent bet comes as no surprise.

If I had known back in May 2015 that Frankfooter was actually Groggy, I wouldn't have made the bet (at the time, I thought Frankfooter was mongrel4u, aka Lovehobby, Mr. Big, etc.).

I wasn't worried about the outcome. It was a pretty safe bet, even in what proved to be a super El Nino year. The reason I wouldn't have made the bet with this particular person is because of all the wailing that goes on after he loses.

 

[AK-47]

Trying to be neutral in this whole thing, but dr. John Christy is actually a huge emerging expert on the skeptic side of the whole thing. And he used to work for the IPCC, so he should know a thing or two about global warming you would think:

https://www.youtube.com/results?lr=...&gl=CA&q=Dr. John Christy warming&sa=N&tab=w1

 

[AK-47]

Franky, watch all Dr. Christy's depositions if you wanna learn something:

 

[Frankfooter]

We now have official confirmation that Frankfooter's numbers don't add up. :thumb:

Apparently, in his world, "no math is needed" when you transfer a bet from one data set to an entirely different data set.

In the real world, however, ... :biggrin1:

No math is needed to transfer a bet when you agree not to transfer or change the bet from its original terms, as you did.
This quote is your confirmation that the bet would continue on the original terms 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.

Why do you now think the bet needs to be 'transferred' after you confirmed that the original bet stood as it was?
Is your word that worthless?

 

[Frankfooter]

Franky, watch all Dr. Christy's depositions if you wanna learn something:

Learn something, like how he and Dr Roy Spencer fudged the satellite data 10 years ago?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/errors-cited-in-assessing-climate-data.html

Tell you what, summarize what he's saying, provide the data to back up the claim and I'll talk with you.
That I can do in 5 or 10 minutes, but watching 5 John Christy videos?
I'd rather poke needles in my eyes.

 

[Frankfooter]

We now have official confirmation that Frankfooter's numbers don't add up. :thumb:

These are the two numbers we are concerned with:
0.83ºC - the number we bet on
0.87ºC - the number NASA reported

The only math needed is to state that 0.87 > 0.83

Apparently, in his world, "no math is needed" when you transfer a bet from one data set to an entirely different data set.

Again, you stated that the bet was still on based on the original terms, after we discussed the NASA changes.
That means you confirmed that the bet needed no 'transfer' or 'adjusting', all it needed was to check the 2015 NASA report on the global anomaly.

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.

Claiming that the bet needs to be 'transfered' or 'adjusted' is in direct conflict with this statement.
Keep your word, loser.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Why do you now think the bet needs to be 'transferred' after you confirmed that the original bet stood as it was?

Because NASA changed its data set last July would appear to be the all-too-obvious answer.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/v3b+v4_lrg.png

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

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5413209#post5413209

It actually makes no difference to me. As I pointed out when we settled up in December, Frankfooter loses regardless of whether you use the pre-adjusted data or the adjusted data.

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

That said, I'm easy to get along with.

NASA's new graph updated all of the current years - 2013, 2014, 2015 - the same way. So, if you want to apply the original terms of the bet while avoiding all those messy adjustments, all you have to do is examine the year over year increase from 2014 to 2015.

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius).

The fact remains that 0.13ºC is less than 0.15ºC.

 

[Frankfooter]

Because NASA changed its data set last July would appear to be the all-too-obvious answer.

We had this discussion June 18th of this year, and you confirmed you would continue the bet on its original terms regardless of the changes at NASA.
You are trying to be a weasel and renege on your own promise.

June 17, talking about these very same changes at NASA the first time around:

It had to have different data anyways, that chart only 2014's data on it.
They haven't 'switched' data, they adjusted the formula they use to amalgamate all the data they get from various sources.
Its a constant process and it gets better every year, as witnessed by their 'spectacularly accurate' predictions.

But as a reminder this is 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.

They still have the same chart up there, with updated figures.

So either you give up and forfeit the bet, admitting that you are wrong, or we wait until the end of 2015 and you can pay up then.
Your choice.

But trying to weasel out of a bet is a chicken ass, cheating, lowlife move.
Then again, you've been caught lying about two studies and either being too stupid or dishonest to read another chart you posted and lied about.
So go ahead, weasel out and prove that you have no honesty.

Your choice.

Your reply:

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.

You said you would continue the bet on its original terms.
Keep your word, weasel.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I kept my word.

In the original thread about the outcome of the bet, I fulfilled my obligations by providing the names of the two books that Frankfooter is to review as the loser of the bet. Here they are again:

- A Disgrace to the Profession, by Mark Steyn
- Climate Change: The Facts, edited by Alan Moran.

The reality is this:

-- You can use NASA's original pre-adjusted graph.

-- You can use NASA's "updated" graph with the new data.

-- You can use the calculations from 1995 as your starting point.

-- You can use 2014 as your starting point.

-- You can avoid all of the data on the graphs and simply compare NASA's reported year-over-year increase with the terms of the original bet.

It doesn't make any difference. No matter how you calculate it, you always get the exact same result:

Frankfooter lost.

 

[Frankfooter]

I kept my word.

No, you keep trying to claim the bet needs to be 'adjusted' from the number we bet on, 0.83ºC.
Every attempt to claim the bet needs to be 'adjusted' breaks your promise.
First you tried to change it to 0.86ºC and since that started losing your new imaginary number is 0.89ºC.
Trying to change the bet retroactively is breaking your word, weasel.

The reality is this:

-- You can use NASA's original pre-adjusted graph.

The only graph needed is the one that was referenced in 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 chart is now updated with 2015's numbers, showing 0.87ºC and that I won the bet.

-- You can use NASA's "updated" graph with the new data.

Again, the chart you chose for the bet is updated with 2015's data, showing I won 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.

-- You can use the calculations from 1995 as your starting point.

As we did when we committed to the bet.

-- You can use 2014 as your starting point.

No you can't.
That is where you are full of shit, as you have noted, the bet was based on decadal projections, in this case 1995-2015.

The bet was based on the IPCC's predictions of temperature increases of 0.2ºC per decade.

-- You can avoid all of the data on the graphs and simply compare NASA's reported year-over-year increase with the terms of the original bet.

No you can't, the bet was on a fixed number based on decadal projections.
You are lying when trying to claim this, let me remind you again:

The bet was based on the IPCC's predictions of temperature increases of 0.2ºC per decade.

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.

It doesn't make any difference. No matter how you calculate it, you always get the exact same result:

Again, no denier math is needed, you don't need to calculate anything.
The bet was on whether the global temperature anomaly, as published by NASA, would hit 0.83ºC, as published on the chart available at this address:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

All you need to do is read that chart, or even easier, read the number that NASA posts as 2015's global temperature.
That number is 0.87ºC.

I won the bet.