The End is Near

[Frankfooter]

My response to your request for a source,...


And your useless reply to that post,...


If you don't even know what a "source" means,...you have no business on this thread,...or any other thread that involves adult debating,...so your done,...until you grow up.

FAST

Providing a source means giving a link, not misspelling 'Nobel' as 'noble'.
I went and googled it, took me about 10 seconds, but of course I know how to spell Nobel, which makes it much easier.
Its not hard, if you could type it into the search bar without adding too many gratuitous punctuations, of course.

And I fully expect you never read the full speech, that you only copied a couple of lines from wattsupwithidiots or some other denier site. Because if you had read the original you'd never have made your incorrect claim.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I note that you've totally run out of arguments and now have to keep trying change the subject.

Au contraire. The fact that this is the third time you've welched on a bet on AGW is entirely on point.

Plus, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that you asked for proof when FAST said that your word is worthless. You asked for it -- you got it. :thumb:

And I notice that -- once again -- you don't actually dispute that you welched on the first two. So much for your "word is good" nonsense.

As for you paying up on the third bet, I'm prepared to give you about six months. That's plenty of time, even for a slow reader like you. If you haven't posted the first of the two reviews by then, we will officially conclude that you have welched on the third one, as well.

 

[Moviefan-2]

But if you want it to end all you need to do is convince moviefan that 0.87ºC is higher then 0.83ºC.

Bluecolt, this shouldn't be too difficult. All you need to do is convince me that 0.74 plus 0.15 adds up to 0.83.

 

[Moviefan-2]

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5461497&viewfull=1#post5461497

You provided two partial sentences, claimed Gore said one thing, wouldn't provide a source. I found a source and lo and behold it didn't say what you claimed it did.

Actually, it did.

The fact that Gore attributed the research to someone else doesn't change the fact that he said it.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Seven years from now.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html

 

[Frankfooter]

Au contraire. The fact that this is the third time you've welched on a bet on AGW is entirely on point.

There is only this bet.
The one you are welching on.

The bet with the number you chose, using the chart you chose based on the year you chose.
Instead of admitting you're wrong, you just went all denier, breaking your word, trying to move the goal posts, adding in conspiracy theories.

All you have to do is read the chart you picked to know that you lost the bet.

But as a denier and a weasel, you can never admit that, can you?

 

[Frankfooter]

Bluecolt, this shouldn't be too difficult. All you need to do is convince me that 0.74 plus 0.15 adds up to 0.83.

Only one of those numbers, 0.83, is part of the bet, trying to claim that we bet on either 0.74 or 0.15 is a total lie.

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.

Click on the link above.
It now reads 0.87ºC.

There is no reference to 0.74 anywhere in the bet.
You are full of shit.

 

[Moviefan-2]

There is no reference to 0.74 anywhere in the bet.

Well, look who just admitted that he is bullshitting.

The "reference" in the bet was to the 2014 anomaly at 0.68ºC (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5243530#post5243530). The 0.74ºC is from the "updated" graph that you insist on using -- that graph didn't even exist when we made the bet, and you know that.

Your "no reference" statement is utter bullshit.

Regardless, there was nothing in the "update" to the graph that would have affected the 0.15ºC increase from 2014 to 2015 that was clearly described in the original bet. The same number is just as legit now as it was when we made the bet.

It's going to be tough for you, Bluecolt, or anyone else to convince me that 0.74ºC plus 0.15ºC equals 0.83ºC.

In case you haven't figured it out, the 0.06ºC increase that you're bitching and moaning about came from NASA (try subtracting 0.68 from 0.74). The bet is 0.06ºC higher because NASA's 2014 anomaly is 0.06ºC higher.

 

[bluecolt]

Bluecolt, this shouldn't be too difficult. All you need to do is convince me that 0.74 plus 0.15 adds up to 0.83.

Moviefan-2,

I made no assertion. The equation is the concoction of your nemesis, Frankfooter.

 

[Frankfooter]

Well, look who just admitted that he is bullshitting.

The "reference" in the bet was to the 2014 anomaly at 0.68ºC (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5243530#post5243530). The 0.74ºC is from the "updated" graph that you insist on using -- that graph didn't even exist when we made the bet, and you know that.

Here's the bullshit:
1) The chart you chose for the bet is still live and being constantly updated, as it was when you agreed to the bet. Claiming that this chart was 'updated' and therefore needs 'adjusting' is an idiotic claim, as the chart had to be updated with 2015's numbers to judge the bet.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
2) As you admit, the number 0.74 was not discussed, mentioned or part of the bet.

The 0.74ºC is from the "updated" graph

3) The 'reference' as you put it, to 0.68 was only a reference to identify which chart we were using on the link above. It wasn't the bet.
As in, this isn't a bet, its a statement that identifies which chart we will use to judge who won the bet.

We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.
4) Claiming that the bet needs to be 'adjusted' to include a non-bet year of 2014 breaks your weasel word to honour the bet in its original terms.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5458647&viewfull=1#post5458647

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/

Four total bullshit lies in one post.

Four lies just to keep your denying going.
Must be sad to have to work so hard to deny reality.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The 'reference' as you put it, to 0.68 was only a reference to identify which chart we were using on the link above. It wasn't the bet.

More bullshit.

Since you insist (wrongly) that it makes some kind of difference whether we use the 1995 anomaly as the starting point, let's work from there. Maybe the math will work better for you if we use your starting point.

You posted a graph that showed a 0.43ºC anomaly for 1995 and we agreed to bet on whether there would be a minimum increase of 0.4ºC over 20 years.

That same graph proclaimed that 2014 was the warmest year on record at 0.68ºC -- an increase of 0.25ºC from the 1995 anomaly.

So we bet on the remaining distance from the original 1995 anomaly of 0.43ºC.

Using your 1995 anomaly as the starting point and the bet of a 0.40ºC increase, tell us what number you get when you subtract 0.25 from 0.40. :thumb:

 

[Frankfooter]

More bullshit.

Since you insist (wrongly) that it makes some kind of difference whether we use the 1995 anomaly as the starting point, let's work from there. Maybe the math will work better for you if we use your starting point.

You posted a graph that showed a 0.43ºC anomaly for 1995 and we agreed to bet on whether there would be a minimum increase of 0.4ºC over 20 years.

That same graph proclaimed that 2014 was the warmest year on record at 0.68ºC -- an increase of 0.25ºC from the 1995 anomaly.

So we bet on the remaining distance from the original 1995 anomaly of 0.43ºC.

Using your 1995 anomaly as the starting point and the bet of a 0.40ºC increase, tell us what number you get

0.83ºC

The number we made the bet on.
And what does the chart you picked now say the 2015 global temperature anomaly was?

0.87ºC
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Thank you for confirming that you lost the bet and are still trying to weasel out of honouring your word.

When are you going to buy the books, weasel?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Crybaby Frankfooter:

Are you serious? Do you honestly want us to believe that you don't know how to subtract 0.25 from 0.40?

Or that you don't know what the difference is between a 0.68ºC anomaly for 2014 (it sure wasn't being listed as 0.74ºC at the time of the bet, as you have helpfully pointed out) and 0.83ºC -- the pre-adjusted number "we made the bet on."

According to the Ontario math curriculum (see Page 56), a student should be able to answer questions such as 40 minus 25, or 83 minus 68, by the end of Grade 3.

https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/math18curr.pdf

Surely, even you must be able to do math at a Grade 3 level.

Let's try again: What number do you get when you subtract 25 from 40?

 

[Frankfooter]

Are you serious? Do you honestly want us to believe that you don't know how to subtract 0.25 from 0.40?

Or that you don't know what the difference is between a 0.68ºC anomaly for 2014 (it sure wasn't being listed as 0.74ºC at the time of the bet, as you have helpfully pointed out) and 0.83ºC -- the pre-adjusted number "we made the bet on."

Let's try again: What number do you get when you subtract 25 from 40?

Lets try again, weasel.
Look at the bet and tell me where you see the numbers 25, 40 or 74.

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.

Now, go to the NASA web page you picked, look at the chart that was live at the time of the bet and is live now.
And read me the number NASA came up with for the 2015 global temperature anomaly.

0.87ºC.
Which means you lost the bet, weasel.

Not 25, 40, 68, 74 or any of the other myriad of denier, goal post moving, numbers you've tried to pass as part of the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets try again, weasel.
Look at the bet and tell me where you see the numbers 25, 40 or 74.

I guess I made things too challenging for you by removing the decimal points.

Here you go. Here is your original post, where you bet on an increase of 0.40ºC over 20 years and where you posted a graph that showed the increase in the annual anomalies up to that point had been 0.25ºC:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243527&viewfull=1#post5243527

To figure out how much of an increase was needed for you to win the bet, all you have to do is subtract 0.25ºC from 0.40ºC.

Come on, Crybaby Frankfooter -- a Grade 3 student in Ontario can figure out the difference. Surely, you can do it, too.

 

[Frankfooter]

I guess I made things too challenging for you by removing the decimal points.

Here you go. Here is your original post, where you bet on an increase of 0.40ºC over 20 years and where you posted a graph that showed the increase in the annual anomalies up to that point had been 0.25ºC:

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5243527&viewfull=1#post5243527

To figure out how much of an increase was needed for you to win the bet, all you have to do is subtract 0.25ºC from 0.40ºC.

Come on, Crybaby Frankfooter -- a Grade 3 student in Ontario can figure out the difference. Surely, you can do it, too.

Hey weasel, explain again why you think the goal posts need moving on this very simple bet.
As you noted:

you bet on an increase of 0.40ºC over 20 years

Explain again why you think you need to break your word and adjust the bet by your random 0.25 number?
What happened to your other goal post moves, like when you demanded the bet be changed to 0.86º, those goal posts weren't far enough?
Explain why you think that instead of just reading the number on the chart, as you said in the original bet, we need to instead do this weird, denier math business.

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.

Tell me why you don't just read the number, but that you have to move the goal posts with your random number.
Its really fucking funny.
Do it one more time for me, weasel.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Explain again why you think you need to break your word and adjust the bet by your random 0.25 number?

"Random"? LMFAO.

The graph that you posted when we made the bet showed an increase in the temperature anomaly from 0.43ºC in 1995 to 0.68ºC at the end of 2014.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img633/3926/1lTpKo.png

There's nothing "random" about 0.25ºC -- that's the difference between the two anomalies that you posted, you innumerate clown.

And 0.15ºC was the remaining difference between the 1995 anomaly and the 0.83ºC anomaly that we bet on.

My numbers all come from the original bet. It's over, Crybaby Frankfooter.

 

[Frankfooter]

"Random"? LMFAO.

The graph that you posted when we made the bet showed an increase in the temperature anomaly from 0.43ºC in 1995 to 0.68ºC at the end of 2014.

Random, yup.
One day you claim the bet has to be moved to 0.86ºC.

The adjusted bet is 0.86 degrees Celsius. Take it or leave it.

Another day you claim 2005 was as warm as 2014, but no, you want to 'adjust' a bet on 1995-2015 with 2014's numbers.

2014 was no warmer than 2005

And another time you try your hand at denier math and you got another number.

That works out to an average for the year of 0.766ºC -- well below 0.83ºC.

That's really fucking funny.
So many really stupid attempts at moving the goal posts.
Each one stupid on its own, but put them together and you're a fucking clown.

All you have to do is read the number off the chart, that chart that you picked. All these attempts at 'moving the goal posts' are pathetic, whiny attempts at cheating.
Each and every one.

This was 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.

All you need to see who won the bet is click on the link and read the number.

0.87ºC
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop trying to change the goal posts, weasel.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Crybaby Frankfooter:

All you do is wail and wail -- with loads of bullshit -- and say nothing.

The numbers I cited came from the original bet, from the graph that you posted. NASA reported last month that the temperature anomaly in 2015 did not increase to the level that you needed it to -- and you're in no position to argue, since you never completed Grade 3 math (which likely means you never made it past Grade 3).

It's over. You lost.

:closed_2:

 

[Moviefan-2]

It's time to update Crybaby Frankfooter's greatest hits:

- Nov. 10, 2015 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404144&viewfull=1#post5404144

- Nov. 21, 2015 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

Nov. 27, 2015 -- This is still one of my favourites. He posted a graph that he said shows the "IPCC's projection" for 2015: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5410384&viewfull=1#post5410384. Then, after it was explained to him that the graph shows the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, he said it was "not an IPCC projection" and ran away from his own graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739

- Nov. 29, 2015 -- He said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of the global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.

- Dec. 1, 2015 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5414060&viewfull=1#post5414060

- Dec. 5, 2015 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416886&viewfull=1#post5416886. In fact, the graph came from Columbia University and uses the entirely different NASA data.

-- Jan. 8, 2016 -- He said NASA has "never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings....": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5443355&viewfull=1#post5443355

- Jan. 10, 2016 -- He said I was "lying" when I said that a temperature change from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC is an increase of 0.15ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5445053&viewfull=1#post5445053

-- Feb. 3, 2016 -- He says the calculation that the average of 0.75 + 0.82 + 0.84 + 0.71 + 0.71 is 0.766 is "denier math": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466417&viewfull=1#post5466417

 

[Frankfooter]

The numbers I cited came from the original bet

No, you are lying your face off again, weasel, and you can't even keep your story straight.
How many times have you tried to 'move the goal posts' with numbers like 0.15, 0.25. 40, 0.86, 0.766 or 0.89, none of which are part of the bet you agreed to.
How many times to I have to remind you that you also promised to continue the bet on its original terms, yet keep trying to break your word with every attempt to 'move the goal post'?

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.

Click on the link above.
It now reads 0.87ºC.

Moviefan lost the bet.
As loser he must buy these two books, read them and review them here:
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/05...=as2&tag=grlasbl0a-20&linkId=F7NQQFQ4THAO2JDE