★ Have you made up your mind on climate change, yet?
- Thread starter Ceiling Cat
- Start date
Not you too?
Sounds like another article that came from moviefan's favourite denier site, wattsupwiththat, before moviefan ran away to hide after being embarrassed by losing the climate change bet.
Which means its most likely total nonsense, as just about everything is that comes from there.
Talking about 100 degree hot days in the US isn't the same thing as talking about the global climate, for instance.
If you really want to talk climate change look at this chart and tell me if you think it shows a world warming up or not.
When they can accurately predict the weather next week, next month, 6 months from now... let alone TOMORROW, maybe then, I will start to trust their predictions of 100 years from now.
One thing I can guarantee you...
The weather is ALWAYS changing.
One thing I can guarantee you...
The weather is ALWAYS changing.
We are talking climate, not weather.
And yes the climate changes, but it has never gotten this warm this fast before in our history.
Just as CO2 levels have never been this high as long as humanity has existed.
How many times does the TERB membership have to tell you that I won the bet?
Frankly, the only thing that embarrassed me was your admission that you were unable to complete Grade 3 math.
"Al" is quite the expert on science and math. Here's an updated version of Frankfooter's greatest hits of the past few months.
- 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
-- Feb. 4, 2016 -- He called it "lying your face off" when I said the difference between 0.43 and 0.68 is 0.25: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466781&viewfull=1#post5466781
- 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
-- Feb. 4, 2016 -- He called it "lying your face off" when I said the difference between 0.43 and 0.68 is 0.25: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466781&viewfull=1#post5466781
Temperatures have been steadily rising since the mid-20th century. Since this is an established fact, and none of the causative factors are changing, no predictions are required.
Denier math, you mean.
Like how you tried to claim how the bet should be changed to different numbers 3 different times, 3 times you tried to 'move the goal posts', each time you ran the numbers through your denier math and each time you came up with a different number.
All to try to cheat and claim you didn't lose, when all you need to do is read the number off the chart you picked in the bet.
One day you claim the bet has to be moved to 0.86ºC.
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.
And another time you try your hand at denier math and you got another number.
So many really stupid attempts at moving the goal posts.
Each one stupid on its own, but put them together and you're a clown whose denier math skills are so bad the numbers come different every time you try your 'math'.
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:
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.[/QUOTE]
Still trying to change the topic from the bet you lost and refuse to honour your word on?
Shame, moviefan.
Shame.
Here we go again. On Feb. 4, Crybaby Frankfooter said I was "lying" when I said the difference between 0.43 and 0.68 is 0.25.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466781&viewfull=1#post5466781
Now, he says it's "denier math" and "moving the goal posts."
I don't believe in climate change. I believe the planet goes through climate cycles. The last 2 winters make me believe that the planet isn't really warming up at all.
Besides,are these the same scientist that say the planet was much warmer when the dino's were around.
Cycles,that's all it is.
Besides,are these the same scientist that say the planet was much warmer when the dino's were around.
Cycles,that's all it is.
Climate is not a global phenomenon, it's regional. Anyone with half a brain can see that. You're the true denier - denying the overwhelming evidence that shows the models are wrong and that the movement is political not scientific.
Yes, here we go again.
I forget, which of your attempts at 'moving the goal posts' are we on?
Are you claiming that you think the bet should have been changed to 0.68, 0.766, 0.86 or 0.89?
You tried to cheat so many times, despite having promised to 'keep your word' and honour the bet as we made it that its really hard to keep track of which excuse you're on.
And as you stated, the bet doesn't require any math, all you need to do is go to the chart you picked, which is still live and being updated, and read the number NASA found for the global anomaly.
0.83ºC, the number we bet on.
And what did NASA give us as the number for 2015's global temperature anomaly?
0.87ºC
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
As you said in the bet, you only need to read the number of the chart, no 'denier math' weirdness or attempts at 'moving the goal posts' needed.
Too bad you won't keep your word, weasel.
And what does Crybaby Frankfooter's "updated" graph show as the global temperature anomaly for 2014? According to Crybaby Frankfooter's "updated" graph, the anomaly for 2014 is 0.74ºC.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Although Crybaby Frankfooter says I'm "lying," every person who actually passed Grade 3 math knows that 0.74ºC plus 0.15ºC equals 0.89ºC.
And every person -- except, apparently, Crybaby Frankfooter -- knows that 0.87ºC is less than 0.89ºC.
See, there you go acting like a weasel again and both breaking your word to honour the bet and trying to 'move the goal posts' again.
First you whined and begged to change it to 0.86, then you claimed it should be 0.766, now you're doing this really stupid claim that a bet on 1995-2015's temperatures should be adjusted to 2014's temperature.
Talk about incredibly stupid.
Remember when you whined and begged after doing your denier math the first time and begged to change the bet to 0.86ºC?
You can't even keep your numbers or your dates straight anymore, or remember that you clearly stated the bet was based on 1995-2015. Trying to 'adjust' the bet to 2014 is just you acting like a weasel and trying to 'move the goal posts', a typical cheat with you science deniers.
0.83ºC
And remember that you also said the result of the bet would be found by reading the number off of NASA's chart, no 'moving of the goal posts' needed.
Click on the link for the chart, its live and the result is 0.87ºC.
You lost the bet, weasel.
Man up and pay up.
Last edited:
Climate change or not, it is not wise for us to continue to pollute the atmosphere. There are consequences that we can not forecast nor imagine.
But this whole climate change industry is driven by big money. Trading carbon credits (and the commissions that are paid to the brokers and taxes to government) is a pure cash grab.
Until I hear a government start talking about phasing out ships burning that awful shit called bunker fuel and China and the ROTW starts slowing down on burning coal, I am not taking any of it seriously.
Nuclear power can dramatically reduce pollution but fear precludes it's widespread acceptance.
But this whole climate change industry is driven by big money. Trading carbon credits (and the commissions that are paid to the brokers and taxes to government) is a pure cash grab.
Until I hear a government start talking about phasing out ships burning that awful shit called bunker fuel and China and the ROTW starts slowing down on burning coal, I am not taking any of it seriously.
Nuclear power can dramatically reduce pollution but fear precludes it's widespread acceptance.
