★ Have you made up your mind on climate change, yet?

[Moviefan-2]

The bet ... was based on continually updated chart posted by NASA at this address:

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

All those statements agree that we made a bet based on your claim that the IPCC was 'spectacularly wrong' in their projection of warming of 0.2ºC per decade over the next century.

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).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

Click on the link in the bet above to see who won!

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Now you're going all weasel again and posting dodgy versions of old charts you claim are legit.

Why won't you use the live link to the NASA chart....

...weasel moves to avoid linking to the live chart we bet on.

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

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

LMFAO! :deadhorse:

A few random quotes repeatedly spammed won't change the basic fact that you lost the bet.


Once again, the bet was incredibly simple:

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 in the bet above to see who won!

0.87ºC
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop being a weasel.


Odds of moviefan being correct in his claim that all climate change we are experiencing is natural, as he likes to say.
0.01%
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...e-change-study

 

[Moviefan-2]

Once again:

The bet ... was based on continually updated chart posted by NASA at this address:

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

All those statements agree that we made a bet based on your claim that the IPCC was 'spectacularly wrong' in their projection of warming of 0.2ºC per decade over the next century.

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).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

Click on the link in the bet above to see who won!

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Now you're going all weasel again and posting dodgy versions of old charts you claim are legit.

Why won't you use the live link to the NASA chart....

...weasel moves to avoid linking to the live chart we bet on.

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

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

LMFAO! :deadhorse:

SPAM again!


Once again, the bet was incredibly simple, simple enough that even you should be able to complete it:

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 in the bet above to see who won!

0.87ºC
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop being a weasel.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Once again, the bet was incredibly simple...

The bet ... was based on continually updated chart posted by NASA at this address:

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

All those statements agree that we made a bet based on your claim that the IPCC was 'spectacularly wrong' in their projection of warming of 0.2ºC per decade over the next century.

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).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

Click on the link in the bet above to see who won!

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Now you're going all weasel again and posting dodgy versions of old charts you claim are legit.

Why won't you use the live link to the NASA chart....

...weasel moves to avoid linking to the live chart we bet on.

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

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

It's time to update Crybaby Frankfooter's greatest global-warming hits from the past few months.

- Nov. 10, 2015 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=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/showthread...=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/showthread...=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/showthread...=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/showthread...=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.

- Dec. 1, 2015 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5414060

- Dec. 5, 2015 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=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/showthread...=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/showthread...=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...=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...=1#post5466781

-- Feb. 8, 2016 -- A new gem. He claimed the graphs on NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet page were "fake": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5470561&viewfull=1#post5470561

 

[Frankfooter]

LMFAO! :deadhorse:

Hey Spam Weasel.
Check out how easy it is for me to place my entire claim in one post, using the one quote of the actual bet, including the link to the NASA page that shows you lost.
So easy when you're right, you don't need all those out of context quotes you keep repeating.


Once again, the bet was incredibly simple, simple enough that even you should be able to complete it:

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 in the bet above to see who won!

0.87ºC
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop being a weasel.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Check out how easy it is for me to place my entire claim in one post....

The bet ... was based on continually updated chart posted by NASA at this address:

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

All those statements agree that we made a bet based on your claim that the IPCC was 'spectacularly wrong' in their projection of warming of 0.2ºC per decade over the next century.

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).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Now you're going all weasel again and posting dodgy versions of old charts you claim are legit.

Why won't you use the live link to the NASA chart....

...weasel moves to avoid linking to the live chart we bet on.

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

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

You are nothing if not relentless.
Well, you are nothing and you are relentless.

Just to break up the monotony of the out of your cut and paste quotes, lets hear some of your favourites.

Maybe not. NASA has it lower and we did agree that we would use the NASA stats to decide the winner.

I'm satisfied with the existing terms of the bet and continue to like my odds. I'll stick with the bet as is.

The fact that most of the warmest temperatures (according to NASA and NOAA) have been in this century merely reflect the fact that the plateau was reached at about the turn of the century.

2014 was no warmer than 2005

Furthermore, the period from 1940 to the late 1970s shows there was a slight cooling in the Earth's temperature

The satellite data -- which are considered to be more reliable -- show there has been no statistically significant warming since December 1996.

More to the point, I told Frank that I want to see evidence.

-- Misleading statements about 14 of the 15 years since the turn of the century being the warmest on record. While it may be true that temperatures in the 21st century are consistent with the plateau at the end of the 20th century, it isn't evidence of increasing warming.

However, I wrote the terms of the bet that you accepted, and I clearly spelled out -- as you have confirmed in the quote that you cited -- that we were betting on whether the NASA graph that "put 2014 at 0.68 degrees" would increase to 0.83ºC by 2015.

-- We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC

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.

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

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.

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

And a reminder of what you are still unable to deal with, reality, climate change and the bet:
This was the bet:

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 in the bet above to see who won the bet!

0.87ºC
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/t
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop being a weasel.

You lost the bet.
As loser you 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

 

[Moviefan-2]

Check out how easy it is for me to place my entire claim in one post....

The bet ... was based on continually updated chart posted by NASA at this address:

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

All those statements agree that we made a bet based on your claim that the IPCC was 'spectacularly wrong' in their projection of warming of 0.2ºC per decade over the next century.

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).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Now you're going all weasel again and posting dodgy versions of old charts you claim are legit.

Why won't you use the live link to the NASA chart....

...weasel moves to avoid linking to the live chart we bet on.

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

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

Just to break up the monotony of the out of your cut and paste quotes, lets hear some of your favourites.

The difference is that I stand by what I said. Every one of my quotes is accurate.

We can't say the same about Crybaby Frankfooter's pearls of wisdom.

- Nov. 10, 2015 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=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/showthread...=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/showthread...=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/showthread...=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/showthread...=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.

- Dec. 1, 2015 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=1#post5414060

- Dec. 5, 2015 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...=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/showthread...=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/showthread...=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...=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...=1#post5466781

-- Feb. 8, 2016 -- A new gem. He claimed the graphs on NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet page were "fake": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5470561&viewfull=1#post5470561

 

[Moviefan-2]

Spam, spam, spam, spam. Everybody loves spam.

...all you've got left are a few cases of spam.

Dec. 20, 2015:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop whining.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...obal-warming&p=5429576&viewfull=1#post5429576

--

Feb. 10, 2016:

0.87ºC
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop being a weasel.

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

Dec. 20, 2015:


https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...obal-warming&p=5429576&viewfull=1#post5429576
Feb. 10, 2016:


LMFAO! :biggrin1:

Thanks for reminding us that you lost the bet first in December, when the November data pushed the 2015 global anomaly up to 0.84ºC, which was over our bet of 0.83ºC.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...obal-warming&p=5429576&viewfull=1#post5429576
When December's very warm data was reported by NASA in the middle of January, that pushed the global anomaly up to 0.87ºC, where the year finally ended up.

That makes it two months of weaselling around and refusing to admit that you lost.
Shame on you.


The bet was incredibly simple, simple enough that even you should be able to figure it out.

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 do is click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!

0.87ºC
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/t
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop being a weasel.

As loser you 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

 

[Moviefan-2]

The bet was incredibly simple...

The bet ... was based on continually updated chart posted by NASA at this address:

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

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).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

(NOTE: Some quotes from the previous posts were removed, as the total number was exceeding the allowable limit for Frankfooter insanity within a single post.)

 

[Frankfooter]

The choice of quotes only shows what a fool you are, moviefan.
You've even given up on claiming that you won, now you're just being a weasel and refusing to pay up.

Man up.

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 in the bet above to see who won the bet!
0.87ºC
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/t
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop being a weasel.

You lost the bet.
As loser you 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

 

[Moviefan-2]

That makes it two months.....

:Cry:

 

[Moviefan-2]

The bet ... was based on continually updated chart posted by NASA at this address:

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

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).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...d-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

The choice of quotes only shows what a fool you are....

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

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

LMFAO! :deadhorse:

Hey, speaking of dodgy charts and sources, the only other image up on your 'dvdfan05' moviebucket account is the one above.
Where did you get that one, another dodgy denier site? What editing did you do that image or the 'screen shots' from NASA?

And when are you going to stop using quotes out of context?
Do you have to be a weasel in every single post?
Why won't you post the full quote of this statement:

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'.

You agreed to continue the bet on its original terms, not to change the terms to your 'adjusted' numbers.

Now that you've stopped denying that you've lost the bet, its time to pay up.
And tell you what, I realize that even were you to read the books chosen for losing the bet, you really aren't smart enough to understand them.
So I'll give you a break.

Admit that you lost the bet and I'll let you off of reading and reviewing the two books you aren't smart enough to understand.
Fair?

Remember, you lost.

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 in the bet above to see who won the bet!

0.87ºC
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/t
You lost the bet.
Time to pay up.
Stop being a weasel.

You lost the bet.
As loser you 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

 

[Frankfooter]

:argue:

A poll to see whether 0.87 is higher then 0.83?
Why don't you take a poll on who won the Raptors game last night.
Idiot.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Where did you get that one, another dodgy denier site?

https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/media

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

("Another dodgy denier site"? You just know this one's going to make it into the next update of Crybaby Frankfooter's greatest hits. :thumb