Toronto Escorts

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

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
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?
When you have a link showing it comes from Schmidt, then it passes as legit.
Yes, that is a legit link and is acceptable.
LMFAO! :biggrin1:
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,245
19,158
113
http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss115/dvdfan05/moviefansweaselpictures.png
:Eek:
Thanks for showing why the charts you post from your photobucket are suspect.
That's not the 2015 NASA numbers now, is it?

Nope that's some old and possibly altered version that you grabbed about 6 months ago.

Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.

The correct chart is the live and legit one, posted on the NASA site as specified by you, in May of last year:
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.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,245
19,158
113
Wow, its almost like you are capable of learning, except you really aren't, are you?
Its been about a week of your cut and paste weasel act, where you are at the point where you don't deny you lost the bet, all you do is act like a weasel with random quotes.

Here's the simple rule:
1) charts you posted on photobucket are suspect because you are a weasel
2) links to direct sites are acceptable



Just man up and admit you lost the bet, you're out of arguments.
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

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
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.
NASA said:
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.
Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.
Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.
LMFAO! :biggrin1:
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,245
19,158
113
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!
Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.
Hey weasel, your out of context quote thing is getting really old and its really, really stupid.
Are you trying insinuate that I said those two statements together, as if I contradicted myself?

As if I ever stated that its 'a lie' that we bet on the NASA chart?
You really are getting lower and lower, and I didn't think that was possible.

Quote 1 was about the NASA link.
Quote 2 was about you weaselling around and posting possibly doctored images through photobucket.

How low are you going to sink?
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
The bet ... was based on continually updated chart posted by NASA at this address:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The link above is good, it goes directly to NASA.
It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.
NASA said:
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.
Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.
Quote 2 was about you weaselling around and posting possibly doctored images through photobucket.
Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.
LMFAO! :biggrin1:
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,245
19,158
113

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,245
19,158
113
Speaking of dodgy, check out how many faked links moviefan uses in his accusations, its time to update how dodgy everything he says is:

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
2 fake links

- 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.
Fake link

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
2 fake links

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

-- 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
Fake link
- 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
Fake link
-- 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
Fake link
-- 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
Fake link


Sure is a lot of faking of links and quotes there buddy.
You really are a lying scumbag of a weasel.

Why don't you just stop digging and admit you lost the bet?
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Speaking of dodgy, check out how many faked links moviefan uses in his accusations, its time to update how dodgy everything he says is:
The links were fixed two days ago. But it is time to update his 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 said 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

- Feb. 8, 2016 -- A new gem. He said 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. He repeated the claim on Feb. 13 when he said NASA graphs had been "possibly doctored": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5473971&viewfull=1#post5473971

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He dismissed NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's graph of temperature anomalies as "dodgy": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472913&viewfull=1#post5472913

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He said NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's Twitter account isn't "legit": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472991&viewfull=1#post5472991
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,245
19,158
113
Now, he says it's "denier math" and "moving the goal posts."


Hey dude, so you've been caught using faked accusations using fake links, posting dubious images on photobucket, lying about studies, using misquotes and yet you still continue to weasel around.

Lets remind you, the only quotes need are the ones that were 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






:biggrin1:[/QUOTE]
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,245
19,158
113
The links were fixed two days ago. But Franky's right, it is time to update his greatest hits
Back to tired old lies, I see.
Each one of them a weasel attempt to change the subject from you losing 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
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,245
19,158
113
The links were fixed two days ago. But it is time to update his greatest hits.
You do realize that each of the links you posted say nothing of what you claim, don't you?
Its just like that time you claimed that two studies showed there was no consensus on climate change with scientists and when I checked I found that you outright lied about the findings of those two studies:

For example, the American Meteorological Society survey showed about 15 per cent of respondents said natural causes are a significant factor and another 20 per cent said they don't know what is causing the warming (that's a large number that apparently believes in gods and magic). Assuming the results are reasonably consistent among all international bodies, my calculation is reasonable.
Furthermore, the Netherlands Environmental Agency conducted a similar survey in April 2012 of scientists with expertise in this area that was specific to the post-1950 period. It found 66 per cent support for the hypothesis -- once again, not a consensus.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses
As the author of the AMS study clearly stated:
We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

Clearly you are totally wrong about the findings of this study.
In fact, 48 per cent of respondents didn't support the IPCC's position on man-made global warming.
.
No.
That's not what the study found, they said:
"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."
.
And every one of those links you posted does the exact opposite of what you claim it does. Your 'feb 3' link, for instance, shows you were caught making up 3 different sets of numbers on your three different attempts at 'moving the goal posts' or cheating on the bet.

You really have no class or honour.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts