★ 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/

That's the only chart, its live, still at the same address in the bet and still being updated.

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.

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

....still insisting on using non-legit source?

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

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

And there he goes again. This time, he's passing off a NASA graph as if it contains the HadCRUT4 data.

#4 - 0.745ºC and 0.85ºC in the same bad post

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

That's the only chart....

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

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

Crybaby Frankfooter just proved my point: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5475376&viewfull=1#post5475376

Glad to hear that your point is that you've tried to cheat the bet 5 separate times now.

The Five attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts' of Moviefan:

#1 - 0.86ºC

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

You have until the end of Sunday to decide whether or not you are taking the adjusted bet.

#2 - 0.766ºC

That works out to an average for the year of 0.766ºC -- well below 0.83ºC. According to the exact terms that Frankfooter insisted must "stand," Frankfooter lost the bet.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...made-up-your-mind-on-climate-change-yet/page8

#3 - 0.89ºC

The 0.74ºC anomaly for 2014 plus the originally agreed-upon year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC equals 0.89ºC.

If you want to propose a revised bet of 0.89ºC, you might get an agreement.

#4 - 0.745ºC and 0.85ºC in the same bad post

And 0.745ºC is nowhere near the IPCC "projection" of 0.85ºC for 2015 (which was derived from the same 1961-1990 baseline, as shown in the Hotwhopper graph).

#5 - Trying to replace the chart specified in the bet with a different chart at a different web address.

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

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

So many lies from you, so many times, such a weasel:
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

 

[Frankfooter]

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

LMFAO!

Sorry, weasel.

That's not the link we used for the bet, that's just you being a weasel and trying to cheat the bet yet again.
This was the bet, including the link to the correct chart:

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]

This was the bet, including the link to the correct chart:

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

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

That's the only chart, its live, still at the same address in the bet and still being updated.

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.

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

....still insisting on using non-legit source?

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

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

This was the bet, including the link to the correct chart:

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

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

:biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

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

:biggrin1:

More deliberate quotes taken out of context, in this case taking quotes about your dodgy use of photobucket weasel dick pictures.
Time to up the tally:


The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts' of Moviefan:

#1 - 0.86ºC

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

You have until the end of Sunday to decide whether or not you are taking the adjusted bet.

#2 - 0.766ºC

That works out to an average for the year of 0.766ºC -- well below 0.83ºC. According to the exact terms that Frankfooter insisted must "stand," Frankfooter lost the bet.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...made-up-your-mind-on-climate-change-yet/page8

#3 - 0.89ºC

The 0.74ºC anomaly for 2014 plus the originally agreed-upon year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC equals 0.89ºC.

If you want to propose a revised bet of 0.89ºC, you might get an agreement.

#4 - 0.745ºC and 0.85ºC in the same bad post

And 0.745ºC is nowhere near the IPCC "projection" of 0.85ºC for 2015 (which was derived from the same 1961-1990 baseline, as shown in the Hotwhopper graph).

#5 - Trying to replace the chart specified in the bet with a different chart at a different web address.

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

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

#6 Deliberate use of quotes out of context.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5475426&viewfull=1#post5475426

 

[Moviefan-2]

Time to up the tally:

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.

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

....still insisting on using non-legit source?

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

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

I would recognize this type of straw-man idiocy anywhere.

It's astonishing that so many stupid ideas could get captured in just four sentences.

Yes or no: Do you agree with NASA that the Earth's temperature has been "flattening" over the past 15 years?

I don't have any faith in NASA's numbers.

It's the bastardization of science by people with political agendas that upsets me.

I have no issue with the data Frankfooter provided.

Quotes for a weasel.

There is a belief -- widely held by thousands of scientists throughout the world -- that natural causes play a significant role in temperature changes. Indeed, the IPCC only claims that man-made factors were a primary cause of warming after 1950. Yet there was a warming trend in the early part of the 20th century that was as significant as the warming from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. If everyone is agreed that human activity wasn't the primary cause of warming in the early part of the last century, that pretty much leaves natural causes.

And, as we all should know, there was nothing unprecedented in the warming that occurred in any part of the 20th century.

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]

The difference between me and Crybaby Frankfooter, of course, is that I stand behind my quotes.

There is no dispute that we bet on a year-over-year increase of at least 0.15ºC.

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

:thumb:

 

[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.

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

....still insisting on using non-legit source?

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

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

The difference between me and Crybaby Frankfooter, of course, is that I stand behind my quotes.
:thumb:

Really, which of these quotes do you stand by?

I don't have any faith in NASA's numbers.

I have no issue with the data Frankfooter provided.

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.

That works out to an average for the year of 0.766ºC -- well below 0.83ºC. According to the exact terms that Frankfooter insisted must "stand," Frankfooter lost the bet.

When you do the math correctly, you get a revised bet of 0.89ºC

In any event, it's settled. The bet that you and I made on May 10, 2015, stands.

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

 

[Moviefan-2]

Really, which of these quotes do you stand by?

All of them, along with these.

Frankfooter wants to believe the Earth's temperature was going to magically go from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC in one year without necessarily increasing by 0.15ºC. That would be quite a trick.

There is no dispute that we bet on a year-over-year increase of at least 0.15ºC.

His entire claim about the bet is based on switching graphs.

But in the case of the bet, it's worse than that -- he's been cherry-picking numbers from different graphs to support his fairy-tale claims.

He's been using the 2015 anomaly of 0.87ºC from NASA's new graph (which changed in July 2015 to a completely different methodology for measuring sea surface temperatures), while insisting that I be held to the old graph for the temperature anomalies from 1995 to 2014.

Frankfooter says 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

When you do the math correctly, you get a revised bet of 0.89ºC -- regardless of whether you use 1995 or 2014 as your starting point.

 

[Frankfooter]

All of them, along with these.

Thanks for confirming that you are a clown who uses weasel words.

Those quotes have you claiming:
The bet was not based on a year over year time frame, as you have claimed.
The bet was for 0.83ºC, and that you confirmed you would hold yourself to that number.
Your 'math' attempt makes you a liar who won't honour his own words for trying to adjust a bet you said was 0.83ºC.

Now lets look at the quotes you dishonestly took out of context:

The bet you lost was based on continually updated chart posted by NASA at this address:
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 is the bet, the confirmation of the NASA chart, with a link included previously, and the number that chart needed to hit for the bet to be decided.

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.

Check the address of your 'chart' - http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss115/dvdfan05/nasa_zps0id0vcds.png
That's not NASA.

http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss115/dvdfan05/nasa_zps0id0vcds.png

First you fake quotes and now you're faking charts.
Weasel at work.

http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss115/dvdfan05/nasa_zps0id0vcds.png
Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.

You really are getting quite pathetic over your refusal to admit that you lost the bet.
Now you're down to copying and pasting random and out of context quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

You've lost every argument you've raised here, you have nothing left yet you continue to act like a foolish weasel and refuse to honour your word.

Why are you still refusing to admit you lost the bet?

 

[bishop]

Bishop, can you tell your king to let you know that calling climatology a 'non-science' parks you in a camp with AIDS deniers, 9/11 truther's, evolution deniers and holocaust deniers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

Frank is it obvious that you using CIMP5 is a mistake. Anyone other than yourself would just admit to the mistake as it is obvious. You do not admit your mistake and instead blabber on about this and that, and accuse me of thought crime as a distraction. It speaks about your character rather than speaks about global warming, regardless of the scientific merit of AGW, you are the last person that should speak on it's behalf.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank is it obvious that you using CIMP5 is a mistake. Anyone other than yourself would just admit to the mistake as it is obvious. You do not admit your mistake and instead blabber on about this and that, and accuse me of thought crime as a distraction. It speaks about your character rather than speaks about global warming, regardless of the scientific merit of AGW, you are the last person that should speak on it's behalf.

Nonsense, tell me what exactly makes you think that using CIMP5 is a mistake?
Show me exactly what you think is wrong with the science behind CIMP5.

As someone who claims to more about AGW then the vast majority of scientists in North America, someone who calls the work of the IPCC, 'non-science', show me exactly what grounds you are using to call CIMP5 a 'mistake'.

 

[bishop]

Frank, I am only saying you are retarded to use 2 years worth of predictions as evidence that the IPPC has been quite accurate. That is all I am saying at this moment.

CIMP5 could be all BS, or it could be perfect, in either case, 2 years worth of predictions is not evidence that the IPCC has been quite accurate.

If I am attacking anything, I am attacking your intellect or lack thereof, I am attacking your inability to admit when you are wrong when it is obvious you are wrong. Basically I am calling you a retard without a backbone.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank, I am only saying you are retarded to use 2 years worth of predictions as evidence that the IPPC has been quite accurate. That is all I am saying at this moment.

CIMP5 could be all BS, or it could be perfect, in either case, 2 years worth of predictions is not evidence that the IPCC has been quite accurate.

'Retarded'.
(I'll humour your use of that word for now)

CIMP5 builds on the work of CIMP3, which I showed you has what moviefan would call 'spectacularly accurate' projections, and a longer track record to prove it.
If you want 'retarded' claims, take a look at moviefan's statements, such as his belief that the fact that 15 of the 16 warmest years happened this century is all due to 'natural variability', a view which has been given a 0.01% chance of being correct.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...e-change-study

That is a 'retarded' claim.

If you've been following this thread, you'd know that the bet was based on how accurate the IPCC's projections are, it turned out they were quite good just as it turned out moviefan is a weasel who won't honour his word. Just as you've been shown that the earlier work of CIMP3 has been shown to be good, there is no reason to doubt that a new and improved projection would be better.

Now given that the IPCC has a much better track record then moviefan, wattsupwiththat, Tim Ball, Judith Curry or any of the other deniers, you have to look at the chart and accept that both the work seems accurate and the projections they are making into the future should worry you. Unless you're a cook who thinks that the vast majority of scientists are wrong and that work is 'non-science'.

 

[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.

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

The bet was not based on a year over year time frame, as you have claimed.

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

LMFAO! :biggrin1: