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

[Moviefan-2]

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/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

Weasels will be weasels and deniers will continue to deny.

:thumb:

 

[Frankfooter]

Sigh.

Same old bullshit, eh?
No arguments, no claims, just weasel dicked 'out of context' quotes.

You really are showing how hopeless and weak your claims are.
They are becoming so flaccid that you the only 'new' argument you tried was an incredibly stupid attempt to shift the goalposts through using the wrong baseline.
Shoddy, lame and very flaccid.

So lets document, once more, the 6 different times you've tried to cheat the bet, as the denier weasel you are.
First the bet, the very simple and easy 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.

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.

And then your lame assed weasel moves, the six times you've tried to cheat:
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:

Weasels will be weasels and deniers will continue to deny.

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The bet was very simple and easy...

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/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

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

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

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?

No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.

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

:thumb:

 

[Moviefan-2]

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

Frankfooter says 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

I have never said any such thing, its yet another weasel move, an out and out direct lie.

Your math is irrelevant, we bet on 0.83ºC and that number only.

:biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

In another desperation move, Franky says I am "lying" when I say that 0.74 plus 0.15 equals 0.89. :biggrin1:

Frankfooter says 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

I have never said any such thing, its yet another weasel move, an out and out direct lie.

Your math is irrelevant, we bet on 0.83ºC and that number only.

:biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

So much weaselling around with misquotes and even still your post makes no sense.
Its really stupidly 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.

In the news, the arctic 4ºC warmer this winter:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/w...ctic-where-temperatures-are-4-c-above-average

 

[Moviefan-2]

Its really stupidly simple:

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/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

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

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

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?

No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.

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

:thumb:

 

[Moviefan-2]

Frankfooter says 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

I have never said any such thing, its yet another weasel move, an out and out direct lie.

Your math is irrelevant, we bet on 0.83ºC and that number only.

:biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

:biggrin1:

Post #270 is great, in which you fake a claim, admit its a lie that you can't defend and then also admit that the bet was simple and you lost.
Great way of totally embarrassing yourself, nice work.

For analysis, lets look at the post where you claim I used bad math, in your first quote:

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

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. That's how he came up with this magical equation:

Lets start with your claim that I switched graphs.
First, lets start with the chart used in 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.

Yes, thats the web address of the only chart and data I've used in reference to the bet, so what is moviefan talking about? He claims that the bet was made on a different chart, covered repeatedly before as 'moving the goal post' attempt #5:
#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:

Its really very stupid and very entertaining.
Moviefan tries to switch to a different reference chart, then accuses me of being the one who switched and then claims I used bad math.
Three total fails at trying to cheat the bet needed to create his fabricated claim I used bad math.

Total weasel move.
Thanks for clearing that up, weasel.

 

[Frankfooter]

So much weaselling around with misquotes and even still your post makes no sense.
Its really stupidly 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.

Also in the news:
January continues the trend of 'bet beating' record global warmth.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/02/17/january-hottest-on-record-nasa-reports.html

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets start with your claim that I switched graphs.

...what is moviefan talking about? He claims that the bet was made on a different chart...

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

Frankfooter says 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

I have never said any such thing, its yet another weasel move, an out and out direct lie.

Your math is irrelevant, we bet on 0.83ºC and that number only.

:biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

:biggrin1:

I see that you are still refusing to use the live link we bet on, and now using your possibly doctored and most definitely out of date photobucket copies of screenshots.
This is the address of your images:
http://imageshack.com/a/img633/3926/1lTpKo.png

Note that its a totally different address and different image then the one we bet on:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

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.

You've learned your research techniques from wattsupwiththat, haven't you?
Misquotes, old out of date charts, switching baselines and out and out lying, all favoured techniques from your favourite dodgy site.

The way its done in a legit manner, if you must, is to include a direct link to your source.
So for example, I'll give you a quote to the original bet that includes a link to the terb post, then I'll give you an image I posted up but with a direct link to the page it came from.
That way you can see that what I posted was legit.

Not like you and your weasel ways.

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.

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

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets start with your claim that I switched graphs.

...what is moviefan talking about? He claims that the bet was made on a different chart...

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

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

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

Frankfooter says 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

I have never said any such thing, its yet another weasel move, an out and out direct lie.

Your math is irrelevant, we bet on 0.83ºC and that number only.

:biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

Lets take a look at the quote moviefan uses as claim that he thinks the bet was on a year over year change.
This is from the post he links to:

Bullshit.

Here's the complete quote with all three sentences that describe the full terms of the bet, not just one cherry-picked sentence.

Lets look at those three sentences:
We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.
We both agreed to use this chart:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


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/

This confirms the use of the chart, and makes the example of 1995's global anomaly to calculate the number upon which the bet is laid.

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.

In typical weasel form, moviefan takes a post in which I clearly state that the bet was on the global anomaly hitting 0.83ºC and tries to claim the total opposite.
Yet another weasel quote out of context, you really are stinking this place up with your cheap kindergarten level antics.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets take a look at the quote moviefan uses as claim that he thinks the bet was on a year over year change.

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/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

:thumb:

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets start with your claim that I switched graphs.

...what is moviefan talking about? He claims that the bet was made on a different chart...

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

It was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet.

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

Frankfooter says 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

I have never said any such thing, its yet another weasel move, an out and out direct lie.

Your math is irrelevant, we bet on 0.83ºC and that number only.

:biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

:thumb:

Lets look at post #277, a typical post in which moviefan calls himself a liar.

There is no dispute that we bet on a year-over-year increase of at least 0.15ºC. Nor is there any dispute that NASA's new numbers only show a year-over-year increase of 0.10ºC -- one-third less than what we bet on.

There is a dispute, a dispute with moviefan himself.
Lets watch moviefan call himself a liar.

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.

Moviefan says the bet was on decadal projections, not a year over year bet.
And how about this one:

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.

Yes, moviefan clearly stating that the bet was not a year over year bet.
Twice.
Time to add this to his attempts to cheat the bet and 'move the goal posts'.

This is what moviefan calls:

Bullshit.

(and this is ignoring his blatantly false claim that there was only 0.10ºC change in temp despite quoting NASA saying that it was 0.13ºC. Very stupid)

 

[Frankfooter]

The Seven attempts at Cheating the bet 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

#7 - Trying to retroactively claim that the bet was based on a year over year change instead of decadal projections.

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

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5479780&viewfull=1#post5479780


The bet was clear:

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.