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

[Frankfooter]

Still waiting for weasel moviefan to buy the books he promised he'd buy after he lost the bet.
But deniers will be deniers and weasels will be weasels.

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.

 

[canada-man]

Ah, that explains it.
You've been reading articles from moviefans favourite site, wattsupwiththat.

That's why you repeat nonsense like this:

That ones just wrong.
Here's a good take down of Watt's medieval claim:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/medieval-anthony-watts-reveals.html

That sites great, they just blog on all the idiocy that Watts publishes. If you think Watt's work is so great then you should be able to read each of the takedowns on hotwhopper.com and tell us why they are wrong, with sources that prove your point. Otherwise I'd have to just call you a sucker with confirmation bias who can't tell legit science from bullshit. Like moviefan.

typical leftsist dismiss the graphs and evidence that showed earth was warmer centuries ago than today ignore real work by climatologists and paleontologists

 

[Moviefan-2]

We've been over that one....

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:

But deniers will be deniers and weasels will be weasels.

 

[Frankfooter]

typical leftsist dismiss the graphs and evidence that showed earth was warmer centuries ago than today ignore real work by climatologists and paleontologists

Below are links to some of the real work done by climatologists on your questions, including this question:

Ice core data shows the much feared +2°C climate ‘tipping point’ has already occurred…

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html
and
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-2.html

Clearly it is a totally idiotic and ridiculous claim to say they've never looked into or researched those really basic questions.
Read those reports and tell me what information you think is missing and/or wrong.
Don't copy and paste more ridiculous claims from wattsupwithidiots please, read the reports yourself and tell me what you think is wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

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

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

:thumb:

Hey weasel, lets look at the one quote you keep repeating over and over again:

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

This quote was from a post explaining how your claim that the bet was based on a year over year term was total bullshit. Your repeated use of this quote out of context, since it was not describing the bet, as if it were describing the bet, is total weasel bullshit.

Its just as dishonest and fake as everything else you post.
In short, its yet another weasel move, in this case weasel cheat#7, or your sad 7th attempt to cheat the bet.

As you clearly described, multiple times, the bet was based on the period 1995-2015. All attempts to retroactively change the bet to 2014 numbers are total weasel bullshit.

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.

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.

The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models.

Your continual weaselling around is what you called:

numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.

You are trying to pull the type of move you called bullshit.

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

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

 

[K Douglas]

That's on par with a person taking an aspirin or a pill of cyanide.
Think those pills are too small to change a person's health?

Ridiculous analogy.

 

[Frankfooter]

Ridiculous analogy.

Not at all, similar comparisons:

He wasn't driving drunk, he just had a trace of blood alcohol; 800 ppm (0.08%) is the limit in all 50 US states, and limits are lower in most other countries).

Don't worry about your iron deficiency, iron is only 4.4 ppm of your body's atoms (Sterner and Eiser, 2002).

Ireland isn't important; it's only 660 ppm (0.066%) of the world population.

That ibuprofen pill can't do you any good; it's only 3 ppm of your body weight (200 mg in 60 kg person).

The Earth is insignificant, it's only 3 ppm of the mass of the solar system.

Your children can drink that water, it only contains a trace of arsenic (0.01 ppm is the WHO and US EPA limit).

Ozone is only a trace gas: 0.1 ppm is the exposure limit established by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends an ozone limit of 0.051 ppm.

A few parts per million of ink can turn a bucket of water blue. The color is caused by the absorption of the yellow/red colors from sunlight, leaving the blue. Twice as much ink causes a much stronger color, even though the total amount is still only a trace relative to water.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm

 

[Moviefan-2]

The bet:

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.

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

Your repeated use of this quote out of context, since it was not describing the bet, as if it were describing the bet, is total weasel bullshit.

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

:thumb:

But deniers will be deniers and weasels will be weasels.

 

[Frankfooter]

Here's a really good example of a weasel at work, lets start with the incredibly pathetic attempt at misquoting from the above post #309.
Quote #1

The bet

Quote #2

A statement that wasn't the bet or a description of the bet

The obvious and pathetic goal of putting those two partial misquotes together is to infer that they are part of the same statement, as part of his ridiculous claim that was the bet. Its really a great example of how morally and logically moviefan is a bankrupt weasel. It shows no class, no intelligence and is about the arguing level of what he would call a 'crybaby'. Its a four year old's temper tantrum followed by whining shouts of random snippets of conversations that have been twisted around in a tiny and warped little weasel brain.

Even the use of the photobucket copy of the NASA page shows a similar idiocy. He puts a quote from NASA about the year over year difference between 2014 and 2015 as if it were relevant to the bet and then posts his screenshot of the NASA page to try to make a point about the year to year change, the total idiocy of that is lost to him. Its as if he can't see the giant numbers in the left hand corner saying 0.87ºC, which shows he lost the bet, and all he can focus his tiny weasel brain is on one tiny number somewhere else in the chart. All part of his weasel cheat #7, where he tries to claim that the bet was a year over year bet when he has admitted repeatedly that the bet was based on decadal projections between 1995 and 2015.

This is his seventh attempt to cheat, and its really getting pathetic.

As moviefan noted:

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.

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.

This is confirmed by quoting the actual bet, something that moviefan refuses to do anymore, since it shows him to be a weasel.

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.


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]

As moviefan noted:

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.

That same graph proclaimed that 2014 was the warmest year on record at 0.68ºC -- an increase of 0.25ºC from the 1995 anomaly.

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 when you subtract 0.25 from 0.40. :thumb:

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

:thumb:

 

[Moviefan-2]

The bet:

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.

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

He puts a quote from NASA about the year over year difference between 2014 and 2015 as if it were relevant to the bet and then posts his screenshot of the NASA page to try to make a point about the year to year change, the total idiocy of that is lost to him.

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

:thumb:

But deniers will be deniers and weasels will be weasels.

 

[Moviefan-2]

...and then posts his screenshot of the NASA page to try to make a point about the year to year change....

That's not NASA.

???? :biggrin1:

 

[K Douglas]

Not at all, similar comparisons:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm

I'm shaking my head so hard right now you can blend paint colors in my mouth. Good grief. All this tells me is how stupid and gullible people who read skepticalscience.com really are. Let's begin with this lesson

Co2 is not a poison. Its a natural gas that is essential for human and plant life to exist.
Co2 represents 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere. Dry air is comprised of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and the remaining 1% are trace gases - argon, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, neon, helium.
Water vapour ranges from 0.1% to 4.2% of the atmosphere, depending upon the temperature. On it's own it accounts for 60% of the greenhouse effect.
96% of co2 is naturally produced by oceans and plants. 4% is human produced through the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and other land use changes.
Greenhouse gases are comprised of water vapour 95%, co2 4%, 1% methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, CFC's.

To summarize co2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere 400 ppm or 0.04%. 96% of it is naturally produced. And it represents 4% of all greenhouse gases. Yet the AGW proponents target it as being the primary culprit of climate change. Take 4% of 4% what do you get. That's right. Nothing. Nil. Zilch. And how much have we contributed in $ to help combat this bogeyman? How many economies do we need to collapse? How many more Al Gore's are we going to line the pockets of? And most importantly how many people in the developing world need to starve because we won't let them industrialize using fossil fuels?

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm shaking my head so hard right now you can blend paint colors in my mouth. Good grief. All this tells me is how stupid and gullible people who read skepticalscience.com really are. Let's begin with this lesson

Co2 is not a poison. Its a natural gas that is essential for human and plant life to exist.
Co2 represents 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere. Dry air is comprised of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and the remaining 1% are trace gases - argon, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, neon, helium.
Water vapour ranges from 0.1% to 4.2% of the atmosphere, depending upon the temperature. On it's own it accounts for 60% of the greenhouse effect.
96% of co2 is naturally produced by oceans and plants. 4% is human produced through the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and other land use changes.
Greenhouse gases are comprised of water vapour 95%, co2 4%, 1% methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, CFC's.

To summarize co2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere 400 ppm or 0.04%. 96% of it is naturally produced. And it represents 4% of all greenhouse gases. Yet the AGW proponents target it as being the primary culprit of climate change. Take 4% of 4% what do you get. That's right. Nothing. Nil. Zilch. And how much have we contributed in $ to help combat this bogeyman? How many economies do we need to collapse? How many more Al Gore's are we going to line the pockets of? And most importantly how many people in the developing world need to starve because we won't let them industrialize using fossil fuels?

Wow, so you are saying that all of science is wrong and you are right because you've declared it too small to matter?
And you think you've demolished science's work with an opinion?

Sorry, buddy, but if you're going to make ridiculous claims like that you've got to back it up. Prove that a doubling of CO2 won't effect the globes temperature because its too small a trace gas.
Lets see some science, not just your opinion.

Because this is solid science that has been around for about a hundred years now. Comparing it to O2 and and N2 levels is also just stupid, neither of those gases are 'greenhouse' gases, as in they don't trap heat in the atmosphere in the same way. You really need to take some high school level science to learn some basics, as your claims are just really ignorant.

Can you at least start with reading the wiki page on greenhouse gases?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

 

[Frankfooter]

???? :biggrin1:

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.


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:

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.

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

He puts a quote from NASA about the year over year difference between 2014 and 2015 as if it were relevant to the bet and then posts his screenshot of the NASA page to try to make a point about the year to year change, the total idiocy of that is lost to him.

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

:thumb:

But deniers will be deniers and weasels will be weasels.

 

[Frankfooter]

:thumb:

Here's a really good example of a weasel at work, lets start with the incredibly pathetic attempt at misquoting from the above post #309.
Quote #1

The bet

Quote #2

A statement that wasn't the bet or a description of the bet

The obvious and pathetic goal of putting those two partial misquotes together is to infer that they are part of the same statement, as part of his ridiculous claim that was the bet. Its really a great example of how morally and logically moviefan is a bankrupt weasel. It shows no class, no intelligence and is about the arguing level of what he would call a 'crybaby'. Its a four year old's temper tantrum followed by whining shouts of random snippets of conversations that have been twisted around in a tiny and warped little weasel brain.


As moviefan described it before he lost and went all weasel like:

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.

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.

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.


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:

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.

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

It shows no class, no intelligence and is about the arguing level of what he would call a 'crybaby'.

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

:thumb:

But deniers will be deniers and weasels will be weasels.

 

[Frankfooter]

:thumb:

Here's a really good example of a weasel at work, lets start with the incredibly pathetic attempt at misquoting from the above post #309.
Quote #1

The bet

Quote #2

A statement that wasn't the bet or a description of the bet

The obvious and pathetic goal of putting those two partial misquotes together is to infer that they are part of the same statement, as part of his ridiculous claim that was the bet. Its really a great example of how morally and logically moviefan is a bankrupt weasel. It shows no class, no intelligence and is about the arguing level of what he would call a 'crybaby'. Its a four year old's temper tantrum followed by whining shouts of random snippets of conversations that have been twisted around in a tiny and warped little weasel brain.


As moviefan described it before he lost and went all weasel like:

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.

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.

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.


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