CBC report - Most Canadians don't think humans are the main cause of climate change

[Moviefan-2]

This is how you use quotes, each of these quotes are statements that directly state the terms of the bet as we agreed to them, including statements like 'we bet...' and including statements on how we came to the terms for the bet and the final result of the bet.

For reference, 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.

Are you expecting me to try to figure out your faulty weasel math?
Screw you, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

That is not a bet.

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

:thumb:

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

 

[Frankfooter]

That's quite the collection of random quotes.

Personally, if you're going to use partial quotes and rearrange them to look as if they mean something else, you could do better.
Like this:

How to use partial quotes strung together as if they meant something else, or the Moviefan quoting game:

I'll repeat my post again.

the fact remains that

I do agree with Frankfooter

I

have been so consistently and spectacularly wrong.

I will stand by my conclusion that

the bet confirms

I was

consistently and spectacularly wrong.

I believe that's what used to be known as

I'm "lying,"

 

[Frankfooter]

Now note the similarity between your post #261 and my #262 post. Both built using the same technique.
You would think you would have learned the difference between good quotes and bad quotes.

Look below and learn.
These quotes all contain full sentences who's meaning is very clear, all these quotes are from you and contradict everything you've been trying to claim.

You are lying, and these quotes prove it, weasel.

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.

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.

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

Are you a weasel or a man?
Is your word worthless or will you keep it?

 

[Frankfooter]

Just for fun, I thought I'd run you a few posts before we settled on the bet, so we can confirm that the bet was based on 1995-2015.
Take a look through these posts, not a single reference to 2014.

Its not about 'backdating' the predictions.

You claim that the IPCC prediction of 0.2ºC is 'spectacularly wrong'.
That prediction was based on longer term time scale, all I'm doing is keeping the bet to the terms of the IPCC predictions.
I'll take a longer term prediction, and I'm saying I'm not interested in making a bet with you starting from 1990 because it doesn't come to term for another 5 years.

But I will take a bet that comes to term next year or the year after.
So lets use the IPCC's terms, the 0.2ºC per decade over 3 decades coming into term next year or the year after.

Tell you what, I'll go as far as this comprise for you.
Lets use 1996 - 2016 as our term for this bet?
That's two decades, the IPCC prediction you call spectacularly wrong, with an average increase of 0.2ºC per decade.

Will you take that bet?

What's the matter, too afraid you're going to lose?

Now, we're getting somewhere.

But the IPCC prediction at that time was made in 1995, not 1996.

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015 -- you won't have to wait, as we'll know the winner by early 2016.

Do we have a bet?

Nope.
My terms are either:
1985 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade
1986 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade

or
1996 for 2 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade

Why won't you take them?
Cherry picking issues?

If you think the IPCC work is crap, then it shouldn't matter in the least which date you take?
Why won't you take those dates?

Is it because of cherry picking, your argument only works on one or two years?

C'mon take the bet.

The IPCC report was released in 1995. The only way to make it fair and to avoid any concerns about "cherry picking" is to use 1995 as the starting date.

Otherwise, I might be more inclined to pick 1997 or 1998 as the starting dates.

But we can't cherry pick. The only way to make it fair is to pick 1995 as the starting date.

Do we have a bet?

No reference to 2014.
You personally picked the dates 1995-2015.
Those dates were your choice.

You are lying to say otherwise.

 

[Moviefan-2]

We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.

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/

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

No reference to 2014 ... You are lying to say otherwise.

???? :Eek:

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is how you use quotes, each of these quotes are statements that directly state the terms of the bet as we agreed to them, including statements like 'we bet...' and including statements on how we came to the terms for the bet and the final result of 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.

Are you expecting me to try to figure out your faulty weasel math?
Screw you, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

No reference to 2014 ... You are lying to say otherwise.

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

:thumb:

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

 

[Frankfooter]

Again with the grade 4 level tactics.
Rearranging a series of quotes to make them look like they something else is the tactic of a 4 year old having a temper tantrum.

Once again, it makes as much of an argument as this post:

How to use partial quotes strung together as if they meant something else, or the Moviefan quoting game:

I'll repeat my post again.

the fact remains that

I do agree with Frankfooter

I

have been so consistently and spectacularly wrong.

I will stand by my conclusion that

the bet confirms

I was

consistently and spectacularly wrong.

I believe that's what used to be known as

I'm "lying,"

 

[Frankfooter]

This is how you make a case.
You use full quotes with full sentences.
Each statement is very clear in its meaning, and each one shows you to be lying.

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015 -- you won't have to wait, as we'll know the winner by early 2016.

Do we have a bet?

But we can't cherry pick. The only way to make it fair is to pick 1995 as the starting date.

Do we have a 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.

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

Are you a weasel or a man?
Is your word worthless or will you keep it?

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is how you make a case.
You use full quotes with full sentences.

---

Are you expecting me to try to figure out your faulty weasel math?
Screw you, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

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

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

:thumb:

 

[Moviefan-2]

We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.

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/

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

No reference to 2014 ... You are lying to say otherwise.

???? :Eek:

 

[Frankfooter]

???? :Eek:

That's right, the only reference in the discussion of the bet was in that one post, one comment by you, not in the lead up when we discussed the terms and dates.
And that mention wasn't describing the terms of the bet, only using one year and number to confirm that we were using the same chart.

Here, look again at these posts where you picked the dates for the bet.
There is no reference to 2014.

Its not about 'backdating' the predictions.

You claim that the IPCC prediction of 0.2ºC is 'spectacularly wrong'.
That prediction was based on longer term time scale, all I'm doing is keeping the bet to the terms of the IPCC predictions.
I'll take a longer term prediction, and I'm saying I'm not interested in making a bet with you starting from 1990 because it doesn't come to term for another 5 years.

But I will take a bet that comes to term next year or the year after.
So lets use the IPCC's terms, the 0.2ºC per decade over 3 decades coming into term next year or the year after.

Tell you what, I'll go as far as this comprise for you.
Lets use 1996 - 2016 as our term for this bet?
That's two decades, the IPCC prediction you call spectacularly wrong, with an average increase of 0.2ºC per decade.

Will you take that bet?

What's the matter, too afraid you're going to lose?

Now, we're getting somewhere.

But the IPCC prediction at that time was made in 1995, not 1996.

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015 -- you won't have to wait, as we'll know the winner by early 2016.

Do we have a bet?

Nope.
My terms are either:
1985 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade
1986 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade

or
1996 for 2 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade

Why won't you take them?
Cherry picking issues?

If you think the IPCC work is crap, then it shouldn't matter in the least which date you take?
Why won't you take those dates?

Is it because of cherry picking, your argument only works on one or two years?

C'mon take the bet.

The IPCC report was released in 1995. The only way to make it fair and to avoid any concerns about "cherry picking" is to use 1995 as the starting date.

Otherwise, I might be more inclined to pick 1997 or 1998 as the starting dates.

But we can't cherry pick. The only way to make it fair is to pick 1995 as the starting date.

Do we have a bet?

No reference to 2014.
You personally picked the dates 1995-2015.
Those dates were your choice.

 

[Frankfooter]

Will you honour your own terms for the bet?
Or are you a weasel?

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015 -- you won't have to wait, as we'll know the winner by early 2016.

Do we have a bet?

But we can't cherry pick. The only way to make it fair is to pick 1995 as the starting date.

Do we have a 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.

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

Are you a weasel or a man?
Is your word worthless or will you keep it?

 

[Moviefan-2]

No reference to 2014 ... You are lying to say otherwise.

That's right, the only reference in the discussion of the bet was in that one post, one comment by you....

:biggrin1:

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

:thumb:

 

[Frankfooter]

http://www.mspaforums.com/images/smilies/weasel.gif
:thumb:

The one quote you post over and over again, the partial quote from post where I deny it was year over year, was written in January.
We made the bet in May last year.
In the 8 months since the only evidence you can find is one out of context statement, from a post that says exactly the opposite of what you claim.
That's really pathetic.

These quotes start from May 10, 2015, and set the terms for the bet, other then the quote on the result, where you admit that NASA reported 0.87ºC as 2015's anomaly, which was made just a few days ago.

All of them describe the bet as 1995-2015, as we made it.
Multiple quotes from you setting and agreeing to the terms of the bet.

You are a total weasel to continue to deny your own words.

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015 -- you won't have to wait, as we'll know the winner by early 2016.

Do we have a bet?

But we can't cherry pick. The only way to make it fair is to pick 1995 as the starting date.

Do we have a 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.

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

Are you a weasel or a man?
Is your word worthless or will you keep it?
Your own words say you lost the bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

In June of 2015, you first tried to change the bet, whining about changes at NASA.
The exact same reasons you are trying to still change the bet now.

And in June of 2015, you promised to continue the bet on its original terms, 2015 hitting 0.83ºC as reported by NASA based on a 0.2ºC/decade projection by the IPCC over 1995-2015.

2016 hit 0.87ºC.
You lost, stop being such a sore loser.

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

Are you a weasel or a man?
Is your word worthless or will you keep it?
How often are you going to keep breaking your word?

 

[Frankfooter]

:biggrin1:

No reference to 2014.
You personally picked the dates 1995-2015.
Those dates were your choice.

You are lying to say otherwise.

:thumb:

You misquoted me again, that is the correct quote and it refers to the post below.
In these posts, where came to agree on the terms of the bet, there is no reference to 2014.

Its not about 'backdating' the predictions.

You claim that the IPCC prediction of 0.2ºC is 'spectacularly wrong'.
That prediction was based on longer term time scale, all I'm doing is keeping the bet to the terms of the IPCC predictions.
I'll take a longer term prediction, and I'm saying I'm not interested in making a bet with you starting from 1990 because it doesn't come to term for another 5 years.

But I will take a bet that comes to term next year or the year after.
So lets use the IPCC's terms, the 0.2ºC per decade over 3 decades coming into term next year or the year after.

Tell you what, I'll go as far as this comprise for you.
Lets use 1996 - 2016 as our term for this bet?
That's two decades, the IPCC prediction you call spectacularly wrong, with an average increase of 0.2ºC per decade.

Will you take that bet?

What's the matter, too afraid you're going to lose?

Now, we're getting somewhere.

But the IPCC prediction at that time was made in 1995, not 1996.

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015 -- you won't have to wait, as we'll know the winner by early 2016.

Do we have a bet?

Nope.
My terms are either:
1985 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade
1986 for 3 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade

or
1996 for 2 decades @ 0.2ºC increase average per decade

Why won't you take them?
Cherry picking issues?

If you think the IPCC work is crap, then it shouldn't matter in the least which date you take?
Why won't you take those dates?

Is it because of cherry picking, your argument only works on one or two years?

C'mon take the bet.

The IPCC report was released in 1995. The only way to make it fair and to avoid any concerns about "cherry picking" is to use 1995 as the starting date.

Otherwise, I might be more inclined to pick 1997 or 1998 as the starting dates.

But we can't cherry pick. The only way to make it fair is to pick 1995 as the starting date.

Do we have a bet?

 

[Moviefan-2]

We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.

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/

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

Ok bets on.
Using that NASA figure of 0.43ºC anomaly for 1995 and waiting for the 2015 NASA anomaly figures to come out.

---

In these posts, where came to agree on the terms of the bet, there is no reference to 2014.

????? :Eek:

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is how you use quotes, each of these quotes are statements that directly state the terms of the bet as we agreed to them, including statements like 'we bet...' and including statements on how we came to the terms for the bet and the final result of 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.

Are you expecting me to try to figure out your faulty weasel math?
Screw you, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

No reference to 2014 ... You are lying to say otherwise.

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

:thumb:

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

 

[Frankfooter]

---

The fact that it was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly from the time of the bet had nothing to do with the bet. 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.

????? :Eek:

Still trying to change the terms of the bet, loser?
Still acting like a weasel?

You are the very definition of a 'denier'.

 

[Frankfooter]

In May, 2014, we bet whether or not the IPCC projection of 0.2ºC was accurate, from 1995-2015, based on the reported 1995 global temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC.
We bet whether 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.
2015's global temperature anomaly came out as 0.87ºC.
You lost.

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015 -- you won't have to wait, as we'll know the winner by early 2016.

Do we have a 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.

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

You lost the bet.