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

[Moviefan-2]

In May, 201(5), 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.

"0.43ºC"? :Eek:

 

[Frankfooter]

"0.43"? :Eek:

Are you calling yourself a liar?

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.

Still trying to find ways to cheat the bet, aren't you?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Are you calling yourself a liar?

In July 2015, NASA announced it was using some controversial sea-surface temperature adjustments calculated by NOAA and completely rewrote the graph. Many of us would argue there was a lot of monkey business involved.

(W)e 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.

"0.43ºC"? :Eek:

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

 

[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.

"0.43ºC"? :Eek:

Yes, as you noted repeatedly, we bet made a bet on 0.83ºC for the year 2015.
0.43ºC was the reported global temperature for 1995 + (0.2ºC X 2 decades) for our bet of 0.83ºC.

Only weasels try to change a bet after they've agreed to it.
Don't you agree?

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.

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

0.43ºC was the reported global temperature for 1995 + (0.2ºC X 2 decades) for our bet of 0.83ºC.

(W)e had this discussion during the bet and he twice confirmed he would continue the bet with the new NASA numbers.

We both agreed to use this chart:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

"0.43ºC"? :Eek:

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

 

[Frankfooter]

"0.43ºC"? :Eek:

0.43ºC correct.
(nice chart, by the way, really shows that there has been no 'pause' or 'hiatus', another thing you are wrong about.)

Are you calling yourself a liar?

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, as you noted repeatedly, we bet made a bet on 0.83ºC for the year 2015.
0.43ºC was the reported global temperature for 1995 + (0.2ºC X 2 decades) for our bet of 0.83ºC.

Only weasels try to change a bet after they've agreed to it.
Don't you agree?

 

[Moviefan-2]

0.43ºC was the reported global temperature for 1995 + (0.2ºC X 2 decades) for our bet of 0.83ºC.

(W)e had this discussion during the bet and he twice confirmed he would continue the bet with the new NASA numbers.

We both agreed to use this chart:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

"0.43ºC"?

0.43ºC correct.

:Eek:

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

 

[Frankfooter]

"0.43ºC"?
:Eek:

I am glad you agree that we based our bet on the NASA 1995 report of 0.43ºC, at the time of the bet.
Now the only issue is that you continue to act like a weasel and a sore loser and continue to act as if the bet should be retroactively changed.

You were stupid when we took the bet, you didn't read the NASA FAQ's and continue to act surprised that the live chart we bet on got updated.
Stooooooopid.
http://climate.nasa.gov/faq/

Had you read the FAQ's you would have known that the numbers are updated fairly often, instead you accused NASA of 'fraud'.
Stoooooopid.

And while we are on the subject, you've tried to retroactively change the bet so many times its ridiculous.
For example:

The adjusted bet is 0.86 degrees Celsius.

That works out to an average for the year of 0.766ºC

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

And 0.745ºC is nowhere near the IPCC "projection" of 0.85ºC for 2015

0.75 + 0.82 + 0.84 + 0.71 + 0.71 is 0.766 is "denier math"

You can't even keep your cheating numbers straight, each time you try to cheat you come up with a different number.
Stooooopid.

And you even promised to keep to the original bet with the original terms, 2015's anomaly hitting 0.83ºC.

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

So many fails from you on this bet.
Stoooopid.

 

[Frankfooter]

This is the bet you lost.

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Contradiction 101

And you even promised to keep to the original bet with the original terms....

(W)e had this discussion during the bet and he twice confirmed he would continue the bet with the new NASA numbers.

???? :crazy:

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

Stoooopid.

 

[Moviefan-2]

We both agreed to use this chart:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

(W)e 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.

"0.43ºC"?

0.43ºC correct.

:Eek:

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

 

[Frankfooter]

Contradiction 101

Regrettably, moviefan claims the bet is off because NASA changed how they weighted temperature readings by buckets in ships.
What he refuses to admit is that we had this discussion during the bet and he twice confirmed he would continue the bet with the new NASA numbers.
...
Moviefan claims the bet shouldn't have continued because NASA changed some weighting of measurements, but the problem is he already agreed to continue the bet.
Moviefan should stand by his own words and admit he lost the bet.

???? :crazy:

New numbers = including the rest of 2015's data.
For a while in one of your cheats you were claiming that we should only use the temperature reports from the first half of the year, not the more recent or 'new' numbers.

I think that's how you came up with your wacko cheat #2.
Its hard to keep track of them all.
So many attempts to weasel out of the bet.


The Seven attempts at Cheating the bet of Moviefan:

First, for reference, 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.

#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

 

[Frankfooter]

"0.43ºC"?

:Eek:

0.43ºC.
Check your quotes, you agreed to use 0.43ºC to calculate the number we bet on, 0.83ºC.
But 0.83ºC is the number we bet on, not 0.43ºC.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

We both agreed to use this chart:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

(W)e 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.

"...the reported 1995 global temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC"?

0.43ºC correct.

:Eek:

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

 

[Frankfooter]

"...the reported 1995 global temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC"?

:Eek:

Yes, at the time 1995's reported global temperature anomaly was 0.43ºC, according to NASA, that number was used to reach the number we agreed on for the bet, 0.83ºC.
You agreed to the way we calculated the number we bet on, 0.83ºC.

Only weasels try to change bets after they lost, don't you agree?
Oh wait, are you trying to change the bet retroactively again?
Are you trying to act like a weasel still?



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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Yes, at the time 1995's reported global temperature anomaly was 0.43ºC, according to NASA, that number was used to reach the number we agreed on for the bet, 0.83ºC.

(W)e had this discussion during the bet and he twice confirmed he would continue the bet with the new NASA numbers.

We both agreed to use this chart:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

"0.43ºC"?

0.43ºC correct.

:Eek:

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

 

[Moviefan-2]

(W)e had this discussion during the bet and he twice confirmed he would continue the bet with the new NASA numbers.

New numbers = including the rest of 2015's data.

"rest of 2015"??

(W)hat is moviefan talking about? He claims that the bet was made on a different chart....

:biggrin1:

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

 

[Frankfooter]

"rest of 2015"??

:biggrin1:

Yes, your second attempt at cheating you tried to argue that the we should only count the first few months of 2015 for the total, did you forget that one?

- January: 0.75ºC (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...m-was-january/)
- February: 0.82ºC (Laden reported a lower number, but it was subsequently adjusted: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...warming-trend/)
- March: 0.84ºC (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...ry-warm-month/)
- April: 0.71ºC (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...-warm-was-may/)
- May: 0.71ºC (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...-warm-was-may/)

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...obal-warming&p=5429544&viewfull=1#post5429544

That one was really amusing.
You used a link to a different chart, then accused me of switching charts.
Comedy gold.

For the record, the only source I ever agreed to is the live NASA chart that we used for the bet.
And its still live and at the same location.

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.

And that link still shows 0.87ºC.
You lost the bet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

(W)e 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.

For the record, the only source I ever agreed to is the live NASA chart that we used for the bet.

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

"...the reported 1995 global temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC"?

0.43ºC correct.

:Eek:

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

 

[Frankfooter]

"...the reported 1995 global temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC"?

:Eek:

Are you calling yourself a liar again?

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.

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.

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.

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.