CBC report - Most Canadians don't think humans are the main cause of climate change
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
"...the reported 1995 global temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC"?
:Eek:
Yes, the NASA chart got updated and the figures changed after we made and agreed to the bet.
Too bad for you loser, it could have gone either way, or they could have not changed those historical years at all.
But had you been smart enough to read the FAQ that I keep posting, you would have understood the risk.
As it was, the change went my way, not that I needed it, with the bet being beaten by a whopping 0.04ºC.
Don't you remember, you first tried to change the bet 0.03ºC, to 0.86ºC, based on the 1995 update? I didn't even need that change since the temp beat the bet by 0.04ºC, that's why you kept changing cheats to try to find a way to cheat the bet enough to claim you didn't lose. That's why you're now on this really weird claim that the 1995-2015 bet needs to be adjusted to 2014's numbers, its still 'retroactively changing the numbers' as you like to say. Just another weasel cheat from the sore loser.
You are such a sore loser.
This is the bet you lost.
And this is the part of that same page where you got the above two charts that you are working so hard to avoid.
As you noted:
You lost the bet.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
"...the reported 1995 global temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC"?
:Eek:
NASA said:
???? :Eek:
:biggrin1:
(We all know this one's going to be added to the next edition of Frankfooter's greatest hits.)
Only weasels try to change bets after they've agreed to them.
Only weasels promise to hold to the original terms of a bet, then break their word and keep trying to change the bet.
Only weasels refuse to honour their own words.
Are you a weasel or a man?
Is your word worthless or will you keep it?
"Two charts"?
---
May 11, 2015:
:Eek:
:biggrin1:
Yes, have you been at the solvents again? Your short term memory is shot.
Post #303 you used two copies of a chart from the NASA page, or two charts.
Both are screenshots from the NASA site we made the bet on, as is the chart below.
The one below shows the full page, which shows both that you lost the bet and that your claim about a 'pause' or 'hiatus' is also false.
The link to the actual, live chart we bet on is included in the quote of 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.
You lost.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
"...the reported 1995 global temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC"?
:Eek:
As you quoted:
It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be lying.
You are lying by insinuating there is any question about what we agreed to on the bet.
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.
You lost the bet.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
"...the reported 1995 global temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC"?
:Eek:
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.
You lost the bet.
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.
You lost the bet.
NASA said:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'
:thumb:
Quoting from posts that pointed out where you lied and didn't hold your word doesn't really make a case, loser.
Using partial quotes arranged together as if the all meant something else is also dishonest, and the type of argument a 4 year old would make.
For instance, the post above has all the integrity of the sum of all the quotes below:
How to use partial quotes strung together as if they meant something else, or the Moviefan quoting game:
If you want to refer to the bet, use the actual bet.
Not quotes taken out of context from posts calling you out for cheating.
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.
You lost the bet.
Not quotes taken out of context from posts calling you out for cheating.
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.
You lost the bet.
:thumb:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'
:thumb:
