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

[MattRoxx]

Global warming went into overdrive in January, leading to astounding temperature records.

January was the globe's most unusually warm month ever recorded, and the past three months have been the most unusually warm three-month period on record as well, according to new findings from NASA.

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

:thumb:

A typical post from moviefan.
First quote says 'use the bet' not these partial quotes.
:thumb:
And after the thumbs up smilie a series of quotes that were not ever part of the bet, and are all quotes taken out of context.
Including the year over year numbers using 2014.
We never bet on 2014, just 2015, its just more of moviefan being a denier weasel, as is confirmed by quotes by moviefan.

The rest of the quote from his first quote of me went like this:
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.

That is the bet, confirmed by the quotes below.

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]

If you want to refer to the bet, use the actual bet.

:thumb:

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.

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

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.

Only weasels try to change a bet after they've agreed to it.

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]

If you want to refer to the bet, use the actual bet.

:thumb:

Since you approve of this statement, lets use the just the bet:
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]

Since you approve of this statement, lets use the just the bet:

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.

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

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.

Only weasels try to change a bet after they've agreed to it.

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]

Using partial quotes strung together as if they meant something else is such a kindergarten move.

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]

I know you're confused.
So many quotes and not a single one from the actual bet we made.
It must be hard to keep track of all the different attempts you made to cheat the bet.

Here is the bet in plain english with quotes from the bet we made to back it up.
Its quite a contrast to your ridiculous posts.

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]

If you want to refer to the bet, use the actual 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.

I know you're confused.

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]

If you want to refer to the bet, use the actual bet.

:thumb:

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.

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.

Its amazing that you are still trying to claim that 0.87ºC is lower then 0.83ºC.
Once a denier, always a denier....

 

[Moviefan-2]

If you want to refer to the bet, use the actual 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.

I know you're confused.

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

:thumb:

Once a denier, always a denier....

 

[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.

Its amazing that you are still trying to claim that 0.87ºC is lower then 0.83ºC.

:biggrin1:

 

[MattRoxx]

Record-high temperatures expected in Toronto

Shorts weather — for the brave — due on Saturday as mercury aims for 18 C

Environment Canada says to expect a high of 18 C on Saturday, putting the city well past the previous record of 16.3, set in 2006. It will be mostly sunny through the day, dropping to an overnight low of 4 C. Expect a moderate UV index and winds.

Similar weather is expected throughout the region — with forecasters calling for sunny skies and temperatures in the mid-teens from St. Catharines to Peterborough and up into the Kawarthas.

 

[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.

:biggrin1:

Still weaselling around with partial quotes, loser?

Too bad you keep calling yourself a liar with every post.
Trying to insinuate that the bet was a year over year bet just exposes you as a liar.

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?

Answer the question moviefan:
Is 0.87 higher then 0.83?

 

[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.

Answer the question moviefan:
Is 0.87 higher then 0.83?

:biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

Answer the question moviefan:
Is 0.87 higher then 0.83?

:biggrin1:

Is that math too hard for you?

How about admitting that you are lying by trying to claim the bet was based on 2014-2015?

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?

Can't answer, weasel?

 

[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.

Is that math too hard for you?

:biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

Is that math too hard for you

Can't answer, weasel?

:biggrin1:

Come on moviefan, is 0.87 higher then 0.83?
You can do it, just concentrate.

You really are still weaselling around still, eh? Still trying to pretend you didn't clearly state the bet was 1995-2015?
Still lying your face off, weasel?

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?

You lost, weasel.

 

[Moviefan-2]

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

2015's global temperature anomaly came out as 0.87ºC.

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.

Come on moviefan, is 0.87 higher then 0.83?

:biggrin1:

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

 

[Moviefan-2]

(W)e bet whether or not the IPCC projection of 0.2ºC was accurate, from 1995-2015

2015's global temperature anomaly came out as 0.87ºC.

When you do the math correctly, you get a revised bet of 0.89ºC -- regardless of whether you use 1995 or 2014 as your starting point.

The final 2015 anomaly of 0.87ºC at the end of the super El Nino year was less than 0.89ºC.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5455248&viewfull=1#post5455248

:thumb:

 

[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.

:biggrin1:

Come on moviefan, is 0.87 higher then 0.83?
You can do it, just concentrate.

You really are still weaselling around still, eh? Still trying to pretend you didn't clearly state the bet was 1995-2015?
Still lying your face off, weasel?

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?

You lost, weasel.