Is global climate policy actually about global income redistribution ?

[Moviefan-2]

You've just reaffirmed -- once again -- that you never completed Grade 3.

After more than three months of trying, you're still struggling to correctly add 0.74 + 0.15. Unbelievable.

Still trying to claim that 0.87 isn't higher then 0.83?

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

LMFAO! :biggrin1:

Speaking of total failures, check who failed to understand how he lost a simple 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.

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.

 

[Frankfooter]

Aside from the usual moviefan Dunning-Kruger effect nonsense, posts filled with random and irrelevant quotes, it looks like the amount of wealth that could be wiped out through climate change could be quite substantial.

Climate change 'could wipe $2.5tn off' global assets
In the worst case scenario $24 trillion worth of global financial assets might be damaged, a new study says.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/climate-change-wipe-25tn-global-assets-160404181639546.html

The insurance industry has been well aware of climate change costs already, since they are the ones paying out on damages from extreme weather.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/insurance-climate-change-adaptability-1.3323132

Contrast with the nonsense and stream of consciousness rants from the ignorant denier types like moviefan. Its like night and day.
Ignorant idiots like him are total suckers for the fossil fuel funded denier sites, but the times they are a changing and Exxon and others are now finding themselves the targets of lawsuits that will make the tobacco industry's similar disinformation suits look cheap in comparison.

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/s...in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html?_r=0

Its a good time to take your investments out of the big seven, while they still have assets.
Of course if you're moviefan, I'd suggest you buy every scrap of Exxon stock you can, just to prove how smart you are.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Ignorant idiots like him are total suckers for the fossil fuel funded denier sites....

The journal, Nature, is a "fossil fuel funded denier site"?

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...KCaDcruk2QI=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

 

[Moviefan-2]

Of course if you're moviefan, I'd suggest you buy every scrap of Exxon stock you can, just to prove how smart you are.

I'd be happy to simply find someone I can bet against who doesn't insist on welching every time he loses.

Consider the record:

- He threw a temper tantrum in 2014 when he lost a bet on whether or not I could name three climate researchers at publicly recognized institutions who don't support the IPCC.

- In May 2015, he welched on a 2014 bet about the IPCC's 2007 prediction by pretending that Groggy and Frankfooter are different people.

- In December 2015, he welched on a bet about NASA's temperature anomaly for 2015, and has spent more than three months having a temper tantrum about it.

 

[Frankfooter]

The journal, Nature, is a "fossil fuel funded denier site"?

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...KCaDcruk2QI=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

Again, typical Dunning-Kruger effect type post.

Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:

Our study does NOT support the notion of a "pause" in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.
Our recent work (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831), which you fail to cite, indicates that the record warmth we are now experiencing can only be explained by human-caused global warming.

You posted a link to a study that says you are wrong.
Dunning-Kruger effect victim strikes again.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'd be happy to simply find someone I can bet against who doesn't insist on welching every time he loses.

Typical Dunning-Kruger effect claim.

Thinks he won the bet on 2015 hitting 0.83ºC despite the final temperature coming in at 0.87ºC.

And will the denier ever admit he lost or ever pay up?

 

[fuji]

You both lose.

Groggy loses on a technicality with the numbers.

Moviefan loses because the numbers clearly show global warming is a real thing, ending his entire claim to the contrary.

Congrats both on losing!

 

[Moviefan-2]

Moviefan loses because the numbers clearly show global warming is a real thing, ending his entire claim to the contrary.

I assume you're referring to the hypothesis of man-made global warming.

The numbers show no such thing. The Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been static (we'll measure the El Nino/La Nina effects once they've ended) and there remains no evidence that man-made emissions are a significant factor.

As for the fact that the temperature change in 2015 was less than what we bet on, that's hardly a "technicality."

 

[Frankfooter]

I assume you're referring to the hypothesis of man-made global warming.

The numbers show no such thing. The Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been static (we'll measure the El Nino/La Nina effects once they've ended) and there remains no evidence that man-made emissions are a significant factor.

You are lying about the study you are quoting from.

Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:

Our study does NOT support the notion of a "pause" in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.
Our recent work (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831), which you fail to cite, indicates that the record warmth we are now experiencing can only be explained by human-caused global warming.

As for the fact that the temperature change in 2015 was less than what we bet on, that's hardly a "technicality."

Still trying to claim that 0.87 is lower then 0.83?
Talk about Dunning-Kruger effect math skills, you take the cake.

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

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are lying about the study you are quoting from.

Nonsense. Your Mann quote has nothing to do with my post, as has been explained to you many times.

It's not just math. The fact that you never passed Grade 3 also means you can't read at an adult level (or anywhere near it).

 

[Moviefan-2]

Still trying to claim that 0.87 is lower then 0.83?

No, I am stating categorically that your calculation that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83 is wrong.

If you can't figure that equation out for yourself (and clearly you can't), try using an online calculator.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense. Your Mann quote has nothing to do with my post, as has been explained to you many times.

This is what you said, and you then posted in a chart and quote from the Fyfe study Mann commented on.

I assume you're referring to the hypothesis of man-made global warming.

The numbers show no such thing. The Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been static (we'll measure the El Nino/La Nina effects once they've ended) and there remains no evidence that man-made emissions are a significant factor.

Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:

Our study does NOT support the notion of a "pause" in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.
Our recent work (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831), which you fail to cite, indicates that the record warmth we are now experiencing can only be explained by human-caused global warming.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791

The quote from Mann, an author from the study, includes a link to the very same paper you are quoting.

You are lying about the study.
You have had this pointed out numerous times, with plenty of warning to correct it if it were a mistake, instead you continue to make the same claim.

You are lying about the Fyfe paper.

 

[Frankfooter]

No, I am stating categorically that your calculation that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83 is wrong.

I have never made such a calculation or statement.
You are lying.

Retract this lie and apologize.

 

[fuji]

I assume you're referring to the hypothesis of man-made global warming.

The numbers show no such thing. The Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been static (we'll measure the El Nino/La Nina effects once they've ended) and there remains no evidence that man-made emissions are a significant factor.

As for the fact that the temperature change in 2015 was less than what we bet on, that's hardly a "technicality."

That's nonsense and you know it. The numbers you and groggy are debating show a rise over any recent time period, and most importantly, over any time period long enough for the trend to dominate the error rate.

And man made warming fits the facts better than your unsound alternative.

 

[onthebottom]

Exactly.

There are people who are using this as an excuse to make money. Doesn't mean it isn't happening. But is does mean those with there hand out and those wanting money to "solve" it need to be scrutinized for legitimacy.

And politicians wanting money need to understand that putting it into the general coffers and creating taxes without a time limit for revue result in siphoning to other purposes.

They are also using it to reward "good" behavior while punishing "bad" behavior......

When people stop flying to climate summits in private planes and business class seats they will be easier to take seriously.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That's nonsense and you know it. The numbers you and groggy are debating show a rise over any recent time period, and most importantly, over any time period long enough for the trend to dominate the error rate.

And man made warming fits the facts better than your unsound alternative.

The numbers Groggy and I are debating are in what proved to be a super El Nino year. Until we get through the El Nino (and possible La Nina) period, they tell us nothing.

The Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been stagnant, despite huge increases in man-made emissions. The predictions remain spectacularly wrong, even with the El Nino period included.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I have never made such a calculation or statement.
You are lying.

Retract this lie and apologize.

Fact: You said that you "needed" a record "year over year" temperature increase in 2015 in order to win the bet: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5499392#post5499392

Fact: You said that record "year over year" temperature increase that you were talking about was an increase of 0.15ºC over the 2014 anomaly on NASA's graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5445145#post5445145

Fact: You have insisted that the graph we should be using is the one that says the temperature anomaly in 2014 was 0.74ºC: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Fact: You keep saying that to win the bet, you needed the temperature anomaly in 2015 on the graph you insist we are using to hit 0.83ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...distribution&p=5516415&viewfull=1#post5516415

Thus, you have repeatedly argued that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

That's what happens when you mix and match numbers from different data sets. You create fairy tales that are blatantly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Thus, you have repeatedly argued that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

You claimed that I stated this:

No, I am stating categorically that your calculation that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83 is wrong.

Now you are trying to link together separate and unrelated posts, in typical Dunning-Kruger effect style, as if they backed you up.
Nowhere in any of the posts you quoted did I ever put those numbers together.
You have failed to state that I ever made that calculation, you have been caught lying.
Again.

That's what happens when you mix and match numbers from different data sets.

The only data set I've used is the one you picked for the bet you lost.
Its the live numbers published by the NASA link in 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.

Its you that keeps trying to change the numbers around.
You are again lying.

 

[Frankfooter]

The Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been stagnant, despite huge increases in man-made emissions. The predictions remain spectacularly wrong, even with the El Nino period included.

This is a chart that only an arrogant and ignorant fool would call 'stagnant'.