Is global climate policy actually about global income redistribution ?

[Moviefan-2]

No, this 'remaining distance' was on observation on numbers at the time of the bet, it wasn't what we bet on.

An "observation"?

Yesterday, you said: "That is what we bet on": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...distribution&p=5520690&viewfull=1#post5520690.

You also said the calculation of the 0.15ºC increase in 2015 over 2014 "accurately describes the bet": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...distribution&p=5521269&viewfull=1#post5521269

And let's not forget that you have also said a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC in 2015 was what you "needed" to win the bet.

To be fair, we all know that you struggle with Grade 3 math. You may not have fully understood that 0.40 - 0.25 = 0.15.

Regardless, you know that the difference between 0.40 and 0.25 is what we bet on. You repeatedly confirmed it yesterday.

And since you insist the graph with the 0.74ºC temperature anomaly for 2014 is "one and the same" as the one we bet on, then the increase that we bet on still holds.

Here's the problem: I reject your calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

An "observation"?

Yesterday, you said: "That is what we bet on": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...distribution&p=5520690&viewfull=1#post5520690.

Yesterday I stated that we based the bet on the 0.40ºC IPCC projections between 1995 and 2015, as I have for pretty much every day since we made the bet. Its you that is now trying to change the bet because you lost. And its a really fucking stupid lie, that despite the dozens of quotes confirming the bet was on decadal projections between 1995-2015 you still think you can weasel your way into changing the terms into a year over year bet, just because you're a whiny little loser.

You keep lying about what I stated was what we bet on, this is the quote from you I confirmed was what we bet on, and it clearly states the bet was 1995-2015, not 2014-2015 as you now claim.

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.

You also said the calculation of the 0.15ºC increase in 2015 over 2014 "accurately describes the bet": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...distribution&p=5521269&viewfull=1#post5521269

Wow, how can you even say such an out and out weasel lie?
Click on the link and it shows you are really fucking crazy.
You make your 2014-2015 claim, I say you are lying and then provide the quote that proves it. And that is what you use as your argument?
You are so stupid it makes even the Dunning-Kruger effect seem above your head.
How can you post a claim and then put a link that shows you are a total fucking moron?
Its stunning.

Here's the problem: I reject your calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

I never made such a calculation, that's a lie.
I never stated that 2014 (where your 0.74 number originates) had any bearing on a bet clearly between 2015, that's a lie.
I'm not so stupid as to not expect NASA to update their numbers, which is why the bet was on the fixed number 0.83ºC.

How can you continue such a totally idiotic claim and not realize how stupid you look?

 

[Moviefan-2]

(T)his is the quote from you I confirmed was what we bet on, and it clearly states the bet was 1995-2015, not 2014-2015 as you now claim.

I know what it says -- I wrote it.

It confirmed that of the predicted 0.40ºC increase from 1995, the bet in May 2015 was on the remaining difference between 0.40ºC and the 0.25ºC increase that NASA had recorded to the end of 2014. It confirmed that the bet was on the year over year increase of 0.15ºC that was "needed" (your word) in 2015 for you to win the bet.

You supported the calculations in my quote. Your exact words: "That is what we bet on." You also said my quote "accurately describes the bet."

No argument from me.

Here's the problem. Your graph shows a temperature anomaly of 0.74ºC in 2014. I reject your calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

I know what it says -- I wrote it.

It confirmed that of the predicted 0.40ºC increase from 1995, the bet in May 2015 was on the remaining difference between 0.40ºC and the 0.25ºC increase that NASA had recorded to the end of 2014.

No, that is not what you said.
Read your own words, the clearly state that the bet was on the difference between 1995 and 2015, not 2014 to 2015 as you claim.

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.

You are still lying, weasel.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Read your own words....

Sure thing. Here's the full quote, which explains the "remaining distance" sentence that you put in large font.

More bullshit.

Since you insist (wrongly) that it makes some kind of difference whether we use the 1995 anomaly as the starting point, let's work from there. Maybe the math will work better for you if we use your starting point.

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.

That same graph proclaimed that 2014 was the warmest year on record at 0.68ºC -- an increase of 0.25ºC from the 1995 anomaly.

So we bet on the remaining distance from the original 1995 anomaly of 0.43ºC.

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:

The "remaining distance" was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC in 2015. And you responded to that calculation by saying "that accurately describes the bet": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...distribution&p=5521269&viewfull=1#post5521269

It sure does.

The problem is with your calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Sure thing. Here's the full quote, which explains the "remaining distance" sentence that you put in large font.

The "remaining distance" was a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC in 2015. And you responded to that calculation by saying "that accurately describes the bet": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...distribution&p=5521269&viewfull=1#post5521269

It sure does.

The problem is with your calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong.

The last sentence of the quote is where you spiral off into Dunning-Kruger land.
Its totally irrelevant to the bet, a non sequitur.

This is the statement that sums up the bet:

So we bet on the remaining distance from the original 1995 anomaly of 0.43ºC.

You state that then try to switch goal posts and claim that the only metric that counts is not 1995-2015 but instead 2014-2015 in your final sentence. Its a non sequitur.

Look, you were really stupid when you took on the bet. You didn't read the NASA FAQ's and understand what you were betting on. Changes happened and I got lucky and they helped me (not that I needed them, the increase in temp was so massive that I won with and without those changes based on the 1995-2015 term we bet on). You lost and you're squirming, whining, lying and just generally acting like a weasel to avoid admitting that I'm smarter then you.

You set the terms of the bet. You picked the period. You picked the live NASA chart as the metric to see who won. You could have set a bet on movable terms if you were smart enough (ie - the bet is on whatever numbers NASA reports as 1995-2015 when they reported their 2015 annual numbers), terms that showed you understand how NASA works. But you didn't, you foolishly picked a fixed number without even noticing that it was an El Nino, and possible super El Nino year. I checked all of those before I made the bet, because, as you know by now, I'm smarter then you. You didn't, you took a bet I knew I had an excellent chance of winning before I took it. All you had to go on was your Dunning-Kruger effect incompetence backed by your incredibly unjustified over confidence.

You lost, and whining and crying and trying to claim that a 1995-2015 bet was really a 2014-2015 bet is a really pathetic argument.

Just deal with it, you're not smart and you lost.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is the statement that sums up the bet:....

Exactly. And if you understood the sentence that you continue to endorse, you would understand that it refers to the remaining temperature increase that was needed from the end of 2014 to 2015. More specifically, you would understand that it confirms that we bet on a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC in 2015.

The problem is with your calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

More specifically, you would understand that it confirms that we bet on a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC in 2015.

You are still lying, weasel.

Remember when you said this?

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?

1995-2015.
Of course you said that before you started losing and had to try to weasel around and change the bet.

Remember this one?

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?

Yup, there you go again confirming the bet was 1995-2015.
And of course that quote also comes from when we made the bet, before you realized you lost and started weaselling around.

The best way to describe the bullshit, Dunning-Kruger effect lying that you continue daily is with your own words.
Your actions are clearly what you call:
numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.

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.

And look, that's another quote that confirms that the bet was based on decadal projections, not year over year.
And it notes that you also think that 'numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology' is cheating the bet.

Give it up weasel, you've been caught lying.
You really are a pathetic loser.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You are still lying, weasel.

So, now it's "lying" to calculate that 0.40 - 0.25 = 0.15.

Perhaps you could tell us the truth about what number you get when you subtract 0.25 from 0.40.

Your problem remains the same: You have calculated that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your actions are clearly what you call:
numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.

God, you're dumb. You don't have a clue what that means.

In fact, it means you can't reduce the size of the year-over-year increase that we bet on bet from 0.15ºC to 0.09ºC due to methodology changes. We bet on the IPCC's prediction about temperature increases, not numerical changes produced through other funny business.

In simple language that even you might understand: it means you can't treat the 0.83ºC number from the pre-adjusted graph as an absolute number that can be plopped into the new graph.

You have confirmed that if we use the new graph, the bet isn't 0.83ºC.

Idiot.

 

[Frankfooter]

So, now it's "lying" to calculate that 0.40 - 0.25 = 0.15.

Its lying state that we calculated our bet on 2014-2015, as those numbers imply.

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015

That is why you are still a lying weasel.

 

[Frankfooter]

In fact, it means you can't reduce the size of the year-over-year increase that we bet on bet from 0.15ºC to 0.09ºC due to methodology changes. We bet on the IPCC's prediction about temperature increases, not numerical changes produced through other funny business.

Changing the bet from 1995-2015 into a 'year-over-year increase' is a 'retroactive change in methodology'.

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015

In simple language that even you might understand: it means you can't treat the 0.83ºC number from the pre-adjusted graph as an absolute number that can be plopped into the new graph.

You have confirmed that if we use the new graph, the bet isn't 0.83ºC.

I have used only the chart and the number you specified when you confirmed the bet, any reference to anything else comes only from you, weasel.
This is the only chart I use as reference.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

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.

Note that you picked a fixed number for the terms of the bet.
That was your decision.
Too bad your such a whiny little weasel who can't keep his word.

 

[oral.com]

I was wondering why this thread was so long. Why don't you two guys just get a room.

 

[canada-man]

1939

1963

 

[Moviefan-2]

Changing the bet from 1995-2015 into a 'year-over-year increase' is a 'retroactive change in methodology'.

This is why you have repeatedly failed math and failed science.

No one has talked about "changing" anything. On the pre-adjusted graph, adding 0.40ºC to the 1995 anomaly produced the same number as adding 0.15ºC to the 2014 anomaly. It was all part of the same bet.

On the pre-adjusted graph, they both added up to 0.83ºC.

But you have insisted you want to use the adjusted graph. Since the correct calculations using 1995 have proven to be much too difficult for you to follow, we'll stick with the 2014 anomaly, which is easy enough for everyone -- including you -- to understand. As the current years were all adjusted in the same manner, you simply add 0.15ºC to the 2014 anomaly.

Nothing is "changing." It's the same year-over-year increase that we bet on last May.

Here's the problem: You continue to calculate that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

No one has talked about "changing" anything. On the pre-adjusted graph, adding 0.40ºC to the 1995 anomaly produced the same number as adding 0.15ºC to the 2014 anomaly. It was all part of the same bet.

You talk repeatedly about changing the terms of the bet to year-over-year instead of the 1995-2015 term we bet on.
You also talk repeatedly about changing a bet on a fixed number into a bet based on a formula that you alone decide.

Those are both lies and what you call 'numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.'

This was 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.

We bet on a fixed number that we calculated based on 1995-2015 projections from the IPCC.
Your attempts to change it are what you called 'retroactive changes in methodology'.

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.

Just stop lying, weasel, and admit you lost.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You talk repeatedly about changing the terms of the bet to year-over-year instead of the 1995-2015 term we bet on.

Nonsense. The bet was made in 2015 and we already knew the temperature anomalies to the end of 2014. The only remaining question was whether the final year would see a further increase of 0.15ºC.

Actually, you're the one who keeps trying to change the terms of the bet. We bet on a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC in 2015. Your keep arguing that you want to reduce the bet to a 0.09ºC increase.

Or, more likely, your math is just flawed.

You have been repeatedly calculating that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense. The bet was made in 2015 and we already knew the temperature anomalies to the end of 2014. The only remaining question was whether the final year would see a further increase of 0.15ºC.
.

No, the only question was whether or not the chart you specified below would hit 0.83ºC.
The bet was on a fixed number, not a formula, weasel.

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 incredibly clear from that statement, which is your confirmation of the bet, that the bet was whether or not NASA would report a global temperature anomaly of 0.83ºC for 2015. Its like you bet on the Leafs to score 10 goals in one game and then you came back and said, no, I really bet them to score 2 more then Montreal. What you are doing is clearly what you call 'numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.' You are attempting to weasel around and change the terms of the bet retroactively because you lost and you're too much of a suck ass to admit it.

This is the incredibly stupid lie that you keep repeating over and over, despite me showing you multiple quotes which show you are lying.

We bet on a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC in 2015.

Here's 4 examples of you contradicting yourself, 4 examples of you being caught lying:

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.

Confirming the bet was based of decadal, not year over year changes.

And this one:

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?

Confirming the bet was decadal, 1995-2015, not year over year.

And this one:

We bet that the temperature anomaly would increase in 2015 to 0.83ºC

Confirming the bet was on a fixed number, not formula.

And this one:

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.

Confirming the bet was decadal, based on 1995-2015, not year over year.

I'd go on, but you're still going to keep lying and trying to 'retroactively change the methodology', aren't you weasel?
You refuse to honour your word to keep the bet on its original terms and continue to just lie, lie, lie.

 

[Moviefan-2]

No, the only question was whether or not the chart you specified below would hit 0.83ºC.

You have once again reaffirmed what I have been saying.

We have both acknowledged that the bet represented a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC in 2015.

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

You insist the calculation of the bet applies to the graph that is currently available on NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet page -- the graph that shows a temperature anomaly of 0.74ºC for 2014: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Thus, we are agreed that the bet represents the total that comes from adding 0.15ºC to 0.74ºC. You keep insisting that adds up to 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

You have once again reaffirmed what I have been saying.

We have both acknowledged that the bet represented a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC in 2015.

No, we haven't.
All the quotes from both parties show that the bet was based on 1995-2015.
Your observation about year over year changes were not part of the bet.

You insist the calculation of the bet applies to the graph that is currently available on NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet page -- the graph that shows a temperature anomaly of 0.74ºC for 2014: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

We bet on the changes between 1995-2015, so your observation of 2014's temperature is irrelevant to the bet.
Its more whining from you because you lost.

Even if I was generous and allowed you to 'retroactively change the bet' to make it based on the IPCC projections, and not a fixed number, you'd still lose.
We bet on
1995 @ 0.43 + 0.40 = our bet of 0.83ºC
Even with the updated NASA numbers you lose.
1995 updated to 0.46 + 0.40 = 0.86ºC
And you know that NASA reported 0.87ºC.

That's why you keep trying to change the bet into a year over year bet, because you lost and you're too much of a weasel to admit it.
Loser.

We bet