Is global climate policy actually about global income redistribution ?

[Frankfooter]

What I have said is that if you're going to insist on using the adjusted graph, you have to use the correct numbers. You can't create fairy tales by mixing and matching numbers from completely different graphs.

We bet on a temperature anomaly (and only one) that represented a 0.40ºC increase over 1995 and a 0.15ºC over 2014 -- you get the same number when you apply the math correctly.

No, we bet on a 0.40ºC increase over 1995's reported at the time temperature of 0.43ºC, or 0.83ºC.
Not a year over year change from 2014, as the quotes all show.

First, you didn't notice we were in a super El Nino year and didn't read the NASA FAQ's to understand that they update their processes quite often. Your mistakes, you took on a bet that you were bound to lose.

Second, even when you use the new NASA numbers (which you promised you wouldn't use) you lose.
Our bet:
1995 @ 0.43ºC + 0.40 (IPCC projections over 2 decades) = our bet of 0.83ºC
With the new NASA numbers:
1995 @ 0.46ºC + 0.40 = 0.86ºC

Both of those lose.
Your math is fucked in the head stupid, a pure weasel claim that 1995-2015 numbers need an extra boost in the middle, 'cuz Dunning-Kruger.....
Only a total moron thinks that 0.43 + 0.40 > 0.87 and that 0.46 + 0.40 > 0.87.


As stated before, we did the calculations before we agreed to the bet.
You agreed to 0.83ºC as the bet.
You agreed not to change 0.83ºC as the bet after the NASA changes came out.

And here you still trying to change the numbers.
Weasel dick.

 

[Moviefan-2]

With the new NASA numbers:
1995 @ 0.46ºC + 0.40 = 0.86ºC

You really are dim. Once again, you forgot to add the 0.03ºC difference that was created when NASA adjusted the numbers.

The correct equation -- the one that produces the same result as adding 0.15ºC to the 2014 anomaly -- is this:

0.46ºC + 0.03ºC + 0.40ºC = ?

You keep saying that adds up to either 0.83ºC or 0.86ºC.

The problem remains the same: Your calculations are wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Once again, you forgot to add the 0.03ºC difference that was created when NASA adjusted the numbers.

1) You gave your word you would keep to the bet as we made it and not adjust it. Claiming it still needs 'adjusting' just confirms your word is worthless, which confirms you are a lying weasel.

2) That number makes no sense mathematically. To claim that a bet between 1995-2015 needs to be adjusted to numbers from one internal year, 2014, is a failure of logic, the bet no longer becomes a bet on projections. It turns the bet into (1995-2015 projections + weasel tweak). This confirms your faulty logic, confirming the diagnosis of Dunning-Kruger effect.

These are the fixed numbers we bet on, on which you lost:
1995 @ 0.43ºC + 0.40 (IPCC projections over 2 decades) = our bet of 0.83ºC

These are the IPCC projections with the updated NASA numbers (which we didn't bet on but you also lost on):
1995 @ 0.46ºC + 0.40 = 0.86ºC


As for this number you made up:

the 0.03ºC difference that was created when NASA adjusted the numbers.

That number is a number you created, not NASA. I'm surprised you didn't carry through your Dunning-Kruger logic to its conclusion and claim that the 1995-2015 bet has to be adjusted to include the sum total of all changes of all internal years. That makes just as much sense and then you would come up with a much higher number. Why stop and adjust the bet to only one internal number? Why didn't you try to use them all, why not adjust it to 2013, 2012 or any other year? Why do you claim the bet is now 1995-2015 plus x/2014?

The problem is your claims are based on Dunning-Kruger effect errors in logic.

The bet was the difference between 1995 and 2015's temperature, fool, not 1995-2015 plus imaginary cheat numbers.

 

[Moviefan-2]

1) You gave your word you would keep to the bet as we made it and not adjust it. Claiming it still needs 'adjusting' just confirms your word is worthless, which confirms you are a lying weasel.

The bet as we made it was to use one graph -- not creating fairy tales by using one graph for calculating the bet and a completely different graph for recording the 2015 anomaly.

The bet as we made in 2015 was a bet on a 0.40ºC from the 1995 anomaly. To get to 0.40ºC, the temperature needed to increase by 0.15ºC in 2015 over 2014.

Nothing was changed by me. You're the guy that insisted we use a new graph that shows a 0.74ºC anomaly for 2014, rather than the 0.68ºC anomaly for 2014 on the graph we bet on.

Going along with your decision to change graphs, we see that you have calculated:

- That 0.46ºC + 0.03ºC + 0.40ºC = 0.83ºC (or 0.86ºC - you go back and forth on this one)

- That 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC

The problem remains: your calculations are wrong.

It makes no difference which graph you use (but you can only use one). Each graph has you coming up short, and the IPCC's predictions remain spectacularly wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That number is a number you created, not NASA.

Really??

So what do you think the difference is between 0.06ºC and 0.03ºC?

 

[Frankfooter]

Really??

So what do you think the difference is between 0.06ºC and 0.03ºC?

Irrelevant.

Those numbers aren't in 1995 or 2015's NASA data and weren't part of the number we agreed to bet on.
Anything else is irrelevant.

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015

Those numbers weren't part of the calculations for the number we agreed on.

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.

Those numbers aren't in 1995 or 2015's data on the chart we agreed to use.

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.

In short.
You are full of shit.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Irrelevant.

Nonsense. You simply don't understand any of this because you never completed Grade 3.

In fact, those numbers represent the difference between the adjusted figure for 1995 and the adjustments for the current years. The current years were adjusted at twice the size of the 1995 adjustment (a 0.06ºC increase for the current years vs. a 0.03ºC increase for 1995).

You can't calculate the bet using the 1995 anomaly as a starting point if you don't know how to do the calculation correctly.

Let's try again. Tell us what number you get when you add 0.46ºC + 0.03ºC + 0.40ºC.

Or, if that is too difficult for you, try adding 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC. You will get the same result, as you must.

So far, you have repeatedly said the answer to both equations is 0.83ºC.

The problem remains the same: Your calculations are wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

In fact, those numbers represent the difference between the adjusted figure for 1995 and the adjustments for the current years. The current years were adjusted at twice the size of the 1995 adjustment (a 0.06ºC increase for the current years vs. a 0.03ºC increase for 1995).

Years?

Right, so you promised to keep to the bet and now you are claiming that the bet needs to be adjusted once for 1995, once for 2014 and once more for 2015.
What a lying weasel you are.

You promised to honour the bet on 0.83ºC yet here you are trying to 'adjust' it three times!
Total lying weasel.

You lied when you said this:

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

 

[Moviefan-2]

You promised to honour the bet on 0.83ºC yet here you are trying to 'adjust' it three times!

Nonsense. The 0.83ºC number was from a different graph -- and the bet was clear that only one graph is to be used. Furthermore, the changes to the graph were made by NASA, not by me.

The whole business of using 1995 as a starting point and applying the math correctly is clearly much too difficult for you. I'm not going to try to teach you Grade 3 math over the Internet -- particularly since I don't see any indication that you're even trying to learn.

You're the one who insists on using a different graph. Since NASA adjusted the current years on your preferred graph at the same rate, we'll stick with the year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC, which must produce the same number that you would get using 1995 as your starting point if the math is being applied correctly.

You keep saying that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong. Try again.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense. The 0.83ºC number was from a different graph -- and the bet was clear that only one graph is to be used. Furthermore, the changes to the graph were made by NASA, not by me.

Bullshit, you are lying.
There is only one chart specified in the bet, and only one chart that I ever refer to. As you noted:

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 used that chart to set the terms of the bet, 0.83ºC, and its still live and being updated, to report the final numbers for 2015 as 0.87ºC.
You lost.

Now that we've established that you are liar, its time to note what other claims of yours are also lies.
This was your first lie:

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

You have been established as a liar, your claims about calculations are also lies.

 

[Moviefan-2]

We used that chart to set the terms of the bet..., 0.83ºC, and its still live and being updated, to report the final numbers for 2015 as 0.87ºC.

So, you're saying that's the graph we used when we bet on whether or not the temperature anomaly would increase by 0.15ºC in 2015.

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

That graph shows a temperature anomaly of 0.74ºC in 2014.

According to you, 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong. Try again.

 

[Frankfooter]

So, you're saying that's the graph we used when we bet on whether or not the temperature anomaly would increase by 0.15ºC in 2015.

No, weasel.
I'm saying that's the chart we agreed to use when we bet that 2015's temperature anomaly would hit 0.83ºC.

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.

Read your own words and stop lying.

 

[Moviefan-2]

No, weasel.
I'm saying that's the chart we agreed to use when we bet that 2015's temperature anomaly would hit 0.83ºC.


Read your own words and stop lying.

Don't use a quote from me that pre-dates NASA's changes to try to defend your flawed math.

You're saying that's the graph that "needed" (your word) to increase by 0.15ºC over the 2014 anomaly of 0.74ºC for you to win the bet.

According to you, 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong. Try again.

 

[Frankfooter]

Don't use a quote from me that pre-dates NASA's changes to try to defend your flawed math.

Let me use two quotes for you, weasel.
First 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.

Then the second quote, in which you confirmed you'd honour the first quote. This quote came up AFTER the NASA changes and you first tried to weasel around and change the bet. This one states that you promised to keep to the original terms of the bet even with the NASA changes.

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

You are a lying weasel.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Then the second quote, in which you confirmed you'd honour the first quote.

That would be where I reaffirmed our May 2015 agreement that we would only use one graph -- not one graph for setting the bet (the pre-adjusted graph) and a completely different graph for measuring the 2015 anomaly.

I don't care which graph you use. Neither one of them shows a temperature increase in 2015 that fulfils the IPCC prediction that was the source of the bet.

You continue to insist we're using the graph that has a 0.74ºC temperature anomaly for 2014.

According to you, 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong. Try again.

 

[Frankfooter]

That would be where I reaffirmed our May 2015 agreement that we would only use one graph -- not one graph for setting the bet (the pre-adjusted graph) and a completely different graph for measuring the 2015 anomaly.
.

I've always used the one and only chart specified with a link in the terms you set for 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.

That is the only chart I have used.
And as you reported that same chart shows you lost the bet.

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

You are still a lying weasel.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I've always used the one and only chart specified with a link in the terms you set for the bet.

You can't keep track of your own bullshit.

The url for the link is the same. The graph that now appears on the web page is different. You know that:

Second, even when you use the new NASA numbers....

You insist you want to use the graph with the "new NASA numbers." According to you, 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong. Try again.

 

[Frankfooter]

You can't keep track of your own bullshit.

The url for the link is the same. The graph that now appears on the web page is different. You know that:.

The numbers on it are different because its been updated, idiot, that was the reason why we picked that chart.
That was the point of picking that chart, we knew it would be updated.

But click on the link in the bet and it still goes to the chart that presents NASA's latest numbers on the global temperature.
That is exactly the same information, with the latest updates, that the chart presented when we made the bet.

You picked that chart and you agreed to hold to the terms of the bet.
Stop lying so much, weasel.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The numbers on it are different....

That means it's not the same graph, fool.

But since that's the one you insist we should use, let's take yet another look at your calculations.

According to you, 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong. Try again.

 

[Frankfooter]

That means it's not the same graph, fool.

Its been updated, idiot.
Are you really claiming that using a chart that you knew was going to be updated with 2015's numbers doesn't count because they updated it with 2015's numbers?
That's really incredibly stupid.

You picked this chart as where we'd get NASA's numbers for 2015, as stated 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.

According to the bet all you need to do is read out the number NASA arrived at for 2015's temperature, which you did:

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

Stop lying that calculations are needed, you bet on a fixed number and lost weasel.

And just to clarify this claim that the only one who tried to switch charts is moviefan, lets note that he tried to switch charts the first time in this post:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5300467&viewfull=1#post5300467
In that post moviefan tried to claim that instead of NASA's GISS we should use a chart that only measured sea surface temperature, ERSST. GISS is made up of a combination of surface station data and sea surface temperature (SST), updating one of the components doesn't make the sum a new chart, its still represents NASA's measurement of global surface temperature.

Its all part of his incredible incompetence, where he still acts surprised not only that NASA updated their charts with 2015's temperature but that they updated their methods, which is something they do so often there is a page with comparative changes listed.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

Had he done his due diligence he would have understood that, and have noticed that he bet against the temperature rising in an El Nino year, but he's not that smart.

So he lost.
And he keeps lying.