Is global climate policy actually about global income redistribution ?

[Moviefan-2]

Its been updated, idiot.

I see.

My first quote spoke to the calculation that 0.68ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC, which is true. But that was before the numbers were "updated."

You're insisting you want to use the "updated" numbers. It's only you that has calculated that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

Your calculation is wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

(U)pdating one of the components doesn't make the sum a new chart...

Yes, actually, it does.

This is another example of why you keep failing Grade 3.

 

[Frankfooter]

I see.

My first quote spoke to the calculation that 0.68ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC, which is true. But that was before the numbers were "updated."

You're insisting you want to use the "updated" numbers.

You agreed to use the 'updated' numbers without 'adjusting' the bet in any way, after these changes first came out last summer.

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

You are still lying, weasel.

The bet was on a fixed number, 0.83ºC.
Any claim otherwise is more lying from you.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, actually, it does.

This is another example of why you keep failing Grade 3.

Same chart, same location.
As specified by you when you set the terms for the bet, including the fixed number you picked.

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's the post from last May when the terms of the bet were set.
Click on the link in the bet and you can see the same chart updated with 2015's numbers that show you lost the bet.
Its that simple, idiot.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Same chart, same location.

Different data = different graph.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You agreed to use the 'updated' numbers without 'adjusting' the bet in any way, after these changes first came out last summer.

Bullshit. I never said any such thing.

More significantly, you explicitly said the calculations must be adjusted if you move to a different data set.

You can quite clearly use data from different sources if you adjust for the different baselines.

You insist that we have to use the "updated" numbers.

However, I continue to reject your calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

 

[Frankfooter]

Different data = different graph.

The reason you picked that chart was because the data would updated with the new, different, up to date, data.
Idiot.

You picked the NASA chart that presents their latest reports on the global temperature.
Did you expect them to stop updating the numbers when we made the bet?
Idiot.

You fucked up by not doing due diligence on their methods before the bet.
That was your mistake, what NASA did was not unexpected or unusual.
Idiot.

 

[Frankfooter]

Bullshit. I never said any such thing.

You are lying again.

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

You stated this after NASA updated their SST methods and after you tried to change the terms of the bet to 0.86ºC the first time.
That was your word.

You have been caught lying.
Again.

 

[Frankfooter]

Proof that moviefan is lying, again.

Quote #1 - In which moviefan accuses NASA of fraud and tries to change the bet from 0.83ºC to 0.86ºC.

Enron-style accounting doesn't qualify as an actual temperature increase.

I have actually given you a chance to reduce your predicted temperature increase by more than 26%. I'm not going any further than that.

The adjusted bet is 0.86 degrees Celsius. Take it or leave it.

You have until the end of Sunday to decide whether or not you are taking the adjusted bet.

Quote #2 - in which moviefan tries to use a different chart then the bet specified, trying to change the chart from one of global temperatures into one that measured only sea surface temperatures.

The proposed bet on NASA's new ERSST v.4 chart is 0.86 degrees C by the end of 2015.

Take it or leave it. You have until the end of the weekend to decide.

Quote # 3 - In which I confirm that I will not change the terms of the bet, including confirming that I will accept only the chart specified in the bet.

They still have the same chart up there, with updated figures.

So either you give up and forfeit the bet, admitting that you are wrong, or we wait until the end of 2015 and you can pay up then.
Your choice.

Quote # 4 - in which moviefan agrees to continue the bet with its original terms unchanged, or on NASA report 2015's temperature as 0.83ºC.

You say your position on the May 2015 bet is "the bet stands."

Fine. My position will also be that the May 2015 bet stands.

If you want to wait until January 2016 to settle up, that's fine with me. It's not going to help you. You're still going to lose.

You are lying, weasel.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Quote # 3 - In which I confirm that I will not change the terms of the bet, including confirming that I will accept only the chart specified in the bet.

And yet ... he has spent months refusing to use that graph. Different data = different graph.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-bet-on-global-warming&p=5429544#post5429544

The bet was on whether or not the Earth's temperature would increase by a sufficient amount in 2015 to fulfil the IPCC's predictions -- specifically, an increase of at least 0.15ºC in 2015.

We both agreed "the bet stands."

Although the bet was actually based on a different graph, Frankfooter insists we must now assess the 0.15ºC bet using the graph that shows a 0.74ºC temperature anomaly in 2014 and a 0.87ºC temperature anomaly in 2015. Fine with me.

Using Frankfooter's preferred graph, I continue to reject Frankfooter's calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

 

[fuji]

When you guys finish ninnying about your bet, maybe we can get some comment on this year's climate numbers--shaping up to be the highest on record.

 

[Moviefan-2]

When you guys finish ninnying about your bet, maybe we can get some comment on this year's climate numbers--shaping up to be the highest on record.

That may not hold. La Nina is on its way for later this year.

More significantly, El Nino and La Nina are weather phenomena, not "climate." Temperature changes during those weather phenomena tell us nothing.

Until those phenomena have ended, you can only seriously track the "climate numbers" in the period leading up to El Nino. During that period in the 21st century, temperatures were stagnant.

The IPCC's predictions of how man-made emissions would affect the Earth's temperature have been consistently and spectacularly wrong (I'm pretty sure I have mentioned this before ).

 

[Frankfooter]

And yet ... he has spent months refusing to use that graph. Different data = different graph.

Wrong.
The chart I've always demanded to be used is the one you picked in the bet.
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.

You tried to change the chart to a different one.

The proposed bet on NASA's new ERSST v.4 chart is 0.86 degrees C by the end of 2015.

Take it or leave it. You have until the end of the weekend to decide.

That is a different chart from the bet.
You are lying again.

You are such a lousy loser, weasel.

 

[Frankfooter]

That may not hold. La Nina is on its way for later this year.

Gavin Schmidt from NASA thinks that 2016 will be yet another record breaking year, even with La Nina.
I'd offer to bet you on it, but since you're a lying weasel who won't keep his word its not worth it.

The IPCC's predictions of how man-made emissions would affect the Earth's temperature have been consistently and spectacularly wrong (I'm pretty sure I have mentioned this before ).

Amazing that you still make this claim despite being proven wrong through the bet over and over again.

The bet was based on the IPCC's predictions of temperature increases of 0.2ºC per decade,

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

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

There you go, you claimed the IPCC projections were 'spectacularly bad', made a bet that the globe wouldn't hit 0.83ºC in 2015 based off of those projections and
even when the temperature went way past the bet to 0.87ºC you still claim those projections are bad.

You are a lying weasel on every level.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The chart I've always demanded to be used is the one you picked in the bet.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I see. That's the graph that you said "needed" to show a 0.15ºC increase in the temperature anomaly in 2015 in order for you to win the bet.

Believe what you want.

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

Your calculation is wrong. Keep working at it.

 

[Frankfooter]

I see. That's the graph that you said "needed" to show a 0.15ºC increase in the temperature anomaly in 2015 in order for you to win the bet.

Nope, never said such a thing.

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

Nope, never said such a thing.


Now that we've established that you are a lying weasel and that all you are doing here is continuing to lie, its time to re-diagnose you from Dunning-Kruger effect (incredibly incompetent but also so over confident that you don't know how stupid you are) into intentional dishonesty. You are still stupid, the lies are incredibly obvious yet you keep repeating them as if they weren't shown to be lies daily, yet it also appears you are totally dishonest.

You refuse to admit that you promised that you'd keep to the bet without changes - dishonest.
You refuse to admit that you tried to switch out the charts, not me - dishonest.
You refuse to admit that I never made the calculation you claim I did - dishonest.
You refuse to admit that the bet was based on 1995-2015 not 2014-2015 - dishonest.

In short, you are a lying weasel.

 

[FAST]

Looks like only the chosen, can continually make insults and not get banned, well at least not twice, anyway.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Looks like only the chosen, can continually make insults and not get banned, well at least not twice, anyway.

FAST

Hey, I call him a liar and I have the proof to back it up.
Its not an insult, its an accurate description.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Nope, never said such a thing.

Franky has a short memory.

(Y)ou fixated on the difference between 2014's temperature and the bet, which needed a record year over year increase for me to win.

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

So, he says he "needed" a 0.15ºC increase over the 2014 anomaly to win, and he insists we use the graph that pegs the 2014 anomaly at 0.74ºC.

I continue to reject his calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Looks like only the chosen, can continually make insults and not get banned, well at least not twice, anyway.

FAST

In fairness, he can't get any of his numbers to add up because he never passed Grade 3. What else can he do except throw mindless insults around?