World leaders duped manipulates global warming data

[Moviefan-2]

And yet the rolling thirty year average temperature was higher in each of those years than the year before. It's undeniable that the climate is warming, and per the Nature study, undeniable that we are warming it.

Your strategy is to try and ignore that fundamental truth by nitpicking more minor predictions in the hopes of creating the illusion of debate.

So let me disillusion you: it's a proven fact that CO2 emissions warm the planet and an observed fact that the climate is getting warmer.

Two points:

1. The IPCC's predictions were for yearly temperature anomalies and the spectacularly wrong predictions cover a 35-year time frame. Indeed, the IPCC conceded in its most recent report that the predictions for the 21st century were wrong.

The Nature paper that appeared last year also said the temperature anomalies were nowhere near what had been forecast.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

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

According to the scientific method, the "mismatch" between the predictions and the results means the hypothesis should be revisited.

2. You would have more credibility talking about CO2 emissions if you weren't still continuing to cite a paper that you've never read and that you don't understand.

--

There is no dispute that the planet has been warming in the period after the Little Ice Age. The problem is the lack of evidence to support the claim that recent warming (post-1950) has been unprecedented and has primarily been caused by man-made emissions. Those assertions remain highly debatable.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And for the 'Enron challenged', 0.89ºC is definitely more then the 0.83ºC we bet on.

The 0.83 is from the "old copies" of graphs that you've now rejected.

And 0.89 is the Karl-adjusted bet (0.74 + 0.15), not the result. NASA's reported anomaly for 2015 was 0.87. You lost.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The numbers you quote are not on that chart anymore, they are totally irrelevant to the bet....

Funny enough, that type of argument couldn't keep Kenneth Lay out of jail.

 

[OnTheWayOut]

Here's what matters, other than to your pissing contest with footer:

Temperatures have consistently risen over every thirty year period.

What source are you using for this? The World Climate Report for the last 2000 years sharply disagrees.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

 

[Moviefan-2]

"The slowdown hasn’t gone away." - Peter Stott of the Met Office in the U.K., Feb. 12, 2017.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/slowdown-in-ocean-heating-gives-sceptics-a-warm-glow-qls5vmtgc

 

[Frankfooter]

And 0.89 is the Karl-adjusted bet (0.74 + 0.15), not the result. NASA's reported anomaly for 2015 was 0.87. You lost.

The 'Karl adjusted' bet is a 'moviefan adjusted' bet.
That's what happened when you lost the bet, you tried to change the terms retroactively.
Such a whiny and sore loser.

The only terms we ever agreed to are the following:

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.

By the terms you set and agreed to, you lost.

 

[Frankfooter]

"The slowdown hasn’t gone away." - Peter Stott of the Met Office in the U.K., Feb. 12, 2017.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/slowdown-in-ocean-heating-gives-sceptics-a-warm-glow-qls5vmtgc

Trying to claim that you were really talking about sea temperatures all along, and not global temperatures?
Nice try.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The 'Karl adjusted' bet is a 'moviefan adjusted' bet.
That's what happened when you lost the bet, you tried to change the terms retroactively.

Bull. It was your decision -- not mine -- to go with the graph that has the Enron-style adjustments.

Let's review your preferred numbers:

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

2014's temp is 0.74ºC

0.15 + 0.74 = 0.89, not 0.83. You lost.

 

[Frankfooter]

Bull. It was your decision -- not mine -- to go with the graph that has the Enron-style adjustments.

No, you picked the NASA chart, that live, updated chart was your choice.

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.

Let's review your preferred numbers:

The two quotes you used were partial quotes taken out of context. They do not say what you claim you said.

The quote was calling you out for trying to change the terms of the bet retroactively, from the same quote:

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

 

[eznutz]

University scientists claim left-wing violence is caused by global warming… “the planet made them do it”
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/global-warming-and-violent-behavior

“When people get uncomfortably hot, their tempers, irritability, and likelihood of physical aggression and violence increase,” says the analysis, implying that global warming somehow turns all of society into a kind of “Hell’s Kitchen” sweltering oven that relieves people of responsibility for their actions.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Because this particular thread was about the Enron-style accounting in the Karl adjustments, I decided to respond to Frankfooter's tiresome lies about our bet to show that his lies are based on the same type of bogus accounting.

To repeat, his lies and his bait-and-switch tactics with different graphs are all part of his bullshit assertion that NASA's reported 0.13C temperature increase in 2015 was greater than the 0.15C minimum increase we bet on.

Obviously, that is total rubbish. In fact, as much as Franky doesn't like to admit it, his Enron accounting is based on the preposterous calculation that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

I have proven my point.

I actually feel a bit sorry for any of the more rational TERB members who share Franky's belief that anthropogenic global warming poses some type of existential threat. They must shudder in horror every time Frankfooter posts on the topic.

 

[K Douglas]

Check the chart on NASA.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Can you really look at that chart and claim that it doesn't show an increase in temperature?

I can read a chart just fine. What you don't see is the faulty data that is behind it. Data that has been manipulated to suit an agenda. I'll trust the satellite record, far more accurate than surface temperature data.

 

[K Douglas]

University scientists claim left-wing violence is caused by global warming… “the planet made them do it”
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/global-warming-and-violent-behavior

“When people get uncomfortably hot, their tempers, irritability, and likelihood of physical aggression and violence increase,” says the analysis, implying that global warming somehow turns all of society into a kind of “Hell’s Kitchen” sweltering oven that relieves people of responsibility for their actions.

But wait. Wouldn't that hold true with right wingers who protest as well? I mean after all they share the same planet. Another bogus study by pseudo scientists.

 

[fuji]

Two points:

1. The IPCC's predictions were for yearly temperature anomalies and the spectacularly wrong predictions cover a 35-year time frame. Indeed, the IPCC conceded in its most recent report that the predictions for the 21st century were wrong.

The Nature paper that appeared last year also said the temperature anomalies were nowhere near what had been forecast.



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

According to the scientific method, the "mismatch" between the predictions and the results means the hypothesis should be revisited.

2. You would have more credibility talking about CO2 emissions if you weren't still continuing to cite a paper that you've never read and that you don't understand.

--

There is no dispute that the planet has been warming in the period after the Little Ice Age. The problem is the lack of evidence to support the claim that recent warming (post-1950) has been unprecedented and has primarily been caused by man-made emissions. Those assertions remain highly debatable.

There's no dispute that the planet is warming, and there's no dispute that human CO2 emissions are a significant factor.

Now you can go back to pissing on footer and quibbling about anomalies.

 

[fuji]

What source are you using for this? The World Climate Report for the last 2000 years sharply disagrees.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...hange-thread&p=5561247&viewfull=1#post5561247

 

[Frankfooter]

Because this particular thread was about the Enron-style accounting in the Karl adjustments, I decided to respond to Frankfooter's tiresome lies about our bet to show that his lies are based on the same type of bogus accounting.

To repeat, his lies and his bait-and-switch tactics with different graphs are all part of his bullshit assertion that NASA's reported 0.13C temperature increase in 2015 was greater than the 0.15C minimum increase we bet on.

Obviously, that is total rubbish. In fact, as much as Franky doesn't like to admit it, his Enron accounting is based on the preposterous calculation that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

I have proven my point.

I actually feel a bit sorry for any of the more rational TERB members who share Franky's belief that anthropogenic global warming poses some type of existential threat. They must shudder in horror every time Frankfooter posts on the topic.

Do you think anyone here cares about your 'Enron style math'?
Your numbers don't add up, but that's to be expected as you are an anti-science climate change denier.

All we are talking about is your total lack of honour in refusing to accept you lost a simple bet.
We bet on how warm 2015 would be, and used NASA as the metric.

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 lost that bet and keep trying to fudge numbers to avoid admitting you lost.
It was a really simple bet.
You didn't think 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.
2015 ended up at 0.87ºC and you lost.

Just admit it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your numbers don't add up....

One more look at Franky's numbers:

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

2014's temp is 0.74ºC

You didn't think 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.

0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83?

Too funny.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lawrence Solomon in the National Post has an excellent summary of all the shenanigans that have taken place in climate research. He argues whistleblowers will have more freedom to come forward now that Obama is no longer in office.

http://business.financialpost.com/f...ers-of-corrupted-climate-science-to-speak-out

 

[Frankfooter]

One more look at Franky's numbers:

Nice series of partial quotes taken out of context.
Of course they don't say anything like what you claim you said they do.

Are you really trying to claim that we didn't bet on what 2015's global anomaly would be, as reported by NASA?
Are you really that ashamed of losing that you refuse to admit that you didn't think it would hit 0.83ºC and still think you didn't lose when the final number came out as 0.87ºC?

0.87>0.83
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.

Read the terms of the bet you set above, click on the link in the bet and read the results.
You lost.

 

[eznutz]

Princeton physicist: There’s a ‘cult’ building around climate scientists
https://youtu.be/vro-yn59uso