Liar! The graph we bet on -- the one that has the same numbers as the ones described in the terms of the bet -- is the graph on the left in this image created by NASA:Its a screen grab of the NASA chart we bet on, as posted at the end of our bet.
But here, you can still click on the live link we used in the bet and see how you lost.
This was the bet:
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!
Does not matter, we can force them to build plants here buy putting tariffs in place. Canada still is a 2m/year car market which is still worth a few bucks. We can go to an auto pact style protectionism. For each car exported from Canada they can import one tax free.Your real problem is you don’t have any high value brands, you do component assembly and raw materials exports.
Its a screen grab of the NASA chart we bet on, as posted at the end of our bet.
But here, you can still click on the live link we used in the bet and see how you lost.
This was the bet:
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!
As the dummy Donald will find out Tariffs do not work.Does not matter, we can force them to build plants here buy putting tariffs in place. Canada still is a 2m/year car market which is still worth a few bucks. We can go to an auto pact style protectionism. For each car exported from Canada they can import one tax free.
Your reputation speaks loudlyIts a screen grab of the NASA chart we bet on, as posted at the end of our bet.
But here, you can still click on the live link we used in the bet and see how you lost.
This was the bet:
Click on the link in the bet above to see who won the bet!
That's bait and switch.Liar! The graph we bet on -- the one that has the same numbers as the ones described in the terms of the bet -- is the graph on the left in this image created by NASA:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/v3b+v4_lrg.png
Thanks, Frankfooter, for once again publicly confirming that you're lying and you know it.
There you go, no screenshots needed.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.
Indeed, here are the full terms of the bet:Your reputation speaks loudly
No one believes you
And yet ... when you open that link, it shows the temperature anomaly for 2014 as 0.73 degrees Celsius.We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.
For example, your NASA chart that shows 1995 at 0.43 degrees Celsius put 2014 at 0.68 degrees in 2014: 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 are an idiot.Indeed, here are the full terms of the bet:
And yet ... when you open that link, it shows the temperature anomaly for 2014 as 0.73 degrees Celsius.
How did 0.68 C magically become 0.73 C?
There's no magic involved. It's a different graph, due to a change in methodology that was announced after we made the bet.
When you stick to the same graph, you discover that 0.13 really is less than 0.15. And that Frankfooter lost the bet.
Those were the terms.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.
It wasn't "updated." As NASA reported, it's a different graph: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/v3b+v4_lrg.pngYou are an idiot.
The chart gets updated, that's the entire point of using it for the bet.
And note that we bet on what that chart would report for 2015, not for any other year.
The chart we bet on reports 0.86ºC for 2015, which means you lost the bet.
Those were the terms.
You lost the bet.
That chart is a different chart that you agreed to use for the bet.It wasn't "updated." As NASA reported, it's a different graph: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst4vs3b/v3b+v4_lrg.png
You are still trying to cheat the bet by switching out the chart.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.
Here's the terms of the bet, explicitly stating that the graph in question had a temperature anomaly of 0.68 C in 2014:Do you think people are so stupid that they won't notice that you're trying to use a different chart?
The graph I posted showed a temperature anomaly of 0.68 for 2014.We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.
For example, your NASA chart that shows 1995 at 0.43 degrees Celsius put 2014 at 0.68 degrees in 2014: 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.
I think that most intelligent people understand that the chart we bet on would be updated because you can't bet on a static chart. It hast to be updated with the latest numbers or you end up betting on a picture.Here's the terms of the bet, explicitly stating that the graph in question had a temperature anomaly of 0.68 C in 2014:
The graph I posted showed a temperature anomaly of 0.68 for 2014.
The graph Frankfooter is using shows a temperature anomaly of 0.73 for 2014.
I think most intelligent people can figure out that the graph with 0.68 in it is the one we bet on. :thumb:
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.
What a stupid notion!! What is it, the 1970’s again and Trudeau’s forced branch plant economy? Our auto industry will be reduced to a Tim Hortons style industry. Everything will arrive pre made for final assembly. Only in this case it’ll be auto components instead of frozen muffins and doughnuts. Imagine, no more engineering, meaning no engineers, no R&D and no value added work at all. All Canadian worked would do is “insert bolt here or place rivet here” and we’d only produce for the Canadian market so that would cut thousands of assembly jobs. Brilliant idea!!Does not matter, we can force them to build plants here buy putting tariffs in place. Canada still is a 2m/year car market which is still worth a few bucks. We can go to an auto pact style protectionism. For each car exported from Canada they can import one tax free.
I have seen how you like stack the deck and propose a betIndeed, here are the full terms of the bet:
He is not the sharpest knife in the drawerWhat a stupid notion!! What is it, the 1970’s again and Trudeau’s forced branch plant economy? Our auto industry will be reduced to a Tim Hortons style industry. Everything will arrive pre made for final assembly. Only in this case it’ll be auto components instead of frozen muffins and doughnuts. Imagine, no more engineering, meaning no engineers, no R&D and no value added work at all. All Canadian worked would do is “insert bolt here or place rivet here” and we’d only produce for the Canadian market so that would cut thousands of assembly jobs. Brilliant idea!!
I'm guessing these comments were supposed to be directed at Frankfooter. I suspect many people believe that 0.13 is less than 0.15. Actually, it would be kinda crazy not to believe that.No one believes you
Please do.I haven't updated Frankfooter's greatest hits on global warming in a while, but yesterday's inane comment -- that anyone who thinks 0.68 is the same number as 0.68 must be "so stupid" -- is simply irresistible.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...rbon-tax-lol&p=6097320&viewfull=1#post6097320
It will be added to the full list: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-to-Humanity&p=6086677&viewfull=1#post6086677
That's some kind of weird denier math mantra, isn't it?I'm guessing these comments were supposed to be directed at Frankfooter. I suspect many people believe that 0.13 is less than 0.15. Actually, it would be kinda crazy not to believe that.
The only number we bet on was 0.83, as you confirmed with 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.
