Gary Mason (Globe) - Canada’s environmental agenda is on the verge of collapse

[Frankfooter]

Frankfooter explicitly told PornAddict that opening this link would confirm the numbers from the bet, such as the 0.68 C temperature anomaly for 2014 that was described in the agreed-upon terms.

However, when you open the link, you find the temperature anomaly for 2014 cited as 0.73 C: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

There is only one conclusion that explains Frankfooter's statement to PornAddict that opening the link would "confirm" the numbers from the bet. Frankfooter must believe that 0.68 and 0.73 are the exact same number.

No other interpretation is possible. My description of Franky's greatest hit from April 15, 2018, is 100 per cent accurate.

There is a major problem with your 'interpretation'.
We bet on what NASA would report as the global temperature anomaly for 2015, not 2014.
2014's numbers are irrelevant to the bet.
That they were updated is as unsurprising as the fact that they updated their chart with 2015's numbers.
The chart is a live update of the temp readings.

Again, the bet is contained in this one sentence.

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.

Your attempts to whine about NASA updating other numbers, as they explicitly state that they do constantly, shows that you lack basic understanding of the scientific process, which is a major reason why you lost the bet.

We bet on whether NASA would report 0.83ºC as the global temp anomaly for 2015, they reported it as 0.86ºC and you lost the bet.
Plain and simple.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That they were updated is as unsurprising as the fact that they updated their chart with 2015's numbers.

Nice try. Your "greatest hit" referred to the 2014 anomaly. You said the graph in the link would "confirm" the numbers from the bet, including the 2014 anomaly.

That means you must believe that 0.68 and 0.73 are the exact same number.

Your greatest hit stands as written.

 

[Moviefan-2]

By the way, the terms of the bet in the post above clearly show we bet on the temperature increasing from the 0.68 C anomaly in 2014 (the anomaly that was being reported in the graph we actually bet on) to 0.83 C in 2015.

Yet Frankfooter says there was "no reference" to an increase of 0.15 C: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-of-collapse&p=6102057&viewfull=1#post6102057

This is another one for the "greatest hits." Frankfooter, tell us what number you get when you subtract 0.68 from 0.83?

I didn't see an answer to the question.

Before I write my next greatest hit, let's see if we can get an answer. Frankfooter, confirm for us whether or not you know what the numerical difference is between 0.68 and 0.83.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nice try. Your "greatest hit" referred to the 2014 anomaly..

There was no reference nor any need for a reference to 2014 in my post.

- April 15, 2018 - He said that 0.68 C and 0.73 C are the exact same number: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-of-collapse&p=6100750&viewfull=1#post6100750

You lied and posted a false claim, stating that I used numbers that were not in the post you linked to.
Nowhere in the link you provide is there any such claim.

You've been caught faking these 'greatest hits' again.
You should apologize.

 

[Frankfooter]

I didn't see an answer to the question.

The answer to the question is that you don't understand the scientific process, didn't read the details on the NASA website where they stated they update their numbers often and then whined when they did as they stated they would.

By the way, the terms of the bet in the post above clearly show we bet on the temperature increasing from the 0.68 C anomaly in 2014

No, we just bet on what NASA would report as the 2015 anomaly.

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.

There was no mention of a difference between two years, only on what would be reported for 2015.
Still trying to weasel out after you lost, eh?
Sad.

 

[Moviefan-2]

For a guy who whines about how he's being treated in the listing of his "greatest hits", Groggy/Frankfooter sure is an evasive sort.

Before I update his greatest hits, let's make one last try to understand the statement that there was "no reference" in the bet to a temperature increase of 0.15 C. Frankfooter, tell us what you believe the numerical difference is between 0.68 C and 0.83 C.

 

[Frankfooter]

For a guy who whines about how he's being treated in the listing of his "greatest hits", Groggy/Frankfooter sure is an evasive sort.

Its not 'whining' to point out that your claims are bullshit, that the post you used as your latest 'greatest hits' contains nothing of what you claim it does.

- April 15, 2018 - He said that 0.68 C and 0.73 C are the exact same number: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-of-collapse&p=6100750&viewfull=1#post6100750

Just click on the link and note that those numbers were never used.
Its just more of your denier bullshit, where you made up a series of claims which are easily shown to be wrong, and then continue as if they are correct.
Its just as pathetic as pornaddict's total failure to understand that he was pushing a faked Time cover as if it were legit, even when shown he was wrong,

You just have a total failure to understand that betting on the temp rising to 0.83ºC means that when it went to 0.86ºC you lost the bet.

Why don't you try to apply your own math and tell us why you think that 0.83 is < 0.86?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Why don't you try to apply your own math and tell us why you think that 0.83 is < 0.86?

Try opening the link. The graph you keep citing with a temperature anomaly of 0.86 in 2015 shows a temperature anomaly of 0.73 C in 2014. When I add the 0.15 bet to that 2014 anomaly, I get 0.88.

For the record, 0.86 is less than 0.88. That's not my opinion -- it's a statement of fact.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here are the latest updates to Frankfooter's "greatest hits" on global warming.

- April 17, 2018 - Frankfooter disputes the calculation that 0.83 minus 0.68 equals 0.15: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-of-collapse&p=6102057&viewfull=1#post6102057

- April 19, 2018 - Frankfooter says this NASA post from 2015 doesn't meet "a basic understanding of the scientific method": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-of-collapse&p=6104004&viewfull=1#post6104004

That's enough of Frankfooter-style insanity for one thread. On to other things.

 

[Frankfooter]

Here are the latest updates to Frankfooter's "greatest hits" on global warming.

- April 17, 2018 - Frankfooter disputes the calculation that 0.83 minus 0.68 equals 0.15: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-of-collapse&p=6102057&viewfull=1#post6102057

- April 19, 2018 - Frankfooter says this NASA post from 2015 doesn't meet "a basic understanding of the scientific method": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-of-collapse&p=6104004&viewfull=1#post6104004

That's enough of Frankfooter-style insanity for one thread. On to other things.

April 17 post - Does not contain any reference to the numbers Moviefan constantly refers to.
April 19 post - Comments on Moviefan's lack of understanding of the scientific method, not NASA's.

In other words, still up to the usual bullshit.

Moviefan still can't admit that 0.86 > 0.83, which means he lost 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.

 

[Butler1000]

Considering Frankfooter can't come up with an explanation as to why his previous handle of Groggy was permanently banned I'd say Aardee's credibility is the one to be believed.

 

[Frankfooter]

Considering Frankfooter can't come up with an explanation as to why his previous handle of Groggy was permanently banned I'd say Aardee's credibility is the one to be believed.

fuji, I understand that you lost the argument and have to resort to desperate attacks on my character, but since you're living in a glass house you should be careful.
Would you care to tell us why you were banned as fuji and why you've come back?

 

[Butler1000]

fuji, I understand that you lost the argument and have to resort to desperate attacks on my character, but since you're living in a glass house you should be careful.
Would you care to tell us why you were banned as fuji and why you've come back?

See. Even in this a lie and deflection......

 

[Orion1027]

she is a diversity hire

I didn’t realize that Environmental Brarbie was diversity hire?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Considering Frankfooter can't come up with an explanation as to why his previous handle of Groggy was permanently banned I'd say Aardee's credibility is the one to be believed.

Actually, I'm prepared to let an independent, third-party judge settle the matter once and for all.

Since Groggy/Frankfooter insists he wants to use the graph that now appears in NASA's link (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/), here's what I propose:

- Scrolling over the graph, the third-party judge will post the 2014 temperature anomaly that appears in that link.

- Scrolling over that same graph, the third-party judge will post the 2015 temperature anomaly that appears in that link.

- The third-party judge will then report whether the difference between the two is at least 0.15 C, the amount we bet on.

To make this fair, I'll let Groggy/Frankfooter put forward the names of any recognized TERB members that he wants to recommend as the judge. Once we both agree on a name, we'll let that person decide the matter once and for all.

Over to you, Franky. Provide us with proposed names for a third-party judge.

 

[onthebottom]

This is the circlejerk to rule all circljerks.

 

[Frankfooter]

This is the circlejerk to rule all circljerks.

Totally.

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, I'm prepared to let an independent, third-party judge settle the matter once and for all.

Since Groggy/Frankfooter insists he wants to use the graph that now appears in NASA's link (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/), here's what I propose:

- Scrolling over the graph, the third-party judge will post the 2014 temperature anomaly that appears in that link.

- Scrolling over that same graph, the third-party judge will post the 2015 temperature anomaly that appears in that link.

- The third-party judge will then report whether the difference between the two is at least 0.15 C, the amount we bet on.

To make this fair, I'll let Groggy/Frankfooter put forward the names of any recognized TERB members that he wants to recommend as the judge. Once we both agree on a name, we'll let that person decide the matter once and for all.

Over to you, Franky. Provide us with proposed names for a third-party judge.

The bet was only on 2015's temperature, so lets amend your terms to ones based on the bet, then I'll agree.
And really its so much easier.

- Scrolling over that same graph, the third-party judge will post the 2015 temperature anomaly that appears in the link:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

That will fulfil the terms of the bet we made.

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.

So sure, I'd be happy to get a third party to go click on the link and read the number NASA reports for 2015 and see who won the bet.
Do you want to suggest a name?

 

[Moviefan-2]

So sure, I'd be happy to get a third party to go click on the link and read the number NASA reports for 2015 and see who won the bet.
Do you want to suggest a name?

Your post makes it unclear whether you're agreeing to use the so-called "updated" numbers -- since your post included quotes based on calculations that you say are outdated.

I guess I made this too difficult. Let's see if I can simplify it.

Here is Frankfooter's description of the bet:

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

I agree with Frankfooter that the bet was "a year-over-year increase of 0.15ºC of the 2014 anomaly".

Given that we're both agreed on that point, here is the graph that Frankfooter says should be used to check the results: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

That graph shows:

- 2014 temperature anomaly: 0.73ºC
- 2015 temperature anomaly: 0.86ºC

Seems simple enough. All we need is a third-party judge to determine whether the year-over-year difference is at least 0.15ºC

Frankfooter, provide us with the name of the person you want to judge the result. If you pick someone with an established posting history (ie, not another reinvention of "Groggy"), I'm sure we'll find someone who can settle this.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is the circlejerk to rule all circljerks.

Totally.

LOL. Started in this thread by Groggy/Frankfooter: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-of-collapse&p=6096374&viewfull=1#post6096374

I guess it's not surprising that a guy who won't tell us why his user name changed also couldn't remember that he was the one who posted the idiocy about the bet that he lost.