CBC report - Most Canadians don't think humans are the main cause of climate change

[Moviefan-2]

It is getting ridiculous, true.

The fact you keep responding to him is just as ridiculous, if not more.

Actually, AK-47, you're being much too kind to the crybaby.

Take a look at post 139 on the sixth page of this thread. After getting his ass completely handed to him in numerous threads, he decided he would take yet another run at it ... somehow believing it would produce a different result. He's like the Wile E. Coyote of morons.

I didn't start the thread so that I could read another one of his never-ending temper tantrums.

Indeed, I have no idea why he says it's "getting ridiculous" when he's the one that initiated the discussion of the bet. He's always the one that reignites it. I told him back in December that the matter is settled.

Frankly, that's why I don't waste my time responding to him and am quite happy on most days to simply post a collection of his dumbest quotes on the matter.

We all want his temper tantrum to end. If you can think of a way to make it happen, I'm open to suggestions.

 

[AK-47]

Oh I'm with you MovieFan, just trying to be polite in my last post

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, AK-47, you're being much too kind to the crybaby.

Take a look at post 139 on the sixth page of this thread. After getting his ass completely handed to him in numerous threads, he decided he would take yet another run at it ... somehow believing it would produce a different result. He's like the Wile E. Coyote of morons.

I didn't start the thread so that I could read another one of his never-ending temper tantrums.

Indeed, I have no idea why he says it's "getting ridiculous" when he's the one that initiated the discussion of the bet. He's always the one that reignites it. I told him back in December that the matter is settled.

Frankly, that's why I don't waste my time responding to him and am quite happy on most days to simply post a collection of his dumbest quotes on the matter.

We all want his temper tantrum to end. If you can think of a way to make it happen, I'm open to suggestions.

You want to end the 'temper tantrum', fine, just face reality and admit that you lost the bet.
Its easy, all you have to do is read your own words and then honour them.

You bet that the 2015 global anomaly wouldn't hit 0.83ºC, it went to 0.87ºC and you lost.
Its really that simple.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You want to end the 'temper tantrum', fine, just face reality and admit that you lost the bet.
Its easy, all you have to do is read your own words and then honour them.

You bet that the 2015 global anomaly wouldn't hit 0.83ºC, it went to 0.87ºC and you lost.
Its really that simple.

You're an F'n crybaby who can't accept reality. It's really that simple.

You're not convincing anyone. And don't try to pretend that you're annoyed with how long this has gone on when you're the one who keeps dragging it out.

We all just want you to put an end to the temper tantrum and shut up about the bet. Got it?

 

[Frankfooter]

You're an F'n crybaby who can't accept reality. It's really that simple.

You're not convincing anyone. And don't try to pretend that you're annoyed with how long this has gone on when you're the one who keeps dragging it out.

We all just want you to put an end to the temper tantrum and shut up about the bet. Got it?

Sorry, loser, that's not what's happening.
You lost and and continue to act like a sore loser and a weasel who won't honour his words.

We bet that the 2015 global anomaly wouldn't hit 0.83ºC, it went to 0.87ºC and you lost.
Its really that simple.

0.87ºC is warmer then 0.83ºC.
You lost.

Just admit it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

For reference, this was the bet:

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

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

Its really that simple.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.

Are you expecting me to try to figure out your faulty weasel math?
Screw you, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

:thumb:

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Meanwhile, it's time for the latest update of Frankfooter's greatest hits on global warming.

- Nov. 10, 2015 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404144&viewfull=1#post5404144

- Nov. 21, 2015 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

- Nov. 27, 2015 -- This is still one of my favourites. He posted a graph that he said shows the "IPCC's projection" for 2015: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5410384&viewfull=1#post5410384. Then, after it was explained to him that the graph shows the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, he said it was "not an IPCC projection" and ran away from his own graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739

- Nov. 29, 2015 -- He said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of the global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.

- Dec. 1, 2015 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5414060&viewfull=1#post5414060

- Dec. 5, 2015 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416886&viewfull=1#post5416886. In fact, the graph came from Columbia University and uses the entirely different NASA data (which uses a completely different baseline for calculating temperature anomalies).

- Jan. 8, 2016 -- He said NASA has "never altered any data, all they did was alter the weighting of ocean temperature readings....": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5443355&viewfull=1#post5443355

- Jan. 10, 2016 -- He said I was "lying" when I said that a temperature change from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC is an increase of 0.15ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5445053&viewfull=1#post5445053

- Feb. 3, 2016 -- He said the calculation that the average of 0.75 + 0.82 + 0.84 + 0.71 + 0.71 is 0.766 is "denier math": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466417&viewfull=1#post5466417

- Feb. 4, 2016 -- He called it "lying your face off" when I said the difference between 0.43 and 0.68 is 0.25: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?550100-The-End-is-Near&p=5466781&viewfull=1#post5466781

- Feb. 8, 2016 -- A new gem. He said the graphs on NASA's Vital Signs of the Planet page were "fake": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5470561&viewfull=1#post5470561. He repeated the claim on Feb. 13 when he said NASA graphs had been "possibly doctored": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5473971&viewfull=1#post5473971

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He dismissed NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's graph of temperature anomalies as "dodgy": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472913&viewfull=1#post5472913

- Feb. 11, 2016 -- He said NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt's Twitter account isn't "legit": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5472991&viewfull=1#post5472991

- Feb. 20, 2016 -- He said it was a "blatantly false claim" that the difference between 0.74 and 0.84 is 0.10: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5479780&viewfull=1#post5479780

- March 3, 2016 -- He said it's "not possible" that 0.89 could equal 0.89: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-change&p=5489838&viewfull=1#post5489838

 

[Frankfooter]

:thumb:

Its really, really sad that the closest you can get to making an argument that you didn't lose is to put partial quotes together as if they meant something all strung together. For example, the first two quotes are from different statements that say the exact opposite of what you are claiming. All you are doing is showing what a sore loser you are and showing that you can't argue anymore, all you can do is act like a weasel.

Sad.

And anyone can play that game, as you know.

How to use partial quotes strung together as if they meant something else, or the Moviefan quoting game:

I'll repeat my post again.

the fact remains that

I do agree with Frankfooter

I

have been so consistently and spectacularly wrong.

I will stand by my conclusion that

the bet confirms

I was

consistently and spectacularly wrong.

I believe that's what used to be known as

I'm "lying,"

 

[Frankfooter]

This is how you use quotes, each of these quotes are statements that directly state the terms of the bet as we agreed to them, including statements like 'we bet...' and including statements on how we came to the terms for the bet and the final result of the bet.

I think we are safe to assume say that you are fully establishing yourself as a weasel who won't keep their word.

So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?

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 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.

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

Are you a weasel or a man?
Is your word worthless or will you keep it?

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is how you use quotes, each of these quotes are statements that directly state the terms of the bet as we agreed to them, including statements like 'we bet...' and including statements on how we came to the terms for the bet and the final result of the bet.

For reference, this was the bet:

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

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius).

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'

That's not NASA.

...now you're faking charts.

Yet another lie from you, claiming that's chart we bet on.

Are you expecting me to try to figure out your faulty weasel math?
Screw you, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

No math is needed, you can keep your broken abacus out of this.

Now you're down to copying and pasting random ... quotes as if they had some kind of point to them.

:thumb:

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

 

[Moviefan-2]

This is how you use quotes, each of these quotes are statements that directly state the terms of the bet as we agreed to them, including statements like 'we bet...' and including statements on how we came to the terms for the bet and the final result of the bet.

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.

That same graph proclaimed that 2014 was the warmest year on record at 0.68ºC -- an increase of 0.25ºC from the 1995 anomaly.

So we bet on the remaining distance from the original 1995 anomaly of 0.43ºC.

Using your 1995 anomaly as the starting point and the bet of a 0.40ºC increase, tell us what number you get when you subtract 0.25 from 0.40. :thumb:

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

There is no dispute that we bet on a year-over-year increase of at least 0.15ºC.

:thumb:

 

[Frankfooter]

:thumb:

Here you go, here are the three full posts from when we made the bet, confirming that the bet was made on a decadal projection and not year over year as you claim.
As you know.

You are cherry picking.
You just won't admit it.

There are only 2 dates you'll take of this bet, aren't there?
Doesn't that show how fucking lame your case is?
I can give you a whole ton of possible start dates, but your bet only has a small, tiny chance of working from 1995 or 2007.
That's the definition of cherry picking.

And you know what?
Even your 1995 bet stands a really good chance of losing.

You picked 1995 because it was a warm year.
0.43ºC anomaly according to NASA.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?
Did you check the temperature lately?

Do you know what the anomaly was for March of this year?
0.85ºC
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201503

How about the year to date?
0.82ºC


I think I'll take you up on your cherry picked date, but lets up the payoff.
2 books each, winner chooses the books, loser has to read the book and review it here to prove they read it.

Deal?
Is the bet on?

Your reply:

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.

That's you confirming that the bet was based on a 1995-2015 term hitting a 0.83ºC result, using the live NASA chart as judge.
And my confirmation of the terms:

Ok bets on.
Using that NASA figure of 0.43ºC anomaly for 1995 and waiting for the 2015 NASA anomaly figures to come out.


Hey, did you hear about El Nino.
70% chance it continues past June.
Its gonna be a hot one this year.

Bookmark this page, loser.

All references to the terms of the bet were based on 1995-2015, the only reference to 2014 was to identify the live NASA chart that was the judge.
Your attempts to claim the bet was based on a 2014-2015 term are pure weasel bullshit.

Are you a weasel or a man?
Is your word worthless or will you keep it?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Using your 1995 anomaly as the starting point and the bet of a 0.40ºC increase, tell us what number you get when you subtract 0.25 from 0.40. :thumb:

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

There is no dispute that we bet on a year-over-year increase of at least 0.15ºC.

:thumb:

Your attempts to claim the bet was based on a 2014-2015 term are pure weasel bullshit.

????? :frusty:

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

 

[Frankfooter]

????? :frusty:

Now you are back to bashing your head against a brick wall and trying to repeat stupid claims that were debunked in January.
They were stupid then, they are stupid still.

Your claim:

There is no dispute that we bet on a year-over-year increase of at least 0.15ºC. Nor is there any dispute that NASA's new numbers only show a year-over-year increase of 0.10ºC -- one-third less than what we bet on.

My reply in January where I most definitely dispute your false claim about the term of the bet. With the one sentence you continually misquote corrected for clearer language and intent:

Bullshit.

Here's the complete quote with all three sentences that describe the full terms of the bet, not just one cherry-picked sentence.

Lets look at those three sentences:
We might get a bet, once you agree to use one chart for recording the results.
We both agreed to use this chart:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

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/

This confirms the use of the chart, and makes the example of 1995's global anomaly to calculate the number upon which the bet is laid.

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 bet, the confirmation of the NASA chart, with a link included previously, and the number that chart needed to hit for the bet to be decided.

There is no dispute that we bet on a year-over-year increase of at least 0.15ºC. Nor is there any dispute that NASA's new numbers only show a year-over-year increase of 0.10ºC -- one-third less than what we bet on.

The difference of 0.15ºC was noted by you to identify the chart we picked, not as a term of the bet.
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Moviefan-2 View Post
In any event, it's settled. The bet that you and I made on May 10, 2015, stands.

But I'm getting so tired of your whining about this bet that I am considering challenging you to up the stakes and adding in your 'adjusted' target of 0.86ºC.
Those numbers come out in a week or so, are you interested?

This post has been edited to clarify my statement in such a way for you to not be able to take one sentence out of context and claim it means something else. Please stop misquoting, its a cheap weasel move.

Once again, you take a post where I specifically deny that the bet had anything to do with a year over year term and claim that it says the opposite.
That my sore loser friend, is a total weasel move.

 

[Frankfooter]

And again, the post you quoted was calling you out for breaking your word and trying to 'adjust' the bet retroactively.
You continue to keep claiming that the bet should be changed AFTER you already agreed not to change the bet and to continue on its original terms.

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

Are you a weasel or a man?
Is your word worthless or will you keep it?

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

 

[Moviefan-2]

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

:thumb:

Once again, you take a post where I specifically deny that the bet had anything to do with a year over year term and claim that it says the opposite.

????? :frusty:

It takes a certain kind of person to post something that shows himself to be a lying fool.

 

[Frankfooter]

:thumb:

????? :frusty:

Lets look at what you had to say about the bet at the time of the bet, before you started losing.
Its only once you started losing that you tried to cheat and claim the bet wasn't based off of IPCC projections over 2 decades.

So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?

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 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.

The bet was based on the IPCC's predictions of temperature increases of 0.2ºC per decade, not numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

You started trying to change the bet after you started losing, even after promising to keep to the original terms.
That is what you call:

numerical changes produced retroactively through changes in methodology.

Are you a weasel or a man?
Is your word worthless or will you keep it?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets look at what you had to say about the bet at the time of the bet....

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

There is no dispute that we bet on a year-over-year increase of at least 0.15ºC.

:thumb:

- Jan. 10, 2016 -- He said I was "lying" when I said that a temperature change from 0.68ºC to 0.83ºC is an increase of 0.15ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-warming-bet&p=5445053&viewfull=1#post5445053

 

[Frankfooter]

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

That is not a bet.
This is a 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.