If you are sure it's a scam then why not give me 10-1 odds?

hehe nice twist no I´m the underdog here right?! And thus per definition you should give me odds!.. Or are you admitting you are the underdog in this debate?

If you still think MMGW is a hoax, then there's no amount of evidence that will ever change your mind.

yes if every climate scientist would agree that we were the problem.. Which of course is not the case..

Ok, let´s put it this way then, that within 2 years the evidence will be public and people involved in this scam will have been sent to prison for fraud!

If not I lose the bet!!

anyone wanna bet?

i'd take that bet and I am a skeptic

Ok sure! Will you lay me the 10-1 that I asked for?

lol, impossible conditions. There's "scientists" that believe the most absurd things, and in any highly political issue (like this one), they'll do it vocally to get on TV. I bet you could find one that would say cigarettes don't cause cancer, too. It doesn't mean there's any actual dobut about it.

I also wrote this. (but you didn´t see that did you)

Ok, let´s put it this way then, that within 2 years the evidence will be public and people involved in this scam will have been sent to prison for fraud!

If not I lose the bet!!

Edit: I will also bet you $500 even money that you can´t find a doctor that under oath says cigarettes don´t cause cancer.

To give a quick example from this article that shows just how terrible it is and how any person who had taken a first year physics lab would instantly reject it as garbage consider the following:

The author tries to attack the IPCC quote by making a mockery of statistically significance as if this is some intentional spin. But notice this, the uncertainties in BOTH arctic and antarctic are about the same (7.4 vs 9.2) and for the former one experiences clear contraction and in the later the positive trend is simply less than the uncertainty which is nearly the same for arctic and antarctic. Heck using the smaller of the two uncertainties for the arctic you STILL get the increase being smaller than uncertainty. It is just a simple fact (assuming these numbers are valid) that the increase in the arctic IS not statistically significant as any 1st year would recognize. The mere fact that this article tries to spin this and make it appear as spin discredits the author to the point that I don't think anyone should read from this site again. It is clearly incapable of basic scientific thinking.

You remind me of the fish who get mad when I stack them and if I tell them they are idiots to keep the anger up challenge me to HU4ROLLZ at many times the stakes. I guess they think if I decline then obviously I am the worse player and must think that.

Perhaps you think that by offering this inane bet that noone is going to accept because of its inanity at being unlikely to be determinable not to mention locking in escrow 5k for 2 years is simply not evidence for your side....no matter how macho it makes you feel.

sorry to disappoint you, I am serious, but if you think it´s steep I can accept even money on $500.. I don´t know about you but I like money and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, all I said was if you like money and if you are certain that MMGW is true then come and get the free money!..

Lots of bet offers being thrown around; still no evidence. I also didn't say doctor, I said scientist.

wooooooosh!

you being serious is irrelevant to the "lol i bet you fold my position is better than yours" mentality.

scientists are doctors, no?

ok what sum do you wanna bet then?

And no, I don´t suffer from a "I´m not worthy" complex like you, if I understand your comment correctly.

Point is that I am right about MMGW and if I can make some money on the side, why not?

If you want to be slippery with definitions, ya, but when you say "doctor" people hear "medical doctor". Not all scientists are medical doctors, not even all scientists that study the effects of smoke

I want an argument whose validity does not hinge on who is or is not willing to make inane multiyear indeterminable bets with random forumers. In fact, someone who has to reduce their argument to "believe me because I am willing to bet on it" to strengthen their position would seem to be the de facto loser.

no believe me because I am telling you the truth if not do more research.. you don´t have to make a bet if you don´t want to.. the bet was only the secondary side game to the debate.

Who is the one going into the definitions in the first place?

Post some real science supporting your side. Please spare us the bull**** written by people who don't understand the research they're trying to criticize

Please provide me a link to someone who isn't talking out of his ass. TY.

re. The Graph...why would a cooling trend in the '50's crush his analysis? I really don't care about the adjusted data. I'm not privy to how or why the adjustments were made. The raw data is what it is and it shows that no warming has taken place over the last 130+ years. This is the bottom line:

Unfortunately you chose to drone on about your bet at the expense of responding to my criticisms of that awful link you posted. Perhaps the reason was simply that you were unable to contradict my criticisms given their overwhelming veracity and thought that you could ignore them and continue instead with this self righteous attempt to bolster your credibility by offering up bets you knew would not be taken.

Is it a cooling trend? Wouldn't he mention that, if it was? A cooling trend would support his argument. It looks more like an adjustment down for some reason.

If that drop isn't there, or if you look both before and after that drop, there's two clear warming trends. My point is, with that 10 year gap, we can't draw any conclusion from that graph, because we DON'T KNOW what happened in those 10 years, OR WHY.

Except between 1950 and 1960, apparently.

EDIT:

The 10 year gap crushes his analysis because the only reason to remove the explanation for that is because it makes his conclusion incorrect. If that 10 years doesn't hurt his argument, then why take it out? Why not mention why it's out? I mean, even if you ignore all of that, the fact that it's missing makes his data questionable, because there's more reasonable explanations for the drop in temperature than that average temps dropped a full degree in a decade, and that NO SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD has noticed it

Well, the CET looks like it's warming to me:



The guy provides the links himself. Just read the abstract of the Nature article he cites (second of his three links)--it completely contradicts his claim.

Or go back itt because I've already quoted it.

lol where did this "MMGW4ROLLZ!!!" guy come from