Prediction: Losing election simply due to climate scepticism

So Gore saying one scientist said the Arctic MAY be ice free is the same as Gore saying the Arctic would be ice free. This is how deniers "think". The lack of reading comprehension spills over into plain old lack of comprehension. Only the conservative mind can "think" this way.


Anyone want to comment on the fact it looks like it will ice free pretty soon according to the chart I posted? Or is the idea to continue to lie about what Gore said.
 
So Gore saying one scientist said the Arctic MAY be ice free is the same as Gore saying the Arctic would be ice free. This is how deniers "think". The lack of reading comprehension spills over into plain old lack of comprehension. Only the conservative mind can "think" this way.


Anyone want to comment on the fact it looks like it will ice free pretty soon according to the chart I posted? Or is the idea to continue to lie about what Gore said.
how soon is "pretty soon"?
 
The whole planet has to do nothing more than use google. Sure, there's a chance your emperor is wearing invisible robes, but I wouldn't bet on it. On the other hand, you have nothing to lose betting on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

Interesting data from the link above:

Q

Powell, 2013

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[32] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[33]
UQ
 
Interesting data from the link above:

Q

Powell, 2013

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[32] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[33]
UQ
that's what I like about global cooling. We admit that man can create co2 and warm the planet, but it pales in comparison to what the sun can do.
 
There should be a betting scheme from http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/us-politics/outrights?ev_oc_grp_id=2037095 .

People can place bets for certain environmental outcomes after, say, 30 or 50 or 70 years (with different bets, respectively).

Winning tickets could be a good gift for our next generations!

Therefore, they can see and appreciate, based the the betting ticket and money won, what their (grand)parents did for them, whether right or wrong!

The above idea is Copyrighted just now! LOL
 
I disagree, a good prediction must be just far enough out that the nutcases think they can .do something about it. That Mayan 2010 end of world was timed just about right.
You're right in the sense that of one wants to whip up hysteria you shorten the time line to make the gullible believe the solution is right around the corner. Real scientists don't do that. Let us not forget that the global warming cultists are the very same people who ridicule the religious cultist that makes the similar crazy ass claim that the end is near, and offer just about as much evidence that isn't a fabrication from one of their "prophets".
 
how soon is "pretty soon"?


You tell me. If you're a trader you should be able to read it and make some projections.

piomas-trnd1%2BSept%2BMin%2BSea%2BIce%2BSept%2B2014%2BWipneus.png
 
Back
Top