Prediction: Losing election simply due to climate scepticism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OddTrader, Dec 18, 2015.

  1. [​IMG]
     
    #71     Dec 21, 2015
    Ricter likes this.
  2. [​IMG]
     
    #72     Dec 21, 2015
  3. Exactly!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard
    Risk = Hazard × Vulnerability / Capacity
     
    #73     Dec 21, 2015
    Frederick Foresight likes this.
  4. [​IMG]
     
    #74     Dec 21, 2015
  5. the one that cracks me up is do everything the alarmists tell us we must do which for some reason always involves more government control of oil and in 30 years when the weather is just fine claim it was because of the drastic action we took in spite of all the nutcase science deniers.
     
    #75     Dec 21, 2015
  6. Ricter

    Ricter

    Lmao
     
    #76     Dec 21, 2015
  7. Ricter

    Ricter

    The same argument could be used for smoking. Maybe there is less lung cancer per capita, not because smoking is less common (thanks to medical science warnings), but because we're "just healthier".
     
    #77     Dec 21, 2015
  8. typical democrat. You are equating smoking with lung cancer. Everybody knows lung cancer is bad, but we don't all also agree smoking is bad. As a matter of fact for me personally, smoking is very good.
     
    #78     Dec 21, 2015
  9. Ricter

    Ricter

    I've seen it described this way... Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, in fact only 1 in 6 smokers will get lung cancer. But of all people who get lung cancer, 95% are smokers.
     
    #79     Dec 21, 2015
  10. yes, but 100% enjoyed smoking
     
    #80     Dec 21, 2015