1. There is no direct quote from Hansen in that article that makes a prediction about what will happen to sea ice in 5 or 10 years. I would think that if you were going to go to all the trouble of asking ANOTHER question about the same thing, you would have done some fact checking, but apparently not.
2. There are still at least 4 years to go on the prediction, yet deniers are quite happy to consider it a "failed" prediction even though 40% of the time period is still left. That they do so is not an isolated incident--virtually every time deniers bring up a "failed" prediction, there is nothing failed about it--what there is, continually, is a failure of deniers to comprehend what they read (or in the case of some of them,even what they write!),
EDIT: You people don't want to have your delusions challenged, do you? Five thumbs down for bringing up two points that any responsible person should have asked about.
Another EDIT: If Hansen actually made that statement, then he still could not possibly be considered "wrong" for at least another 4 years--and yet you ask whether "alarmists" are ignorant of facts and reality! Not only that but there were MORE thumbs up from deniers to people like Maxx and James, who didn't even understand that the hearsay prediction could not even be considered wrong, because the time period was not up. Clearly Hey Dook's math was off, but at least he was smart enough to ATTEMPT to use math, both Maxx (a proven liar) and James (also a liar, or incompetent) are so biased that they didn't even notice that the time period covered by the prediction had not passed. Apparently that didn't bother Sagebrush, either, who gave best answer to Maxx.
And yet you ask about "alarmists"--you don't think that shows your own bias and ignorance of reality?
Alarmists have an agenda and won't let facts get in the way.
Just look up "James Hansen, no ice" and you will get a shotgun of projections from him. Some as little as 5 years and some stretch out to the next century. Some scientist he is. He is 73 years old so anything past 2041, if he lives to be a hundred, he will never be around to be called a phony. Ha! Ha! I saw one picture of him making up communist slogans. Ha! Ha!
But the greenies love him. He can corrupt data. That is OK. He can go before congress and lie. That is OK. None of his predictions have ever come true. That is OK. He at one time worked with H. H. Lamb while he was predicting an imminent Ice Age and did the computer programming that projected it. But that is OK. He MEANS well! And to a greenie that is all that counts.
Hansen wasn't the only person who made such BS claims.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-f...
The Alarmists are a somewhat inbred collection of faux scientists or wannabe's. If you really want to get a chuckle, check out the 'skeptical' science site. It's sort of the Mothership for blind believers in Man-did-it Global Warming......extremely biased and intolerant of those who are not of their faith....a mutual admiration society, if you will.
The question is about thumbs up or down, alarmists will give thumbs up to fellow alarmists and thumbs down to deniers, regardless of the answers, they don't care about the truth and are quite happy to give a thumbs up to a lie
Denialist ignorance of science is well known, talk about that if you want to be honest. Oh right honesty is something your against as well
or just completely biased?
In response to Sagebrush's question regarding a prediction Hansen MADE IN 2008
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140420073025AAv7IRJ
Hey Dook claimed the article was from 4 years ago and that Sagebrush misunderstood it. Quote from the article "Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer."
Even though Hey Dook's math was wrong and that the article indeed says Hansen claimed the Artic would be ice free in 5 to 10 years he has received 5 thumbs up from fellow alarmists.
C completely mistook the prediction for one made by Hansen in 1988 and regurgitated the argument that alarmists use by claiming the science was new.
Even though C was referring to a completely different prediction and was using the standard alarmist argument against it he also received 5 thumbs up from fellow alarmists.
Do you think alarmists knowingly give thumbs up to these false statements or are they just so completely bias and give approval to them automatically without even bothering to read them?
