Clearly not as stupid as you.
This implies that you think you would win the bet.
I take this as an acknowledgement that you would lose.
Just because rainfall goes up and down doesn’t mean the process is cyclic. From that graph, you wouldn’t be able to predict whether a dry year is likely to be followed by another dry year or a wet year. But then, you don’t have the foggiest idea about what weather patterns actually mean, data analysis, or pretty much anything else.
This is so amazingly stupid that it can’t be someone honestly trolling supporting climate denial. It’s either someone who doesn’t care about climate denial and is simply trolling, or is actually this stupid. Even our other dearly departed climate troll would know why California’s precipitation is likely to be above average next year, and dismiss it with a handwave or make a weather/climate obfuscation only to pretend like it didn’t happen the next time.
Rainfall goes up and down? I wasn’t aware of that. Rainfall goes up? Hmmmm, maybe you’re on something?
I enjoy your interpretations of what other people are really saying. You’re wrong but you are entertaining. 
Californians will be glad to hear that you are all but guaranteeing a higher than average rainfall soon. Do you expect this windfall of rainfall during the current water year or the next one?
Do you want to bet on it?
The way things are going, California will get 20 inches of rain in three days, most of which will become flood runoff, and then it won’t rain again for twenty months.
Do you know why more rain is expected this winter? It’s not the end of a cycle, it is El Nino, and there is no guarantee of the drought not coming back.
It is likely to be a strong El Nino likely because of a warmer than normal ocean. And the Blob which blocked the weather patterns causing rain come from a warmer than normal ocean also.
Bottom line, this is evidence item #210 that shows once again that you do not pay any attention and only show to all that you are just an idiot in the original Greek sense, what you are talking about here is sea ice, not cap or glacial ice. And the evidence I pointed out is not coming out of the Gore documentary.
So, besides those 2 strikes, you also ignore what the Republican scientist and what the judge in the end said, Gore’s movie main point was valid, some items needed perspective and more data.
Strike 3 but you are not out, you are just playing T-ball so you get a pity walk.
In other news Lamar Smith got his ass handled to him as he had to give up his fishing expedition for the personal e-mails of the climate scientists. After he noticed all the scientists and reporters that were getting on his case for his abuse of power.
It’s worth noting that he got severely schooled for it by the ranking Democrat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX):
(Emphasis added.) The blogger Bad Astronomer (formerly of the SDMB) has provided a detailed analysis of Lamar Smith’s deceptive tactics:
Frankly, I’m feeling almost grateful to doorhinge for his feeble but persistent attempts to push the liars-and-deniers agenda in this thread. Every time somebody gets irritated enough at his ignorance and stupidity to swat down one of his silly accusations with facts, we learn something new about how dishonest and irresponsible the liars-and-deniers side is being.
For instance, I was already aware that Lamar Smith’s accusations and “investigation” concerning the NOAA study were bullshit, but until I started looking through the documentation to write my previous post I hadn’t realized to what extent they were simply barefaced, unscrupulous, deliberate bullshit.
The liars and deniers aren’t even pretending anymore to have arguments that should be taken seriously by reasonable people. They’ve simply gone into full-on shit-flinging mode, spouting baseless accusations of unidentified “misconduct” whenever they encounter facts they don’t want to hear. Their goal is not to win a rational argument about the facts of the science, but merely to make scientific facts distasteful to the general public by covering them in flung shit.
And that’s the kind of “victory” that doorhinge is crowing about. “Ha ha, our side has managed to fling enough shit that your side is having trouble convincing people to look at the science through the layer of shit we’ve flung on it!”
Yeah, impressive achievement there, guys. You may not understand anything about climate science (or even simple vocabulary facts like the meaning of “mockumentary”), but when it comes to ignorantly flinging shit, you’re the undisputed champions.
I watched this video a year ago, was reminded of it again, and watched it again. It’s worth a re-watch.
If the stupidest dolt at SDMB asked some of these questions they’d be soundly ridiculed, but this is a news video showing questions actually asked by Members of the U.S. House Committee on Science. :smack:
(Hint: They all have an “(R)” after their names.)
TL;DR: One laughs at the suggestion he should prefer the word of scientists over bloggers. Another scoffs at sea-level rise, knowing how ice cubes in a glass of water work.
Bet on what? Please be as specific as possible, Mr Moderator.
Are you looking to bet on whether Californians will be glad to hear that Ludovic is all but guaranteeing a higher than average rainfall sometime in the near future?
(post shortened)
It was pointed out that 4 polar bears who died of unknown causes doesn’t prove man-made-CO2-is-evil.
The court decided that Gore’s movie couldn’t be shown to school children in England without including a disclaimer that it represented someone’s opinion.
Ask not for whom the doorhinge tolls…
So, if I’m reading this right, human-influenced global warming is not a significant issue because some guy who is not a scientist got some stuff wrong in a documentary. That’s a relief.
The movie could indeed be shown anyhow as the judge did agree with the overall point. And you clearly don’t know the difference between Greenland and the Arctic ocean, no wonder you could not find it on a map. 
And stop being a coward and check the other evidence I linked too, I never did link to Gore’s documentary BTW.
As always, doorhinge’s irresponsible shit-flinging is an opportunity to remind/inform readers of the actual facts of the subject, which are, unsurprisingly, very different from what he claims.
The UK court ruled that the UK government could distribute An Inconvenient Truth to schools (which has been done for all secondary schools in England, Scotland and Wales), and that it could be shown if accompanied with updated guidance for pupils.
Here’s what the official education.gov.uk teaching staff guidance information actually says about An Inconvenient Truth:
(Emphasis added.) So, to sum up these two versions of the UK policy on showing An Inconvenient Truth in schools:
doorhinge inaccurate shit-flinging version: An Inconvenient Truth can only be shown to UK students with a disclaimer saying that it’s just “someone’s opinion”. You should just take it for granted, without knowing anything more, that this somehow implies that the film has been in some way officially discredited.
Fact-based version: An Inconvenient Truth is widely shown in UK schools, backed up by in-depth teacher guidance materials that not only correct the film’s few factual errors but explain in detail how most of its claims are supported by a coherent and near-unanimous scientific consensus on the facts of climate change. The film serves as the basis for a number of educational modules that also refer to updated IPCC reports for greater detail and precision.
(Underline added)
You seem to be obsessed with Greenland. I question why you repeatedly lie about my not being able to find Greenland. There is no evidence that I’ve misplaced Greenland. Your action only proves that you are willing to falsify information whenever you feel like it.
It’s still my position that your side is still unable to convince a sufficient number of voters/public to make man-made-CO2-is-evil laws and regulations the law of the globe. And you don’t know how to convince more people to change their position.
It’s still my position that your hate-mongering tactics suck and are sure to alienate any skeptics and fence-sitters that might be convinced to support the man-made-CO2-is-evil zealotry. It’s sad that you can’t stop yourself.
It’s still my position that global warming has been occurring since the end of the last ice age.
"They can take our lives, but they will never take our GREENLAND!!!
-William Wallace’s looney cousin Al “Gore” Wallace
I’ll try to explain why people are calling you stupid:
Let’s assume you weighed 150 lbs. at age 20. And every year past 20, you gained a pound. At age 40 you weigh 170 lbs. At age 40, you start having ice cream for brunch, every day. At age 50, you weigh 250 lbs.
Your argument that we’ve been warming since the last ice age, is like you saying, “The ice cream has no effect, I’ve been gaining weight since I was 20.”
The fact that your defective little mind can’t hold that much information at once, or fathom the idea that two things can increase something, is why, aside from your snarky sense of delusional entitlement, that people are calling you stupid.
Your objection is obviously the objection of someone who has trouble thinking.
As I remember no one came to support you about your stupid idea that Greenland was not in the Arctic and that it made no difference that the cap ice in Greenland is melting all around.
So, wrong about Greenland and wrong about me convincing others. Related to that we already found that you are lying about how many people are getting convinced.