Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
- The Catastrophic Influence of Bovine Methane Emissions on Extraterrestrial Climate Patterns
- Posting On X
- Seventeen Years Of Fun
- The Importance Of Good Tools
- Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- CO2²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- arn on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
I have read about this gem before and it brings a smile to my face every time. There are some who do not take kindly to being shown the extent of the consensus.
More of the usual dirty play.
there’s lies. there’s damn lies. then there’s statistics.
Someone remind these fools that the “consensus” used to be that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and remind them of what Einstein said about it taking only one experiment to prove a million others wrong. Now *he* was worth listening to.
2500 alarmed scientists standing on the wall.
If one alarmed scientist……..
…………….
75 alarmed scientists standing on the wall.
..but but everyone in cancun agreed – “A significant result” Bwahahaha….
BAFFINBOY from the commend string:
“What percentage of these nations agreed that AGW represented a clear and present danger that must be addressed on an urgent basis? Was it 1%? No. Was it 5%? No. Was it 20%? No. Was it 50%? No. Was it 70%? No. Was it 95%? No. Was it 100%. Yes!!!! A significant result. No “massaging” of figures required.”
“There are two kinds of statistics, the kind you look up and the kind you make up.”
– Rex Stout
Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure!
You know………., advertising this stuff takes away much fun when you spring it on a warmista. Sigh, but I guess its good that they know sooner or later.
I always have to laugh when they bring out the number of “scientists” who contributed to the IPCC reports.
A multinational company called Evolve were trying to develop a windfarm up our way last year ( we saw them off fortunately). They openly bragged that 7 of their employees were among the IPCC contributors. I am quite sure they did not allow any commercial allegiances to affect their contributions.