They are still about 98% ridiculous.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- Analyzing Big City Crime
- UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- 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
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Fact Checking The New York Times
- Bob G on Fact Checking The New York Times
- arn on Fact Checking The New York Times
- conrad ziefle on Fact Checking The New York Times
- arn on Fact Checking The New York Times
- Bob G on Fact Checking The New York Times
- conrad ziefle on Fact Checking The New York Times
- Bob G on Fact Checking The New York Times
- czechlist on Fact Checking The New York Times
- conrad ziefle on Fact Checking The New York Times
lol, ridiculous-lite!
Hmm, but suppose 20-60 cm is right? It may be unlikely, but it’s not out of question (40 cm corresponds to 4.4 mm/year in the remaining 90 years of the century – that’s less than twice the current rate, isn’t it?). BUT “Devastation in small island states” is still a lie if they’re talking about coral atolls – the corals should have no problems adding 4.4 mm/year.
Silly beggars haven’t factored in the snowmelt from NH countries experiencing the tail-end of the warmest year evaaah.
The hole got smaller even though I sprayed a fly. Maybe check the sun, that’s why cooling is starting!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10691794
Not only do they not point out the reasons for their revisionism, we get weasel comments like this:
“However Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice, pointed out that overall the report found that most global warming predictions are the same or worse than previously thought.”
I challenge Ms Pope to point out which predictions have supposedly come true (or are worse), and back it up with empirical evidence.
The predictions were much worse than she thought. They were all opposite of what actually happened.