They are still about 98% ridiculous.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- New Video : Analyzing Oil And Gas
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Timo, Not that one on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- william on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
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.