Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- 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
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Climate Attribution Model
- Bob G on Climate Attribution Model
- Bob G on “Why Do You Resist?”
- Gerald Machnee on Fact Checking The New York Times
- Gerald Machnee on Climate Attribution Model
- Gerald Machnee on “Why Do You Resist?”
- arn on Climate Attribution Model
- arn on Climate Attribution Model
- Gordon Vigurs on Climate Attribution Model
- Bob G on Climate Attribution Model
It’s a shame I’m not in a climate related field (or university course); I’d like to be funded to study something already well established in human knowledge.
I’m just perplexed that csmonitor consider this as being something new; it is basic high school science.
Here’s another funny quote from the article…….”In some ways, he suggests, the study’s main value may rest in the model shortcomings it may reveal – shortcomings “that may limit our current ability” to provide credible evidence of a link between global warming and the extreme rain and snowfall.”
Really?
An example of poor journalism……..”Either something is wrong with the models and they’re not getting the magnitude of the extremes observed,” Dr. Held says, identifying global warming as a culprit “may be suspect because something is going on” in the climate system that the models aren’t capturing.”
There is a word missing from that quote. Indeed, at the very minimum an entire clause. Is it wrong to hate warmistas that intentionally leave out information?
To answer my own question, “hate the sin, but” blather, bs, blather, bs, blather, “sinner”.
En la mañana.
This is what I call intelligent reporting…. for morons.
The study released after the fact to let you know they were smart enough to know ahead of time it could be caused by manmade global warming.
;O)
Huge surprise, wait for them to start denying they ever said CAGW will cause droughts.