Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- 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
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Mike Peinsipp on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Robertvd on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- conrad ziefle on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
“the general purpose of the (Economist) is to ignore any and all facts that might contradict their obsession with “global warming””
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.


“The Economist” is like smutty magazines, a (usually brief) period in everybody’s life. The day one “graduates” away from it, it’s another step towards adulthood.
No doubt.
Has the Economist invested in green carbon renewable schemes. The BBC has invested in carbon schemes so I can understand their desperation?” For the record I used to work for the BBC.
The SCAM is being undone one bit at a time.