Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on The Importance Of Good Tools
- conrad ziefle on Posting On X
- conrad ziefle on Posting On X
- Disillusioned on The Importance Of Good Tools
- conrad ziefle on Climate Scamming For Profit
- John Francis on Climate Scamming For Profit
- conrad ziefle on The Importance Of Good Tools
- conrad ziefle on The Importance Of Good Tools
- Bob G on The Importance Of Good Tools
- Bob G on The Importance Of Good Tools
and they are both fantasies based on fabricated data! Pick your poison!
The science is settled, but not the data.
Yes the “Science” is settled! Send money for more research so they will be able to understand weather.
The obvious “Settled point” is that they do not know!
But they prove they are capable of making some really wild A$$ guesses!
I strongly object to the use of the phrase ‘imaginary ___ numbers’ to describe what Hansen has done. Imaginary numbers actually have great utility in the wonderful world of science and engineering. Hansen’s Arctic ‘data’ is a deliberate lie.
Agreed! I always had a soft spot myself for i.
The square root of -1 makes perfect sense as do all the irrational and complex numbers whereas AGW and the Arctic alarmism is completely off the charts.
That’s pretty much the way I see it. I may try to actually quantify the difference one day. But seeing the HadCrut uses much of the same data, one could reasonably assume much of the difference is because GISS invents numbers in the arctic (which is contrary to observed the temps of DMI.) BTW, DMI’s temp model, ERA-40, has come under recent criticism, apparently for being too high.
Very telling graph, and compared to the place ClimateGate came from no less.