Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- The Thing Of The Past
- “‘extremely unlikely’ without climate change, says scientists”
- Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- ‘Two incredible extreme events’
- The End Of Snow
- Google Maps Adds Context
- Thing Of The Past Update
- Expert Government Forecasting
- Thing Of The Past Comes To England
- “far outside the range of observed variability”
- African Desertification
- Grok Explains Polar Bears
- The Climate Denial Money Machine
- President Trump : “decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.”
- New Plan To Rob The Citizenry
- “Fifteen days to flatten the curve”
- Warm December 1923
- “Ensure No One Is Above the Law”
- The Best Electric Cars
- Honeybee Collapse Update
- “a live-animal market in Wuhan, China.”
- Fifteen Year Old Children In Australia Control The Weather
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
Recent Comments
- Timo, not that one! on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Timo, not that one! on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Francis Barnett on The Thing Of The Past
- arn on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- William on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- dm on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Francis Barnett on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Robertvd on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Robertvd on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Bob G on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
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.