Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- 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
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Francis Barnett on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Jack the Insider on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Francis Barnett on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Bob G on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Bob G on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- arn on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Bob G on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- arn on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Bob G on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
Shock News : Greenland Glaciers “nearing catastrophe”
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.


Wow. That is terrific. Didn’t this site once have a listing of “100 years of global warming” which was a set of headlines back to the late 1800s all prophecy-ing an ice-free Arctic within the decade – and ALL from the NY Times!? Love to find that again.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/polar-meltdown/
Ah, OK , thanks. That’s even more comprehensive than the list I was thinking of. Excellent resource!
Like I say, the neat gimmick with the list I was thinking was that it was all NYT, and was showing their obsession as much as the “warming.”
An editor’s dream!
Totally lift and plagiarize an article whose copyright has lapsed and run it in tomorrow’s “science” section!!!
Don’t have to worry about attribution, accuracy, or grammar. Or about paying a current present day stringer either!!!
Sooooooooooo, what’s that your saying again? You need to be more specific?