Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
Recent Comments
- Allan Shelton on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Bob G on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Gordon Vigurs on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Fred Harwood on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- arn on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Luigi on “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Bob G on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Gordon Vigurs on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- Bob G on Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- arn on “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
1972 Shock News : Arctic To Be Ice Free By The Year 2000
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
It’s not really honest to equate “may be” with “will be”.
A scientist might make a perfectly honest and accurate observation, like “our calculations show a 30% chance of an ice-free Arctic by 2000”, or “at this current rate of melting, the Arctic will be ice-free by 2013”.
To say that these constitute a *prediction* of an ice-free Arctic by that year.. well, that’s dishonest. It takes an extra step, an extra assertion, to go from “might be” to “will be”, and if he hasn’t told you that he takes that stance, why would you assume he does? You’d be putting words in his mouth.
Which is why science journalism is so bad. They do this all the time.
Steven Goddard is making a career of putting words in other peoples mouths.
I don’t get paid for doing this.
You put words in other people’s mouths for free?
You spam for free?
No, I get paid by the worldwide conspiracy.