I predict that the time will be exactly 2:43, twice during the next 24 hours.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
Did you adjust for TOBS? 😉
What a pair!
Ray Pierre and Naomi!
If a rock was present they could claim the intelligence of a rock in the group.
And if you only looked at the clock at 2:43, you’d have yourself a nice trend. A cherry-flavored one. People might even pay you for it. Just make them forget about the cycle between the 2:43s.
I predict you can get lots of funding if you suggest that your predictions will lead to the destruction of mankind. It worked for Ehrlich and he wasn’t even right once on any given day. 🙂
What happens if the clock stops?
Then the clock is still correct twice A day, like the IPCC.
LOL…..:)
Where’s the link to the Clock model
Naomi Oreskes’ observation that: “climate scientists are so busy talking about stuff they don’t understand
Did I cut and paste that Oreskes quote correctly?