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
- “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
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
Recent Comments
- arn on Climate Attribution Model
- arn on “Why Do You Resist?”
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution Model
- arn on Climate Attribution Model
- arn on Climate Attribution Model
- Bob G on “Why Do You Resist?”
- conrad ziefle on “Why Do You Resist?”
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution Model
- Bob G on “Why Do You Resist?”
- Bob G on Fact Checking NASA
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?