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
- One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- New Video : Analyzing Oil And Gas
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- 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
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Timo, Not that one on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- william on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour


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?