At some point the consensus will consist of maybe a half dozen people, and most of the press corpse will still refuse to listen to anyone else.
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
- Gordon Vigurs on Climate Attribution Model
- arn on Climate Attribution Model
- arn on Climate Attribution Model
- GW on Climate Attribution Model
- Gordon Vigurs on Climate Attribution Model
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution Model
- Robertvd on “Why Do You Resist?”
- arn on Climate Attribution Model
- Gordon Vigurs on Climate Attribution Model
97% of ‘climate experts’ who chew gum, recommend not walking at the same time.
PM Julia Gillard is a master of the art.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lCCnu-Jk9c
I’d still like to know why, with all the recent evidence, they still haven’t convinced the other 3 percent.
You’d think that they’d LOVE the chance to re-do their survey, and maybe convince people they’re making headway.
But if they got less than 97%, they lose. If they equaled 97%, they lose.
They could never claim 100% (all it would take is ONE scientist speaking out).
So they’re stuck somewhere between 97.1 and 99.9 percent.
And that range of 2.8 percent falls within the margin of error.
In science it only takes ONE person to be right.
If a paleoclimate paper in the woods fails R2 validation, is the skeptic still wrong?
😉