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
- AI Doublespeak
- AI Doublespeak
- Net Zero Intelligence
- “The Green Party dropped nearly 9 per cent”
- Fake Record Heat In India
- RFK Jr’s Plan For $12 Gas
- Hockey Match
- Hockey Match
- Giving Proper Credit
- Conspiracy Theory!
- “No One Is Above The Law”
- CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Looking For Their Lost Keys
- Rapid Climate Change
- CBS News 1982 : One Fourth Of Florida To Drown
- Affordable Transportation
- “Why Scientific Fraud Is Suddenly Everywhere”
- She Hates Her State
- Climate Friendly War
- Office Of Climate Change And Health Equity And Environmental Justice
- “100% Non-Carbon By 2030”
- 1991 : United Nations Calls For Genocide
- Mainstream Fascism In Academia
- California Finds A New Way To Drive Businesses Out
- Powerful Climate Mathematics
Recent Comments
- arn on AI Doublespeak
- Gator on AI Doublespeak
- Conrad Ziefle on AI Doublespeak
- Sonny on AI Doublespeak
- Sonny on AI Doublespeak
- Conrad Ziefle on AI Doublespeak
- Conrad Ziefle on AI Doublespeak
- Russell Cook on AI Doublespeak
- Denis Rushworth on Net Zero Intelligence
- Disillusioned on AI Doublespeak
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?
😉