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
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
Recent Comments
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- MLH on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gordon Vigurs on Perfect Correlation
- Jack the Insider on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- John Francis on “Earlier Than Usual”
- John Francis on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Terry Shipman on “Earlier Than Usual”
- arn on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Earlier Than Usual”
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?
😉