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
- 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!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
Recent Comments
- Crashex on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on Diversity Is Our Strength
- GeologyJim on Diversity Is Our Strength
- Bill Odom on “a persistent concern”
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- conrad ziefle on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Francis Barnett on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- dearieme on “even within the lifetime of our children”
- John Francis on The Anti-Greta
- John Francis on The Anti-Greta
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?
😉