Given that the IPCC has produced zero evidence to back up any of their projections and confidence assertions, all facts are now officially considered cherry picking.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
Recent Comments
- Allan Shelton on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
- DD More on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Disillusioned on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Disillusioned on 65 Years Of Progress!
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
- arn on Is Antarctica Melting?
- Bob G on Is Antarctica Melting?
Not “all facts”, just very short term ones selected from dubious starting points. Long term trends are the relevant, not cherry picked facts we need to pay attention to.
Avery,
We agree! Glacier Bay melting 250 years, prior to CO2 increasing, is the kind of trend to study, not these dubious 1979 to 2010 cherry-picked windows
1979 is the ultimate cherry pick because it was at the end of a 25 year period of cooling. Probably the coldest year of the last 100 years. But that is the year that alarmists love to start from. So they have been known to pick cherries quite well themselves.
Do you have the feeling of being pwned? No, I didn’t think you were that intelligent.
I’m sure none of this happens with climate research.
‘Sting Operation’: The Stunning Percentage of Science Journals That Accepted a Completely Bogus Study
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/04/sting-operation-the-stunning-percentage-of-science-journals-that-accepted-a-completely-bogus-study/
We still have not had an actual hurricane, have we? It looks like Karen won’t make the grade either. I’m not counting fake Hurricane Humberto.
What has AR5 told us that AR4 didn’t? Not very much. Is there a need for and AR6 when they are 95% certain in AR5? What is the point of another report telling us what we already ‘know’.
[I will not mention the failure of the models] 🙂
“What has AR5 told us that AR4 didn’t? ”
When you put spaghetti on a chart it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.