Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
- Fort Lauderdale Drowning
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Expert Arctic Forecasting
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Nobel Prize Winning Forecast
- Changing Climate
- Gen Z Math And Solutions
- Orwellian NASA Maps
- Faking US Temperature Data
- Fake US Temperature Data
Recent Comments
- Bob G on The Climate Of 1923
- Robertvd on The Climate Of 1923
- conrad ziefle on Hottest Summer Ever
- Richard E Fritz on “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Bob G on Hottest Summer Ever
- Jack the Insider on Hottest Summer Ever
- conrad ziefle on Gemini Can See The Future
- Bob G on Hottest Summer Ever
- Jack the Insider on Gemini Can See The Future
- Jack the Insider on Hottest Summer Ever
Ice extent maybe irrelevant, and ice volume more important, except that extent can actually be measured, and volume can only be modeled.
And modeling is darn near useless when it comes to accurately measuring anything. GIGO
Actually,extent is more important because it affects the Earth’s radiative balance.
At least that was the argument several years ago.
How can a study published in 2013 be “rebuked” by studies from earlier years? 2004, 2007, 2009 as alleged by Farmer? Why it must be the AGW crowd at work again.
The same way temperatures from eighty years ago can change.
Extent does not matter UNLESS it’s September 2012 or 2007. 🙂 Remember the headlines?
This “Dr” G. Thomas Farmer is so interested in the ideas sceptics develop about his work that he doesn’t even bother checking their name. As far as I know, Dr David Legates is not called Largates by anybody but “Dr” G. Thomas Farmer. And if reproducing and precisely recomputating the flawed logic that produced the Cook et al 97% consensus is the only way “Dr” Farmer understands critical checking, then it is easy to see why “Dr” Farmer is on the warmists’ side. He is as stupid and crooked as they are.
Anybody mentioning “Doran & Zimmermann” in support of the 97% myth, is an obvious fraud who has not read Doran & Zimmermann.
Exactly right. http://tinyurl.com/Clim97pct
G. Thomas Farmer, PhD: http://www.amazon.com/G.-Thomas-Farmer/e/B005FQXZ4W
The one comment back at Dr. Farmer, from the Las Cruces Sun;
I’m fascinated by the fact that this 97% figure keeps recurring in the warmist literature (much like the repeated demonstration of a hockey-stick temperature graph). Even though the figure originally applied only to climatologists (as I recall only 82% of the respondents overall answered yes to the two relevant questions in the first study that came up with this figure). It’s pretty clear that they’re trying to justify the earlier figure by coming up with the same number in another study, even though the population is now quite different, so that getting the same number really makes no sense. Another case of DDS – Dummies Doing Science.
So the take home from this is that noses aren’t important? Why doesn’t this guy then cut off his nose to lower his carbon footprint?
-Scott
Oh crap, I remember now. I actually saw somewhere this summer (a comment at Neven’s I think) where the new metric for them isn’t even volume–it’s average thickness. So even though volume was (supposedly) up this summer, he/she was claiming this year was the worst condition of the Arctic ice because average thickness was (supposedly) a record low.
That’d be like claiming that the Arctic ice in April is worse than it is in September because April has, on average, a thinner ice pack (because of all the short-lived ice at the periphery).
-Scott