Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
Recent Comments
- William on The Clock Is Ticking
- arn on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- arn on The Clock Is Ticking
- Gordon Vigurs on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Francis Barnett on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- dm on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- arn on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Tel on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
The only data to use is the raw data. And even then we must be carrfull becaus even that cane and will be fishi so to speak.
Steve if any one cane do something like put togetter a raw data grap you would be the man to do it. Then also we now what the real climate is.
They also shut down a lot of the weather stations that showed cooling /and are rural as a “cost cutting measure.” Yeah, you can look back 100 years of unadulterated data – but then you will only see the data from the non-closed weather stations.
Except in specific cases with known, describable and explained variation, data should not be altered or adjusted. Any data “adjusted” needs to have a clear explanation of why it was changed and by what process. Lastly, all data, charts, etc., need to have appropriate error bars assigned.
Lacking those things, you get institutions like NOAA pretending to output scientific findings. NOAA is no more believable than the so-called economic reports issuing from Washington.
THANK YOU STEVE FOR REAL SCIENCE!
CryoSat Satellite Finds Arctic Ice Increased 50% in Volume
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/12/17/CryoSat-Satellite%20-Findings-Arctic-Ice-Increase
The striking part of the chart was the cold of the late 1970’s. Aside from that, there is very little change. There is absolutely no sign of significant warming.