Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
- The Catastrophic Influence of Bovine Methane Emissions on Extraterrestrial Climate Patterns
- Posting On X
- Seventeen Years Of Fun
- The Importance Of Good Tools
- Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- CO2²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
- arn on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- conrad ziefle on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Gordon Vigurs on Climate Attribution In Greece
- Bob G on Climate Attribution In Greece
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.