Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Heatwaves Of 1980
- More Proof Of Global Warming
- Shutting Down The Climate
- ChatGPT Research Proposal
- Warming Twice As Fast
- Understanding Climate Science
- Recycling The Same News Every Century
- Arctic Sea Ice Declining Faster Than Expected
- Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- Global Warming Emergency In The UK
- Mainstream Media Analysis Of DOGE
- Angry And Protesting
- Bad Weather Caused By Racism
- “what the science shows”
- Causes Of Earthquakes
- Precision Taxation
- On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- Demise Of The Great Barrier Reef
- Net Zero In China
- Make America Healthy Again
- Nobel Prophecy Update
- Grok Defending Climategate
- It Is Big Oil’s Fault
- Creative Marketing
- No Emergency Or Injunction
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on More Proof Of Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on Shutting Down The Climate
- arn on Shutting Down The Climate
- conrad ziefle on ChatGPT Research Proposal
- william on ChatGPT Research Proposal
- David M Kitting on ChatGPT Research Proposal
- arn on ChatGPT Research Proposal
- gordon vigurs on ChatGPT Research Proposal
- Mike Peinsipp on ChatGPT Research Proposal
- Timo, not that one! on ChatGPT Research Proposal
Something is settled but it’s NOT science!
The data sets that the models rely on are so precise that we can be confident that the political decisions regarding carbon will be the correct ones. I feel all better now.
In case anybody is wondering, the full report is here.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63
What’s also interesting here is that Mann did indeed forward Jone’s email about deleting other emails and Gene Wahl said that he did delete as Jone’s requested. Yet the Penn State inquiry into Mann’s being involved directly or indirectly in deleting mails/files reported that Mann had not been involved. That’s not true. An outrageous whitewash.
A teachable moment — Screw the data, screw science….the important thingy is not to hassle Phil.
Yeah, he claimed to be feeling suicidal, so the “Inquiry” turned into a fluff-ball therapy session.
Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
It’s all based on lies, deception, and falsehood.
“…lies, deception, and falsehood” –
Add half truths, ridicule and the politics of personal destruction and you have the “free speech” plank of the democrat party platform…
This one’s my favorite:
“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia: 09:41 AM 2/2/2005
Later (in 2009?) the CRU webpage said this:
“We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country… We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
Apparently Phil made good on his word and deleted the original raw temperature data so no one could see the truth.
Can’t wait to see how government will improve our health care next. What could possibly go wrong?
Well yes! You can’t have global warming and temperature data which shows the opposite. Either the data must go or the salary dependent theory must go and in the latter event its proponents must go and get an honest job. The same is true of the atmospheric CO2 record which goes back to 1756. You cannot have instrumental records showing that CO2 levels that were higher than they are today during the 1940s (for example) and a theory that atmospheric CO2 levels today are man made. Something has to go. Either hypothesis or data. In normal science it is the hypothesis that must go. The extreme post normal science of climate change is indeed settled but upon the data being wrong and the hypothesis being right. Data collection and analysis is therefore a spurious activity as is the manipulation of data. There is no need to manipulate data in a scientific paradigm in which data is irrelevent and the hypothesis is always right. Climate science as practiced by the propents of global warming is always right and always settled even if the hypothesis detail itself takes on a myriad of changing positions. It can never be faslsified by data as data is irrelevent.
The most obvious problem is –
The observations must be in error – they don’t match the theory.
🙂