Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- The Perfect Car
- “usually the case”
- Same Old Democrats
- Record Arctic Ice Growth
Recent Comments
- william on Warming Twice As Fast
- arn on Warming Twice As Fast
- arn on Understanding Climate Science
- Independent on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- conrad ziefle on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- Bob G on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- arn on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- william on Arctic Sea Ice Declining Faster Than Expected
- conrad ziefle on Recycling The Same News Every Century
- conrad ziefle on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
US Temperatures Show No Correlation With CO2
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Tony,
I found a way for you to roll up to the Whole Foods in a vette while still remaining stylishly environmental…
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-WcL41yUmzCQ/VDA5wezrRVI/AAAAAAAAIX0/Pz7QG5aYH3A/w884-h833-no/1960-schwinn-corvette.jpg
Darn, doesn’t postmodern science allow the principal investigator to arbritarily assume each of the data points, as measured, correlates independently with CO2?
Tony, is that before or after they adjust the data. (Is it raw)
Raw. I treat the adjusted data as toxic waste
And so it is! It’s a regular Love Canal of open-air statistical effluent.
At least Love Canal was the result of something useful.
CAGW doesn’t even have that very small redeeming characteristic.
Also as usual the MSM got the story all wrong. From the court case:
I figured as much. Thanks for answering Tony.
I agree that adjusted data is toxic waste. Any ‘scientific’ study that uses adjusted data without showing:
1. The raw data
2. Method of Adjustment
3. And most importantly a darn good reason for adjustment
Should be immediately tossed without even going through pee-review.
As far as I am concerned there are very very few reasons to ‘adjust’ data and the problems should be treated with the use of error bars instead.
Indeed it is waste and toxic to the scientific process.
Steven,
You’ve omitted the Mann-made correlation factors. You’ll upset the ‘settled science’ brigade.
While it may be difficult to find a scientific journal that would publish this as a paper, it may be worth writing it up and trying.
I think Lord Monckton was supporting a new journal after Pattern Recognition in Physics was axed by Copernicus and then got trashed by WUWT.
http://lordmoncktonfoundation.com/mob_collection/view/536/the_journal_of_pattern_recognition_in_physics_affair
Their Obama told them that we don’t have time for a debate with the Flat Earth Society.
RTF
But, but, but the Flat Earth Society (based in California no less) SUPPORTS CAGW.
Gahhh…it’s so bad you can’t even keep track of the loons with a program!