Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Conspiracy Theory!
- “No One Is Above The Law”
- CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Looking For Their Lost Keys
- Rapid Climate Change
- CBS News 1982 : One Fourth Of Florida To Drown
- Affordable Transportation
- “Why Scientific Fraud Is Suddenly Everywhere”
- She Hates Her State
- Climate Friendly War
- Office Of Climate Change And Health Equity And Environmental Justice
- “100% Non-Carbon By 2030”
- 1991 : United Nations Calls For Genocide
- Mainstream Fascism In Academia
- California Finds A New Way To Drive Businesses Out
- Powerful Climate Mathematics
- NY Times – Cameras Are Racist
- Forests Cause Forest Fires
- Climate Engineering
- The World’s Worst Scientists
- “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- A Real Hockey Stick
- A Real Hockey Stick
- Doubling Energy Costs
- Doubling Energy Costs
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Conspiracy Theory!
- John on Conspiracy Theory!
- Tony Heller on Conspiracy Theory!
- dm on Conspiracy Theory!
- arn on “No One Is Above The Law”
- Wes Tyler on “No One Is Above The Law”
- Disillusioned on CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Conrad Ziefle on “No One Is Above The Law”
- Gordon Vigurs on “No One Is Above The Law”
- Disillusioned on “No One Is Above The Law”
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!