Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
New Video : The Wildly Fraudulent National Climate Assessment
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Right now type “Katharine Hayhoe fraud” in google and then do the exact same search in DuckDuckGo.
This is what we’re up against!
I couldn’t resist:
Typing “Katharine Hayhoe fraud” in google is not going help, since google is part of the fraud. Google is well known for prioritizing its own preferred social didactics over others, Hayhoe to Google will only be elevated in standing, and your word “fraud” will be deleted. The day google does things based upon statistical frequencies have long been over. I remember in the early days, I could find what I was looking for (information on any subject) quickly and easily, usually within the first page of results, but now, I get Amazon or some other stupid unrelated site what is word capturing my searches.
Do everybody a favor, never EVER, recommend google for anything. That evil company does no good, in fact, they are part of the problem!
Every single modern supermonopolist is part of the Fraud and an artificial creation created for the purpose to monopolise/centralise opinions etc,
be it Microsoft,Google or Amazon
or Facebook,
and all the owners/creators are by some strange coincidence globalistic philantrophs,
even the infamous sociopath from harvard Suckerberg.
He all of a sudden became a philantrophic,vegetarian good doer.
These guys are fake as shit.
And google-
there are several things i can no longer find with google.
Even when i google Rockfeller/Hitler the first thing i get(german results) is an official article of Die Zeit “conspiracy theory that rockefellers supported Hitler”
while in fact the Rockefeller&jp morgan organised Hitler financing,the Rockefeller Foundation worked closely with Rudin/Hitlers eugenic programm,
and Rockefellers provided Hitler with specific Fuel addidtives(without those Hitlers machines would not run=imoossible to start a world war).
Most of this stuff can be even found on wikipedia.
Even informations Nicholas Rockefeller can now barely be found on the internet when using google.
(the rockefeller exposed by Hollywood Producer Aaron Russo who several years ago)
So, I quit using google, approximately a year ago. I’m not giving them one more peak at my personal search interests, nor will I allow them to profit from my use of their services.
I tried the pepsi challenge, google vs. DuckDuckgo… interesting. Then I tried Bing… I’ll be damned if Bing didn’t produce the most honest responses. I’m no special pleader for Microsoft, but it seems like Bing’s meta-attributes haven’t been human-modified (yet) to fit a political or social agenda…
Try it yourself. Let me know what you think, please.
Yahoo picks it up:
https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=hayhoe+fraud&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35
CH’s graph has a misleading title. The word RATIOs is missing. There is no way that title should have passed review. It could be deliberate deception of course..
Tony, your discussion needs to focus on this missing word, as CHs graph looks credible with that word missing. I found it hard to perceive what I was missing.
There are many more things wrong with that page than just the title of the graph.
That’s not my point. What I am saying is that I found your analysis weak, because that false title had me fooled. I had to go over your critique twice before I could understand how and where I had been fooled.
Putting the focus on one word would weaken the case against the entire document.
Maybe true, but I was speaking to how your presentation failed to convince me until I figured out how that phony title fooled me. I admit that your target audience might not be fooled like me.
With Interest I need to ask, because there is something I don’t quite get in your video.
When the chart says “Ratio All-Time Daily Temperatures”, this is saying, that it is dividing one number with another? Ok so here is what is confusing me, as an ex-journal referee I now have to ask:
– What is exactly the numerator and the denominator in this Hayhoe chart? If this ratio is about the number of record daily high temperatures that are supposedly to be increasing from one term to another (say annually, no other term makes sense), example if there 10 record highs in 2011, and then there were 15 record highs in 2012, this means there is 15/10=1.5 increase of record highs from 2011 to 2012, does it not? At least that is how you read the intent of Hayhoe in her chart. So for Hayhoe, if you look at the year 2014 (it is blue, or sky-blue) it suggests that there were no daily highs. Then as to your argument Tony, the denominator should be 0, and the ratio should be ∞ (i hope that infinity came out), and thus it makes no sense how Hayhoe gets red bars after blue bars!!
– From what I have read so far in that Hayhoe document, she leaves out clear definitions of her axes labels. Everything is quite up to interpretation, I clear sign of either incompetence or intended obscuration. This paper doesn’t even rate an F, it is not even fit to be reviewed.
As I have often stated the peer-review process is broken. You can lay fault of this, straight at the feet of the tenure process, where tenure is now a protection mechanism for the incompetent and corrupt. There is no competition in academia, and theories are now not only not challenged but are now used as an aegis for manic egos to facilitate a protection racket for self benefit.
Oh why am I an ex-referee…because I failed to many papers that were just as you said Tony, garbage. I hate to say it, but over 90% of the papers today, are just that, garbage, and that is what I used to fail, about 80-90 percent, and certain people didn’t like that. That’s the way it is now, the bar is so low now that garbage is beautiful research.
What will happen in all this? Hayhoe will be praised (fraudulently of course), and you will be continually vilified.
This is after all the Dark Age Of Science. It will continue like this for decades, maybe centuries. Tony find something else to do that is more positive, fighting corruption in Science is only going to end with your demise, and not the crooks like Hayhoe.
Good, honest, factual Science is finished. Enter the Dark Ages Of Science, the forces of Evil will now prevail until it all goes to hell.
What most people do not realise:
Criminals of any kind have somethinggv in Common:
Gangmentality:
They are selforganising
and they can recognise each other
Wether these are gangs,pedophiles,robbers,drug dealers
or parasitic scientists.
As soon as one of them enters a system many of them will follow
as the first one will help the others to get in as he needs their help
to built up a power structure.
Then they start to replace people of integrity with buttkissers,sociophants,carreerist who would sell their mother for success and some naive good doers who are only interessted in gaining
good karma and avoid negative insights by any means.
As the leaders are sociopathic by nature or have such tendencies
they can make themselve look noble and good as one could be-
one can only spot them on small things.
That’s where they fail and they do so on a regular basis(until their small failure gets exposed and the adjust their behaviour)
Engineers, scientists and mathematicians normally talk about limits as a number approaches zero. No serious scientist would use ratios with a small highly variable number in the denominator.
Dorian
It’s the ratio of hot/cold.
eg If there were 20 record daily highs in 2012, and 10 record lows, the ratio would be 2:1
Tony’s point is that if the numbers come down the next year to 3 hot and 1 cold, the ratio increases to 3:1. But which year has the most extreme temperatures?
The fact that it is a U.S. Government report is enough proof that it is fraudulent.
The key to why the 1930s fails to show up large numbers of record highs on the National Climate Report, is that they have used the much larger GHCN dataset, and not USHCN.
The problem with GHCN is that most of the stations they use in the US were not in existence in the 1930s, and have only been operational typically since the 1960s.
Given that the 1960s and 70s were cold decades, it is unsurprising that there are more record highs now than lows.
This graph shows the growth of GHCN stations, many of which are junk airport sites and so on, thus making matters worse
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/jtech-d-11-00103-1-f3-jpeg.jpg
BTW – My full analysis of the NCA is here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/11/05/a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate/