Like with the Ozone Hole, scientists are about to move from the world is doomed phase to the we saved the world phase.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- 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
Recent Comments
Categories
Meta
Is this the set up for the Geoengineering success story? “Unbenounced to the vast majority of people (and w/OUT anyone’s consent), climate heros around the globe have spent the past few years spraying metallic nano-particles into the atmosphere and now we’ve succeeding in bringing down temps all over the world….dramatically!” Or some such. I wonder then, how much credit will be taken for helping to tip the world into a renewed fully glacial phase (when the planet might otherwise have rebounded in a few decades from the anticipated long grand solar minimum). Well..way to provide the tipping point (in the very wrong direction), dummies.
Add firings at the MET, BOM, etc…. and of course the UN.
Solve global warming? Isn’t that like solving success? Who wants that?
A rabid AGWer on wuwt proffered this chart he said showed models matched the fraudulent NOAA et al. data.
Thing is, even in the manifestly corrupt surface data, the 2016 El Nino spike barely touches the model mean (where is the data from 2017, I wonder ;-) )
I have added UAH and RSS adjusted to 1980.
You can see just how MANICALLY BAD the models really are.
Their barn just isn’t big enough !!
Also, the idea that the mean of an ensemble of different computer models has scientific meaning is risibly bogus. The implication that such a calculated mean is more likely than the furthest outlying model run is idiotic. But then consensus climate science has done grievous damage to the credibility of science.
He didn’t get the Memo, it is Climate Change, not Global Warming. Just how and why would they want to fix either? BTW, is that Goldman Sachs? I bet they loved financing the “green” deals that are now bankrupting GE.