Five different groups came up with very similar graphs based on the same set of non-existent temperature data.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Gordon Vigurs on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Ed on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Walter on Ellen Flees To The UK
- conrad ziefle on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- conrad ziefle on Ellen Flees To The UK
Mendacity, that’s a new word for me. Only, I had a hard time finding it because I tried to spell it “Manndacity”. I still think I have the right spelling, even if the dictionary has spelled it differently. It’s kind of like the hookey stick; they think they have it right, even though the thermometers show it differently.
I’m not surprised that the five agencies show exactly the same temperature profile. It doesn’t show the same conclusion found independently, but rather collusion. If you start with the same data, and you use your math correctly, you should come to the same collusion, even without speaking to each other. The key is agreeing on the same set of data. Since they are all activists, the data doesn’t matter-to them. Unfortunately, the only science involved is political science. That has to change.
By the way, I’m not sure which is the horse and which is the carriage, but I understand that the Netherlands and Argentina both have elected “conservative” governments and both have abolished voting machines and gone to paper ballots. Does that imply that black box voting machines have been manipulated to elect progressive candidates, everywhere and for years?
Voting machines work the same way as climate models – the results are always adjusted and progressive.
And btw – whatever can be corrupted will be corrupted
“Whatever can be corrupted will be corrupted”… is that one of Murphy’s Laws? Perhaps a cousin of Murphy penned that one?
I’m not mocking, just marveling at how many applications of Murphy’s Law come to fruition…
You can mock – only way to improve my English.
But what I meant is quiet on the opposite spectrum of Murphys Law.
Murphys Law means more something that happens eventually by coincidence from time to time and those who suffer / benefit are from different groups.
What I am talking about is happening at the same time as result of coordinated infiltration and subversion and those who benefit are always the same.
It is Murphys Law if you believe in Hanlons Razor BS –
” Never attribute to malice if incompetence can not be ruled out ”
Murphys cousin instead follows FDR
” In politics nothing happens by coincidence.
And if it happens by coincidence , you can bet it was planned that way “
To corrupt the system you have to buy the system. So the more you print the more you can(and have to)corrupt to keep your centrally controlled (imploding) economic system afloat. Never think you live in a free country if they want to control you 24/7.
Arn says: “But what I meant is quiet on the opposite spectrum of Murphys Law.
Murphys Law means more something that happens eventually by coincidence from time to time and those who suffer / benefit are from different groups.”
I believe you have the wrong Murphy’s Law there. Murphy’s Law states that “whatever can go wrong, will go wrong” And later iterations add “at the worst possible time”.
So your stating that “whatever can be corrupted will be corrupted” is exactly the same pattern and context as Murphy posits, except dealing with corruption instead of mishap.
Murphy’s law is not just some humorous old adage, it has application to mitigating risk. If you do not consider all the possible things that can go wrong in something inherently dangerous and engineer ways to mitigate the risk if any one of those failure modes or mishaps occurs, you are negligent.
Your statement about if it can be corrupted, it will – or will be attempted by someone or some group – is valid and the same mitigation strategy should be employed to first prevent corruption, and then to design the system such that in the event of attempted corruption, the result has mitigated the risk.
It was important for me to make a difference between mishap and sabotage.
I always thought the law was only about mishap(shit happens) and not sabotage.
Let’s say – Virus, Pandemic.
Can happen, will happen.
But Covid 19 can not exist as result of Nature .
An artificial thing.
To me it was not part of the law.
Murphys Law was kind of light,
while deliberate sabotage a laser.
Excellent exposé in under 3 minutes. Disillusionment is a good thing.
Toto rips away the curtain, exposing the Wizard’s illusion.
Five agencies plot the same data. Small differences might be expected from different interpolation algorithms, but the results are bound to be practically identical. Just how stupid do these arrogant prigs think we are?
I am seeing disturbing things. I saw in telegraph discusion with some climate alarmism “sceptic” who said that he agree with IPCC but he doesn´t think that man made global warming will have devastating impact on planet. They now creating fake opposition groups. From people who were ostrakized and suffer for years of mainstream humiliation /real critics/ fact are stolen and new fake opposition is cherrypicking some data to appease many sceptics.They are creating new fake heroes without history of record. In fact this is only old trick with controlled oposition. I saw this in former soviet union states before and after fall of communism . If you cannot win by presenting facts and people start to question your authority or knowledge, take arguments from oppsoition and create new opposition group controled by you which do not question the core idea which is used for corruption or other ideological purposes but take some arguments and make some shallow new ideology. Most people are not able to admit that they were fooled so they never fully refuse the whole idea in which they belived years even if thez have enough fact they will rather stand on a side who do not intact core base of that idea. I do not want to bz like idiot and give credit to some new fake opposition “authorities” which are created to distract people from the core essence and continue with same old corruption. Mainstream and old coruptioneers changed their coats to be able to survive and lie to another generations, they are thiefs, oportunists which “killed” many good scientists, censored them, sealed their mouths and ruined the lives of thousands of people. I was learning from these people even though they were disparaged and I will not play a game today on the hitherto unknown rescuers and heroes who come to break the lies about warming. It is for about 10 maybe more years when i found your site and many other. Sites, were honest people were giving their opinion on this matter and were ostracized and grossly slandered simply on the grounds that they provided facts that did not suit corruptors and fanatics. I will only honor this people who have history of record, they stayed and were talking when anyone else was cowardly swimming with the current of the sewage.
30 years ago when I was engaged in basic electro-physics research we had a cynical saw in the laboratories :
if the empirical data do not support the chief scientist’s theory they must be summarily dismissed without comment.
Ethics, of course, required us to report any deviation, but commenting was not a wise career move.
The Ministry of Truth is not just a component from a 1940s fiction novel.
https://sociable.co/government-and-policy/we-own-science-world-should-know-un-wef-disinformation/
If you care to know why I get discouraged, it is the massive war against honest scientists and the war against citizens of this planet. These people battle inconvenient facts that can rip apart their narrative by smearing them as ‘disinformation’ – and they massively censor them to keep them from seeing the light of day. Look at the white list on who owns ‘the science’ – the main sponsor and the other contributors on that list should be no surprise.
What they have done to Judith Curry makes my blood boil. https://twitter.com/curryja/status/1690410119383990272/photo/1
Stossel’s full interview with Dr. Curry: https://rumble.com/v3ltohm-the-full-judith-curry-interview-climate-scientist-says-world-wont-end.html