Climate scientists are very resourceful, using their old global cooling diagrams to explain global warming.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- Climate Change, Income Inequality And Racism
- The New Kind Of Green
- The Origins Of Modern Climate Science
- If An Academic Said It, It Must Be True
- Record Snow Cover
- Stopping Climate Misinformation
- Arctic Ice Free In Two Years
- “Decades Of Scientific Research”
- The Atlantic : Tesla Bombings Not Politics Or Terrorism
- Tough Times For Eco-Terrorists
- EV Mandates
- “Oswald is a patsy. They set him up”
- In This House We Believe In Science
- “BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL”
- Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station
- Mikey The Victim
- Colorado Local Hero
Recent Comments
- roaddog on Creative Marketing
- Jack the Insider on No Emergency Or Injunction
- Scott Allen on No Emergency Or Injunction
- conrad ziefle on Grok Defending Climategate
- arn on Grok Defending Climategate
- arn on Grok Defending Climategate
- MichiCanuck on Grok Defending Climategate
- william on It Is Big Oil’s Fault
- conrad ziefle on It Is Big Oil’s Fault
- Denis Rushworth on It Is Big Oil’s Fault
I could believe that 82 authors, even if they all had science degrees, could be wrong about something, BUT when they come from 13 different countries ( not 13 from the same countries), well how could they be wrong?
The need for funds is universal, especially among the least competent and otherwise unemployable.
How come their wonderful climate models could not predict the polar vortex effects BEFORE anybody noticed the extreme cold? Post hoc rides again. Piecemeal, ad hoc, explanations whenever evidence refutes their duff theory. In real science, a single counter example is all that is needed to refute a theory, and cause a major re-think of the fundamentals. But no, AGW is sacrosanct, holy doctrine, which must never be questioned. So we have this sticking plaster approach more fitting for astrology, palmistry, reading tea leaves and Tarot cards, when their predictions go awry.