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
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- Analyzing Big City Crime
- UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
- The Catastrophic Influence of Bovine Methane Emissions on Extraterrestrial Climate Patterns
- Posting On X
- Seventeen Years Of Fun
- The Importance Of Good Tools
- Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- CO2²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- conrad ziefle on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Nicholas McGinley on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Nicholas McGinley on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Bob G on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- stewartpid on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Jehzsa on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Robertvd on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Bob G on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Walter on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
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.