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
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Worst March Drought On Record
- ChartGL Process Control Demo
- The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Drought In The Headwaters Of Lake Powell
- Unrealistic Expectations Of Water Availability
- Did Bill Gates Do This?
- Worst March Drought On Record In The US
- The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
- 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
Recent Comments
- Frank on The Biggest Money Laundering Scam
- Bob G on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Bob G on El Nino To The Rescue?
- conrad ziefle on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Bob G on El Nino To The Rescue?
- arn on El Nino To The Rescue?
- BenV on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Bob G on El Nino To The Rescue?
- Peter Carroll on Worst March Drought On Record
- GW on El Nino To The Rescue?
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.