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
- Three Years Since The Apocalypse
- Arctic Report card Summer 2026
- Elon Pushing Pushing Geoengineering
- Earth, Wind And Fire
- On The Road Again
- Vandalism At The Reflecting Pool
- Fifty Years Ago Today
- Truth Or Consequences
- US Climate Trend Maps
- Declining Spring Snow Cover In Northern New Mexico
- You Can’t Fool Mother Nature
- Cattle And The Climate
- One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- New Video : Analyzing Oil And Gas
- Is Antarctica Melting?
- High Speed Analysis And Visualization
- El Nino To The Rescue?
- Fake News Update
- Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice
- 65 Years Of Progress!
- 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
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Three Years Since The Apocalypse
- Bob G on Three Years Since The Apocalypse
- Bob G on Three Years Since The Apocalypse
- John Francis on Elon Pushing Pushing Geoengineering
- toorightmate on Three Years Since The Apocalypse
- Gordon Vigurs on Three Years Since The Apocalypse
- conrad ziefle on Three Years Since The Apocalypse
- Bob G on Three Years Since The Apocalypse
- John Francis on Elon Pushing Pushing Geoengineering
- conrad ziefle on Earth, Wind And Fire
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.