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
- 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
- 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
Recent Comments
- arn on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- arn on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Gordon Vigurs on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Peter Carroll on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Robertvd on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Robertvd on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Gordon Vigurs on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Jack the Insider on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- Bob G on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
- conrad ziefle on The Real Hockey Stick Graph
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.