Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
Recent Comments
- Gamecock on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- dearieme on COP29 Preview
- Greg in NZ on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on A Giant Eyesore
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
- arn on UK Labour To Save The Planet
- Tel on UK Labour To Save The Planet
- dm on CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- D. Boss on Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Robertvd on UK Labour To Save The Planet
US Temperatures Show No Correlation With CO2
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Tony,
I found a way for you to roll up to the Whole Foods in a vette while still remaining stylishly environmental…
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-WcL41yUmzCQ/VDA5wezrRVI/AAAAAAAAIX0/Pz7QG5aYH3A/w884-h833-no/1960-schwinn-corvette.jpg
Darn, doesn’t postmodern science allow the principal investigator to arbritarily assume each of the data points, as measured, correlates independently with CO2?
Tony, is that before or after they adjust the data. (Is it raw)
Raw. I treat the adjusted data as toxic waste
And so it is! It’s a regular Love Canal of open-air statistical effluent.
At least Love Canal was the result of something useful.
CAGW doesn’t even have that very small redeeming characteristic.
Also as usual the MSM got the story all wrong. From the court case:
I figured as much. Thanks for answering Tony.
I agree that adjusted data is toxic waste. Any ‘scientific’ study that uses adjusted data without showing:
1. The raw data
2. Method of Adjustment
3. And most importantly a darn good reason for adjustment
Should be immediately tossed without even going through pee-review.
As far as I am concerned there are very very few reasons to ‘adjust’ data and the problems should be treated with the use of error bars instead.
Indeed it is waste and toxic to the scientific process.
Steven,
You’ve omitted the Mann-made correlation factors. You’ll upset the ‘settled science’ brigade.
While it may be difficult to find a scientific journal that would publish this as a paper, it may be worth writing it up and trying.
I think Lord Monckton was supporting a new journal after Pattern Recognition in Physics was axed by Copernicus and then got trashed by WUWT.
http://lordmoncktonfoundation.com/mob_collection/view/536/the_journal_of_pattern_recognition_in_physics_affair
Their Obama told them that we don’t have time for a debate with the Flat Earth Society.
RTF
But, but, but the Flat Earth Society (based in California no less) SUPPORTS CAGW.
Gahhh…it’s so bad you can’t even keep track of the loons with a program!