Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 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
- 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
Recent Comments
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- william on 65 Years Of Progress!
- arn on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Gordon Vigurs on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
- Bob G on One Atomic Bomb Per Hour
they are so stupid…they don’t even know they are stupid
True .. check out his comment in a later post:
“Global warming does not mean that there will be a steady progession to a warmer climate in all parts of the world.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/fishermen/the-tipping-points-weather-channel_n_4098382_292575682.html
Some of these people must be off their meds!
“Reputable peer-reviewed journal”
Good luck with that…….
8 fans vs. 1057. Yes, that’s Huffington Post, allright. So many lemmings, so little time to run off the cliff.
Peer reviewed journal means a journal by and for people who receive grants to say global warming exists and want to get paid even more to say it is worse than we think. If they say it is less than we think, who would pay them for needless additional studies?
What successful predictions has the climate science community made? What I am suggesting is that there is more to calling yourself a scientist and wearing a lab coat. You should have some sort of successful track record for your field you can refer back to.
Are people supposed to create “peer reviewed” studies to state that everything is normal? Seems like the burden for proof would be on the people claiming that the world was going to end by 2047 – 2100.
These people have been trained to reflexively utter “peer reviewed” like so many parrots as if that is proof of something.
The so-called “climatologists” scamming the taxpayers with their global warming scare story should be prosecuted for fraud and hauled off to the hoosegow. What a greedy bunch of self-serving crackpots. There hasn’t been any global warming in 17 years. Temperatures have leveled off and are beginning to decline, despite increases in atmospheric CO2 (most of it produced from natural sources).