Given that the IPCC has produced zero evidence to back up any of their projections and confidence assertions, all facts are now officially considered cherry picking.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
- Toto Has Moved!
- Cooling Nuuk
- Escape The Heat At Your Local Movie Theater
- Charles Butler Interview – May 2, 2016
- Massive Greenland Fraud Is Rapidly Growing
- More Detail On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- 1995 IPCC Report Showed No Troposphere Warming From 1958 To 1995
- More On The NSIDC Disappearing Ice
- Climate Hustle Today
- On The Air Monday
- NOAA Quadrupling Radiosonde Temperatures By Data Tampering
- Skiing Is A Thing Of The Past
- Alarmist Brains Depleted Of Oxygen
- Climate Scam Being Driven By Politicians/Actors/Journalists
- 1905 : Valdez, Alaska Relocated Due To Glacial Melting
- Today’s Climate Fraud Winners – Science News
- Most Influential Climate Denier On Twitter
- SCIENCE : 230 Years Of Blaming White Men For Climate Change
- Battling Climate Misinformation In Santa Fe
- 1906 : Belief In Climate Change Is Due To Defective Memories
- Oswald’s Rifle?
- The Arctic Is Ice Free – How Can Sea Ice Be Declining?
- Climate Hustle Next Monday – One Night Only
- The Surface Temperature Record Is A Farce
- NASA – Doubling Sea Level Rise By Data Tampering
Join 1,965 other subscribers
Not “all facts”, just very short term ones selected from dubious starting points. Long term trends are the relevant, not cherry picked facts we need to pay attention to.
We agree! Glacier Bay melting 250 years, prior to CO2 increasing, is the kind of trend to study, not these dubious 1979 to 2010 cherry-picked windows
1979 is the ultimate cherry pick because it was at the end of a 25 year period of cooling. Probably the coldest year of the last 100 years. But that is the year that alarmists love to start from. So they have been known to pick cherries quite well themselves.
Do you have the feeling of being pwned? No, I didn’t think you were that intelligent.
I’m sure none of this happens with climate research.
‘Sting Operation’: The Stunning Percentage of Science Journals That Accepted a Completely Bogus Study
We still have not had an actual hurricane, have we? It looks like Karen won’t make the grade either. I’m not counting fake Hurricane Humberto.
What has AR5 told us that AR4 didn’t? Not very much. Is there a need for and AR6 when they are 95% certain in AR5? What is the point of another report telling us what we already ‘know’.
[I will not mention the failure of the models] 🙂
“What has AR5 told us that AR4 didn’t? ”
When you put spaghetti on a chart it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.