'Digital has it now'
back then, my dad and his colleague always facetiously added 'but you can't have it'
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-09-05-fi-13593-story.html
back then, my dad and his colleague always facetiously added 'but you can't have it'
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-09-05-fi-13593-story.html
❤6🔥3🤯1
the pathetic thing about the hyper-exaggerated ‘climate change’ narrative being incessantly shilled here in the uk, whether it relates to the world cup or tour de france is that if things were truly accelerating that rapidly out of control, there would be absolutely no point in even trying to attempt to stop it
but, rather, rothschild and rockefeller, and their associated cronies, have decided that we in the west have to self-destroy in order to… er, what exactly?
but, rather, rothschild and rockefeller, and their associated cronies, have decided that we in the west have to self-destroy in order to… er, what exactly?
👍9
‘climate science’ is not science
science is falsifiable
when things come out better than expected, it’s because of the ‘proactive stance of the climate science community’
when it’s worse than expected, it’s because ‘we do not do enough’
under no condition is ‘climate science’ falsifiable. hence, it isn’t science.
science is falsifiable
when things come out better than expected, it’s because of the ‘proactive stance of the climate science community’
when it’s worse than expected, it’s because ‘we do not do enough’
under no condition is ‘climate science’ falsifiable. hence, it isn’t science.
👍11💯8
it’s complete horse manure. who selects these ‘approximations’?
i assume that, if they’re wrong, the ‘climate science’ community hold up their hands and accept they were wrong?
oh wait, they don’t?
i assume that, if they’re wrong, the ‘climate science’ community hold up their hands and accept they were wrong?
oh wait, they don’t?
❤4
in other words, even the 'approximations' are unfalsifiable - because they sit within the same models.
it’s fraud.
it’s fraud.
💯13👍5
oh wait - their ‘approximations’… they’re by and large scale invariant. hahahahahahaha
😁8
if ‘climate science’ cared about its reputation as a legit branch of science, then why was no climate scientists fired for gross misconduct post-Climategate?
and why did they lie about it being an ‘email controversy’?
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/climategate
and why did they lie about it being an ‘email controversy’?
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/climategate
Substack
Climategate
In 2009, the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was compromised, and hackers made off with 160mb of data, 3,000 documents, and more than 1,000 emails.
👍15
funny how people who are certain ‘climate change’ is real fail to reply to related, foundational questions.
💯10
summary essays of my essays on climate change and environment
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/settled-science
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/settled-science
Substack
Settled Science
We’re routinely told that the science behind climate change is settled, that the models are reliable, and that the institutions behind it would catch and correct any errors.
👍12❤4
Settled Science - by esc.pdf
2.6 MB
the IPCC selects the ‘valid’ climate scenarios in exactly the same way as the NGFS SAC will select the ‘valid’ financial scenarios
both the IPCC and NGFS SAC operate through input constraint
included that in the essay, and here’s the PDF update
both the IPCC and NGFS SAC operate through input constraint
included that in the essay, and here’s the PDF update
👍7💯5❤1
now completely censored on google.
past month, not a single link to my substack. not one.
and only 29 hits in total.
past month, not a single link to my substack. not one.
and only 29 hits in total.
🔥9🤬9
right, read the Armstrong essay a 2nd time. here are my thoughts
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/does-becoming-rich-create-a-god-like-self-image/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/does-becoming-rich-create-a-god-like-self-image/
👍18❤1👌1💯1