Not exact matches
Ever since the launch
of this plan, there have been folks that have complained about not being able to browse the internet after some days
of web browsing while some folks
claim that the
data limit is
none existent on their end, as they've downloaded far more than the allocated 200 MB
of data.
«
None of those three stations actually have any temperature
data during the 1951 - 1980 baseline period, so his since recanted (disproven by his own
data)
claim is a complete fraud.
Not only is the
data deeply suspect after the U.S. government was repeatedly accused by experts
of fudging the temperature record to show warming when
none existed, both
of the agencies in question have been forced to back down from similar «warmest on record»
claims on multiple occasions in the past.
However, I notice that
none of the denizens
of Climate Etc. who are proponents
of CAGW have challenged my
claim that «we know that there is absolutely no empirical
data whatsoever to support this hypothesis (CAGW)?»
None of this nonsense like with the Cook et al paper where they
claim to have made all their
data available even though it clearly is not.
Given that there are several such
data sets, these agencies can
claim with a straight face that
none of them individually will have a clear effect on policy.
None of this Fukushima
data fits with Scherb's
claim of an uptick in perinatal mortality caused by Fukushima fallout.
Unfortunately,
none of the parameters on the Climate
Data Grapher can be used to necessarily support or refute the second
claim about ice cover and dormancy.
A separate report by The Guardian breaks down Wylie's
claim of links between AIQ and SCL / CA, which have become notable for their work on Donald Trump's campaign, although they
claim none of the disputed Facebook
data was involved.
The political consultancy denies this, TechCrunch reporting that it
claims to have licensed
data for up to 30M people, and saying that
none of this
data was used to help the Trump campaign...