Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

These threads are embarrassing.
The stupidity of thinking the world-wide scientific community would unite to perpetrate a hoax - WHY? The idiotic answer - "for research money" just shows incredible ignorance of how research money is awarded, and ignores the fact that most scientists are in it for the love of the subject, not for love of money. Sure, there are some scientists that can be bought by the Koch brothers - and there the money incentive is obvious - if you're in the fossil fuel business, you can't have climate change ruining your profit margin!

The rest of the world gets it - why do deniers exist here in America?

 

You really should watch Dr. Easterbrooks testimony before the Senate committee before you shoot your mouth off. He makes you sound ridiculous. His data cannot be disputed by anyone !!!!

 

I went into physics because there was nothing in the world more important to me. Most scientist feel the same way. It is their passion. Truth is their passion. Science is the most rigorous method for determining facts that humans have ever produced.

If the standards for law were as rigorous as the standards for science, no one could ever be convicted of a crime. You could never get the evidence required for a conviction. And even if you could, a trial would take 20 or 30 years... or a century. What the average Joe would call proof, may not even rise to the level of evidence, in science. For example, eyewitness testimony would be considered anecdotal and inadmissible.

You would have to get the criminal to repeat the crime over and over again, thousands of times, for peer review.

 

Who says his data cannot be disputed???? He is disputing the data of thousands of scientists.
Do you work for the Koch Brothers? Seriously.

 

The geologist.

He is appealing to the Senate because scientists know he's a crackpot. When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsht.

News Flash: Senators are not scientists! They are in no position to judge.

 

Crackpot renegades claiming divine knowledge outside of their field of expertise are a dime a dozen. I spent years debunking these nuts. But there is a never-ending ocean of crackpots out there.

My favorite one was the guy who was claiming a degree in science. Turned out it was a degree in "Humor in Science" He was a psych major. LOL! Poetic.

 

Watch it. He offers no opinions or junk in junk out models JUST UNDISPUTABLE FACTS AND ACTUAL RECORDED AND PROVEN DATA !!!!

 

What is the climate sensitivity to CO2 ?? Why does the IPCC publish a range of climate sensitivities to CO2 ?? Why do the model calculations of climate sensitivity to CO2 yield a range of over 100% variation ?? Why does the model range of climate sensitivity to CO2 show 2 - 4.5 deg C but the data based climate sensitivity to CO2 yield 1.5 deg C per the IPCC ?? Why are the modelers not working on falsifying their errors on climate sensitivity to CO2 as prescribed by the scientific method ??

Why were the peer reviewed hockey stick papers MBH98 and MBH99 shown to be dishonest junk science ??

Why do people believe (like lemmings) the bought and paid for science that comes out of the politically biased IPCC ??

 

What degree ??

Have you read "Evidence Based Climate Science - Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming" ?? BTW - that is the consensus - CO2 emissions are responsible for some of the observed global warming.

 

Denier of what ?? Dr. Easterbrook is among the consensus of scientists and technical people who believe that human CO2 emissions cause some of the observed global warming.

 

E = mXc**2 does not have economic consequences in everyday life.

 

Water vapor makes up 95% of the green house gases and Dr Easterbrook along with Dr. Bill Ball say the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small it is impossible for it to be responsible for Global Warming. 2,3, 4, 5 times almost nothing is still nothing .

 

Refuted here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

 

How does that refute Easterbrook's discussion that the climate models are incorrect because they use climate sensitivities to CO2 which are 2 - 3 times what is observed ??

 

Because I showed that the quality of his work is so poor that you simply can't take him on his word alone.

 

You linked to a website run by the hockey team whose peer reviewed work has been completely refuted by the scientific community as dishonest junk science. The IPCC does not include MBH98 and MBH99 in any of it's reports anymore.

 

To be fair, the opinions of experts change a lot. It was only 10 years ago that the far left was pushing the idea that climate change was a 100% human creation with no natural occurrence at all.

Now the common acceptance is that it's a natural occurrence, with enough greenhouse gases from natural wildfires, volcanic eruptions, etc to eventually cause climate change, which has been accelerated by humans.

But let's get on thing clear. It's happened before and it will happen again. It's a cycle. We have not done enough damage that the planet will not heal. We will die off in or before the next glacial period in a few thousand years. The planet will eventually get back into it's natural warming/cooling cycle and will live in.

The idea that we have done so much damage that the planet will be like Venus in a thousand years, which is something I've heard many climate change activists claim, is idiotic. The level of greenhouse gases in Venus' atmosphere is billions of times more than we've ever put out.

 

So ya make up stuff and act like it has validity.

Please point to these people claiming that AGW is completely man made with no input from natural occurrences. That would require quotes with links

 

Wow! You really made that up!

No, the first warnings that manmade global warming were offered in the mid 1970's, contrary to your made up claim.

It gained widespead acceptance as a problem by the early 1990's. Which prompted the Kyoto Protocal in 1997. Again, in contrast you your made up claim.

The far left has nothing to do with it. This is a scientific and engineering problem. Big oil wants it to be a political one because they are trying to preserve their fossil fuels business, plain and simple. Which is why folks like you and the OP are fed a constant stream of junk science from people working for oil companies.

"Now the common acceptance is that it's a natural occurrence"

This is only true in AM right wing talk radio fantasy world.

 

Don't hold your breath!

 

This is precisely why they are able to get normal people to accept their bull crap. Governments spend billions on how to pin man as a global catastrophe, not to examine climate in a fair way. It is a scam.

In pretty much any political case the Democrats say they know better than the people hence we'll tax the hell out of you and give you great centrally planned economy. No thanks, we the people want to be empowered not controlled by a few men DC who claim superiority and then pass the money to their crony buddies.

 

I hope you put a big supply of incandescent light bulbs aside. You'd be in the dark without them!

 

This only became a political issue when Republicans became co-opted by the fossil fuel industry.

And once that happened Republican voters who hate anything that has a "D" attached to it in any way fell in line

 

Because the IPCC, NOAA, NASA aren't political organizations.... They're "only interested in science".... Laughable.

 

Prove that everything on SkepticalScience has been refuted.