Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

Yes. Those who have seen the actual data know that. You haven't. You've only seen what your masters want you to see.

Certainly. You'll find that we in the reality-based community can always back up what we say.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/



Obviously, you won't be able to do the same, being the actual data contradicts you.. I suggest you not try to use any of the crazily fudged graphs that Christy presented to congress, since I'd have too much fun ripping them apart.

 

Easterbrook, for example, has spoken at Heartland conferences many times, and Heartland pays its speakers well. All the deniers get paid.

Tell us more about these billions. Split up among a few scientists, that's many millions each. So how come they're still so conspicuously not rich? Why can't your keen denier detectives find any trace of this supposed bribe money?

Don Easterbrook does not believe in global warming theory. He denies that CO2 has any significant climate effect. He claims the recent warming was from ocean oscillations, and that it will flip to strong cooling RealSoonNow. Of course, he's been saying RealSoonNow for many years. He said "immediately" in that 2014 testimony, which was immediately followed by 3 record-breaking hot years in a row. The exact opposite of what he predicted happened. You can't get more completely wrong about the science than that.

The stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas absorption bands are all smoking guns for the theory of greenhouse gas caused global warming.

(And if you don't know that that meant, you shouldn't be in the discussion.)

No "it's part of a natural cycle!" theory can explain those directly observed measurements. The observed data says your theories are wrong, hence they are wrong. No models are even necessary. The success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly measured evidence alone proves global warming theory.

 

Well, there are two possibilities, here.

First, it could be because of an international conspiracy involving millions of people to invent out of thin air a theory of man-made climate change in order to achieve...something or other. Maybe to be mean to oil companies or something?

Second, you're wrong.

Guess which is the most likely.

 

Nothing you just said proves the infinitesimal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere either naturally occurring or man made is responsible for the perceived warming which has been
2 to 3 times less than predicted by the junk in junk out models. The models don't include the true values for water vapor, geothermal activity, the changes int the earth's rotation and tilt, or changes in the earth's or the suns electromagnetic fields. Give me one piece of empirical data proving increased CO2 levels are responsible for any perceived warming or rise in sea levels.

 

The climate models have *NOT* been good. They are far off from what satellite and balloon measurements actually show.

wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/

 

You are kidding, right? You think government agencies don't put out results that get them bigger budgets? Guess you've never heard of the VA.

 

They have *NOT* been right.

One big thing they have wrong is that we can affect the end result of any warming by making everyone in America into a pauper.

Why aren't the *real* climate scientists fighting for the only possible solution - relocation of people away from the coast!

 

WOW!! Thank goodness there is someone like Mr. Easterbrook. I found it quite interesting that the representatives in some cases seemed so brainwashed they can't decipher actual real data.

 

They've been very. I posted the real data thjat showed that.

In contrast, you posted the fudgy stuff that I warned IMMensaMind not to post.

Spencer's faked graph has two glaring problems.

First, he's uses baseline fudging. He shifts the models baseline way up by around 0.2C, to make the differnce look bigger.

Second, his balloon datasets seem to be fictional. Nobody has ever been able to figure out where he pulled them from. The real balloon data sets look very different, and match the models quite well.

 

Why are Climate Change denialists so great at presenting videos, charts, and pseudo-scientific speeches... but no peer-reviewed studies?

Why do you think that is?

 

Scientist do "fight" for that, in that they point out it will be necessary. As they're not urban planners or politicians who control zoning and insurance laws, they have no power to make it happen.

 

Because they do not accept peer review studies that are skeptical of global warming. If you'd have actually watched the video you would not have even asked that question. Do you know how many real scientists are skeptical of GW....Do you know how the consensus for GW was actually compiled and how many scientists were included? Watch the video and get back with some relevant questions.

 

Actually, it does. The fact that you can't understand it only means you shouldn't be in the discussion. Reading some conspiracy blogs does not make you informed on the topic.

Again, totally wrong, as the models have been very good. You need to accept that your leaders lied to you about that.

Who told you such a thing, and why did you believe them? You really need to provide your sources for all your rather strange claims.

I did. And you denied it, solely because it contradicts your political agenda. If I went into greater detail, you'd just deny it harder, so there's no point in me casting pearls before swine like that.

 

Very few. The number of actual Climate Scientists holding that position is approaching zero, being the few remaining denier scientists are old, and gradually dying off.

It was the same way for Plate Tectonics theory, or Relativity. A few diehard geologists or physicists never accepted the new theory. Science advances one funeral at a time.

 

By all means quote the relevant parts I got wrong

 

Beyond that, there is something like a 5% margin of error in the models. I thought it was more like 85% confidence but that was out of date. I recently read it is more like 95%.

Of course the confidence in any particular aspect of climate change may vary. I believe this is for confidence that fossil fuel use is a major factor in climate change. [IPCC]

 

30,000 +/- are skeptical of global warming and all are scientists. The 'consensus' was compiled by a college student who took a survey of 3,000 and then filtered it down to 70 to 80. That is the basis for your 'consensus.' But you don't know that do you? Maybe you need to ask yourself why? And here is another question for you...Why are non-scientists included in the famed consensus and why are there no meteorologists included?

 

Actually, all you would need to do is present Science. Real peer-reviewed studies. Do you know why there aren't any?

You don't need to be "smart" to know whether scientific studies that back your position exist or not. But you do have to be pretty dumb to bring the matter up without providing an appropriate number of them.

 

So called peer reviewed studies do not allow skeptical points of view when it comes to GW....Watch the video otherwise you have no basis for comment in this thread.

 

It is impossible to get scientific journals to publish the facts and actual data presented by Climate change realist. The peer review process is a joke . The DOOMS DAY CLIMATE CHANGE HOAXTERS are just reviewing each others B.S. !!!!!!

 

It is also impossible to get get peer review studies that support demons causing disease or that the moon is made of green cheese. Propoganda is not evidence.

 

Please find one statement or piece of data presented by Dr. Easterbrook, Dr. Tim Ball, or Dr. Roy Spencer that can be .refuted.

 

Good job at pointing out an agency who's problems stem primarily from underfunding

 

All of it has been refuted. It is propoganda and not science. Every reputable science organization on the planet refutes their propoganda.

 

On Spencers idiocy

https://thinkprogress.org/climate-scientists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer-8519f36faf77