Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

On Easterbrooks dishonesty

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/02/don-easterbrook-caught-in-a-li/

 

And here's Tim Ball

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball

 

Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Posted on 7 June 2012 by dana1981

At the recent scandal-plagued Heartland climate conference, Don Easterbrook gave a presentation in which he discussed his previous predictions of global cooling. Given the inaccuracy of those predictions after just one decade, we were surprised to learn that Easterbrook had highlighted them in his talk, going as far as to claim that his global cooling projectons have thus far been more accurate than the global warming projections in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR).

However, to make this claim, Easterbrook had to distort the IPCC's actual model projections, claiming:

"In fact the IPCC predicted in the year 2000 that we would be experiencing 1 degree increase in temperature between the year 2000 and 2010."

As Skeptical Science readers are undoubtedly aware, and as we will show in greater detail below, this assertion is an outright falsehood. Distortions of the IPCC projections aside, was Easterbrook correct in his claim that his temperature predictions were more accurate than those in the TAR? As Figure 1 shows, the simple answer is no.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

 

It's the same thing. Over and over again, econuts disparage real data and ignore anything and anyone who doesn't align with their predeterminations.

Tell me, mamooth. If these models have been so fantastic, why is every long-term prediction based upon them so hilariously wrong?

We were supposed to have Florida underwater by now. We were supposed to have no Arctic ice by now. Etc, etc.

These whackjob leftist proclamations were based upon your "so-very-good" models.

So are the leftists the nuts, or the models nuts?

 

Of course they do! And they have! (though they were later either withdrawn by the authors or rendered invalid by additional research)

That is absurd!

Let me explain to you how this works. There are thousands of peer-reviewed publications. They publish on all scientific matters: Medicine, Physics, Biology, Chemistry.... How can you think that an Editor in one of these publications would put his media's and his own prestige on the line for something like that?

AGW is just one, small, minor area within the body of Scientific Research.

I have watched dozens of these videos. They are worthless. They contain no Science. Their purpose is to confuse those who lack understanding about how Science works.

It is absolutely irrelevant what scientist believe. The only thing that matters is what they can prove. Einstein was skeptical of Quantum Mechanics. Hawking was skeptical of the existence of the Higgs Bosom. Hoyle was skeptical of the Big Bang Theory....

Scientists' skepticism is always a curious side-note. But never Science. Peer-reviewed Studies are the only thing in Science that can substitute "beliefs"

I know exactly how many scientists were included. The exact number of scientists included was zero! None!

The consensus is not a consensus of scientists. It's a consensus of peer-reviewed studies!

As I said, these videos are put out to bamboozle the gullible who have no idea how Science works.

 

You are ignorant and science isn't partisan. Understand now? If you took the time to learn you wouldn't be so confused.

If you stopped playing Holiday Inn expert you wouldn't be confused.

 

Simply click youtube on the video and you get taken to youtube and then watch it. I have posted this same video.

Where to put it. I generally put it in the Science forum.

 

Nice insults. No answer to my question though.

Can you answer why the predictions have been so laughably wrong?

 

Ya I figured you didn't even watch it. The rest of your post is worthless.

 

Did you watch the video? That is what the thread is about. How about refuting his testimony instead of the juvenile insults?

 

Most predictions have been too conservative.

 

What is bogus about your defense is you act as if just you are scientific.

I have a trained background in weather, including global weather.
But more than that, I have taken the trouble to speak by e mail to Dr. Richard Lindzen who was and still is very respected by all save the Democrats. They hate him since they are Democrats and that is how they swing.

Dr. Lindzen offered me 240 papers on the topic he worked on with others.

Climate is far too complex to trust to a few models. I too like models but only when correctly used. They need to also include the limitations of models.

Let's get down to just how complex climate is.

Let's start with Death Valley. We all know by now it has a climate.

Just west of the Valley the climate is far different and much more temperate. They grow crops west of Death Valley yet you won't grow them in the valley.

The SF Bay Area has a well known 9 climates in the rather limited area the bay area covers.

So, to model just our area is difficult.

Much less model the entire planet.

 

Your link is a pro GW one. Of course Easterbrook challenged IPCC and climate modeling because he is using real data not the 'shake and bake' data that has been edited. I find the line "
Given the inaccuracy of those predictions' to be a completely unsupported claim. Watch the video and stop trying to obfuscate.

 

B.S. GW predictions have not been accurate at all.

 

Not those by science. They have shot too high.

 

Why do you trust politicians with your science?

 

Ah. Tell me all about the predictions in the link below that have been "too conservative".

Laughable predictions that have not come true

 

Careful, soon they will start posting the fake graphs.

 

I just answered that very uneducated statement..

Here was my answer: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-climate-change.507708/page-6#post-1067639832

 

Ok. So now we know the reason for your ignorance. You prefer to watch a video than a serious explanation of why it is not Science.

 

That isn't everything. Sorry. You can't dismiss a rebuttal by claiming other arguments have been refuted.

 

I don't have to. If he can't show my source shouldn't even be considered then he will have to address the arguments made in my source individually. So why does he have to address my source instead of me presenting and proving those arguments myself? Because the OP didn't do that either. If I have to prove my source is legitimate, then he has to prove his source is legitimate.

 

That's typical...deny evidence before it is even presented.

 

I have heard and seen all the 'serious explanations' in favor of GW over and over and over where no real data is offered for their conclusions which is why I am more convinced by Mr. Easterbrook. The fact that pro warmers denigrate him with no evidence whatsoever makes his presentation even more solid. Your insults just show how vacant your claims are.

 

Fake graphs showing manipulated computer models pale in comparison to real data. I already have seen tons of fake science foisted up in order to keep the GW cash cow grazing.