Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

I ignore everything that is presented as Science but is not Science. If you, or anybody, can show peer-reviewed scientific research to demonstrate... whatever it is you want to demonstrate, you will have the whole world in attention.

You can certainly present this as your religious belief. Or even as opinion. Just don't present it as Science,, because it's not until you show peer-review research.

 

Compared to the fossile fuel cash cow. Pot meet kettle.

 

Which long term prediction has been wrong?

False. There was never a consensus that Florida would be underwater nor that the Arctic would be ice free by now. The consensus on the first ice free (defined as < 1 million km^2) is about 2050 and it's been that way since the late 90's. However, if anything, researchers are actually starting to refine their estimates downward right now. That's right...the consensus is now starting to fall, albeit slowly, as researchers are starting to realize their climate models may have underestimated warming near the poles. Many think the first ice free summer in the Arctic could be as soon as 2030.

If by leftists you mean Al Gore and the media then yes. They are nuts. They constantly misrepresent, cherry pick, and take legitimate research out of context. No about the models. They are very good and have demonstrated remarkable skill ex post facto and continue to exhibit skill as new observations are matched against predictions. That doesn't mean they're perfect. It just means that global trends and averages are being adequately predicted by climate models right now.

 

Apples and oranges...typical diversion.

 

After going through the same BS for years rehashing the same nonsense gets boring. I may reply when something new comes up. But this is old and stale nonsense.

 

I see, you prefer edited climate models to real, actual data.

 

Ya I realize you got nothing. You didn't even watch the video which is the subject of this thread.

 

Why, then, are these 'nuts' known as the most noteworthy spokespeople of the AGW movement?

 

Here is all the "data" that you would ever need. The IPCC compiles all research done every year in the area, with all evidence, all data, ... and presents it on their page. http://ipcc.ch/ The data is compiled by year, and organized by 3 Worgroups each dealing with a different aspect: Physical Science, Adaptation and Vulnerability, and Mitigation. And a fourth "Support Group" that coordinates and summarizes the work of the other 3

If you're a climatologist, you'll understand the data. And there are also resources that explain the data.

If you're not a climatologist, your best bet is to learn how Science works, and how it proves things.

 

They aren't noteworthy among the reputable part of the climate science community. The problem is that climate science has become politicized and that has created an environment where pro-AGW and anti-AGW bloggers/politicians equally misrepresent or cherry pick the research assuming they even bother looking at current research at all.

 

I agree. The only purpose of graphs is to give people who are not experts on the area a broad idea of what the Science demonstrates.

What is of value is the science itself. But again, if you're not a climatologist, you will probably not have better luck with the actual studies. But there is a way to know what is trustworthy and what is not: it's called "peer review". A very strict process where it is very rare that non-scientific material will pass (and there are self-correction mechanisms for when it does). So if you are a climatologist, you can look at the raw data and studies. If not you can look at what side produces peer-reviewed studies, and which one doesn't.

 

Except they haven't. And the models have produced a range of climate sensitivities from 2 - 4.5 deg C whilst the observed is ~ 1 deg C. The IPCC has reduced the range to 1.5 deg C based on observation.

 

The cooling was observed. And the data shows the cooling.

Practically no one denies global warming. But the models do not match observation and the economic analyses do not include the benefits nor clearly state the economic damage of increased energy prices.

 

Neither. Do your homework.

 

Except they have

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...te-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

 

That's not what I asked you.

 

If you can't do that for yourself there is nothing I can do about it. Read the link again with comprehension in mind.

 

No you haven't! Not even most climatologists have. It's a lot. And very difficult to understand. If you had, you would have received a PhD in climatology.

What I am explaining to you is how Science works. Knowing that science works is the reason you can get on a plane without needing to look at all the evidence in favor of how the airplane flies. Or you undergo an operation without needing to obtain a Medical degree. And you take your medication without obtaining a Pharmacy degree

The reason is that the Scientific Method works!

Now, you might believe that it doesn't. Then I would assume you are either an expert in aerodynamics, or you never travel by air. And that you either own your own Pharmacy, or you never take medications.

 

That's the basis for the entire bogus hockey stick. And the papers were peer reviewed by the hockey team which runs the website.

 

Except the IPCC doesn't use the Risby method.

 

All you are doing is justifying a religious belief by cited experts who agree with that religious belief. That is not how the scientific method works. What are the modelers doing about the fact that the range of climate sensitivities to CO2 exceeds the observed value of ~ 1 deg C ??

 

I obviously misunderstood the question then. Would you mind rewording/clarifying it?

 

So you made yet another claim you can't support.

Gettin to be a habit eh?

 

It's clear just who is in denial. But then again no surprise.

 

The VA's problem isn't underfunding, it is wasteful spending. Like big bonuses even for those that screw the veterans every single day of the year and who can't be fired!