Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

If you didn't bother reading it...well yea

 

And the way to solve that problem is to issue vouchers for veterans needing healthcare to obtain it in the private sector.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...ector-to-help-reduce-wait-times-for-veterans/

 

I did read it...unlike you who refuse to watch the video in the OP.

 

The IPCC among others. The hockey stick has been completely expunged from IPCC literature. Are you really that uninformed ??

 

ROFL! And did you expect the unions to say anything different?

Public unions exist to protect their dues paying members - even if the members deserve to be fired!

If the VA medical facilities are overburdened then why aren't the VA unions pushing Trumps new plan for letting veterans go anywhere they want for medical treatment?

 

Later in 2003, a paper by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick disputing the data used in MBH98 paper was publicised by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In 2004, Hans von Storch published criticism of the statistical techniques as tending to underplay variations in earlier parts of the graph, though this was disputed and he later accepted that the effect was very small.[11] In 2005, McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal component analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. The analysis therein was subsequently disputed by published papers, including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007, which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology. In June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. At Boehlert's request, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006, supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12] Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported McIntyre and McKitrick's view that there were statistical failings, although they did not quantify whether there was any significant effect. They also produced an extensive network analysis which has been discredited by expert opinion and found to have issues of plagiarism. Arguments against the MBH studies were reintroduced as part of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, but dismissed by eight independent investigations.

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

 

What do ya know!

This too is bullshit

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

But in interviews with the Associated Press and E&E, an online energy and environmental news outlet, Bates said he had not accused his colleagues of data manipulation.

Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.

 

The IPCC is on the 5th AR.

 

Fact Check is ignoring what Mr. Easterbrook said. (remember you didn't watch the video) What Mr. Easterbrook said was that they used polluted data mixed with pure data. In other words, readings that were faulty, not verified, or were from uncharacteristic stations near human made heat, etc. Were combined with the more pure, verifiable data. From there, they chose data they thought most appropriate for their already decided model. This is not science in any way shape or form. You can parse and prevaricate all you want but the unfiltered, pure data does not uphold a GW theory. Remember your 'consensus' has been completely refuted in peer-reviewed journals.

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

• Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
• http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

 

Obliterated by Gort.

 

The simple truth about climate change? I've said it before: the climate has always changed in the past and will continue to change in the future. Human activities have some amount impact on the change, but exactly how much of an impact is not known. Anyone who fails to accept these simple truths is kidding themselves.

 

Correct.....Humans impact their environment locally like the 'heat islands' created in large metropolitan areas where most liberal-pro AGW's live. Basically they pollute their own environment and blame everyone else then, have the audacity to think their little piece of the Earth can affect world climate. Bunch of dunder-heads if you ask me.

 

LOL....The question was the veracity of your own citation. You assert, yourself, that it is both reliable and accurate. The assertion was made that it was not. The burden of proof lies on you to defend your source. That isn't the negative here. And yes, folks defend the negative quite often. You should try it since it goes to your own credibility. Since it is actually you who made the erroneous post, it is your obligation to provide sufficient evidence that your assertion is credible.

And, nice dodge on the ability to demonstrate any actual harm from the average fluctuating a few hundredths of a degree. Again, it's about credibility. Can you demonstrate any actual harm?

 

You do gibberish quite well. That's a real skill

 

I'm wounded. Truly. Of course the history of any of the above cited organizations belies your ad hominem. Perhaps you can take out your frustration on them.

Ill let the participants speak for themselves:
"I suspect that…anyone who has not been involved in this process would scarcely believe how this meeting is managed; the expense, the length of the sessions, and the apparent pickiness of some of the discussion would strike many as a very poor way to conduct international business. (p. 114)

this was an agonizing, frustrating process, as every sentence had to be wordsmithed on a screen in front of representatives of more than 100 governments, falling farther and farther beyond a realistic schedule by the hour. In Brussels in 2007, the process ran all night on the two final days. (p. 334)

…I have observed the behaviour of the delegations from individual countries which certainly reflects a completely different mindset than my own as a scientist. The political intrigues which appear to be well known on the international scene are popping up again and again… (p. 43, a few typos edited out)

In my experience the summary for policy makers tends to be more of a political process than one of scientific précis. (p. 27

This is a pure political process… (p. 373)"

Had this IPCC meeting been televised, the average Jane and the average Joe would have seen for themselves that scientists aren’t in charge at the IPCC. Moreover, the average person understands something that many journalists reporting on tomorrow’s press conference will manage to overlook:

Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors.

 

And you revert to type when pressed. Ad hominem is your go to play.

 

You can't get any harder science than well known climatologist John Christy presents in the following video.

 

Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither. Not that the earth is not heating up. It is, he says, and carbon dioxide spewed from power plants, automobiles and other sources is at least partly responsible.

 

It's called Poisoning the Well. If you can't attack the message then attack the messenger in the faint hope it will somehow discredit the message.

It is a typical argumentative fallacy that Lesh likes to use.

 

Ah... Attacking Science again?

Even without understanding it. Otherwise you would have responded to the simple questions I had asked you.

I'll make it even simpler for you. How do you know what is religious belief and what is Science? How do you discern the difference?

I have very clear and easy to understand answers to those questions. Which I have given many times. But you don't.

 

I made a living based on science.

 

Once again, you resort to the argumentative fallacy of Poisoning the Well. You can't attack the message so you attack the messenger.

It simply doesn't matter if Christy is an outlier. His presentation is based on facts, on real world observations.

Gallileo was an outlier too. But he was proved correct. Based on his real world observations.

You and your AGW alarmists believe as religious dogma that the global average temperatures before 1998 were ideal for the human race. Even that is at odds with real world observations. The green area on the earth has grown by 10% to 15% since 1980 - meaning more food and less starvation afflicting the human race. That is a *good* thing! In addition, more humans die from exposure to cold each year then die from exposure to temperatures averaging 0.1degC more than in 1998.

 

Pushing beliefs that don't match real world observation *IS* professing religious dogma.

 

Solar, wind, hydro, thermal, and nuclear, are cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels, and create more jobs in one year than fossil fuel industries have created in 20.

 

It would seem as much.