Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

That's just baldly false. All the ACTUAL data agree with me. It is only the "weighted" and "smoothed" and "reconciled" and "adjusted" and "averaged" data that don't.

It is fact.

No, it most certainly did not. We seen graph after graph showing the AGW predictions far above the actual data. AS YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL.

Nope. That's just you makin' $#!+ up again.

<yawn> The emails speak for themselves. It was only through an exercise in political maneuvering that the AGW fraudsters avoided disgrace.

Baldly false.

Disgraceful. There is one indisputable proof that I am right: CO2 has been and is going to keep on rising, and temperature has not and is not.

 

<sigh> And you then, predictably, contradict yourself. Watch:

Nope. Flat wrong. Any systematic and objective observation is science. Aristotle advanced knowledge of biology tremendously, many centuries before the scientific method was even formulated.

But that's not where you contradict yourself. This is where you contradict yourself:

See? Bald self-contradiction.

Irrelevant. Now watch as you contradict yourself again:

So you agree that I am right and you are wrong. Good.

It is in the nature of revolutionary scientific discovery that it can't pass peer review because the authorities are all wedded to the former paradigm. The history of science is full of such cases. As you would know if you knew any science.

 

I said a few million years ago, not several hundred million. Obviously conditions prevailing when the mix of atmospheric gases was very different are less relevant to the modern climate. And just as obviously, the Pleistocene climate regime characterized by long ice ages and brief interglacials is the most relevant to us: AFAWK we are still in the same regime.

 

Aristotle was mostly wrong.

When the idea of the quanta first appeared, many in the old guard scientists were opposed. Yet the idea was published, criticized, and analyzed. Once enough physicists saw the viability of the idea, the old guard could do nothing but step aside. If one were to present a credible argument dismissing global warming, every scientific journal would willingly publish such a finding. However global warming deniers have yet to come up with such an argument.

Those discredited scientists that you global warming deniers hang you hopes on, they all published papers that were peer reviewed and found to be in error. That is how scientists lose credibility, by make claims that can't withstand scrutiny.


The scientifically interesting aspect of the global warming debate is why persons, such as yourself so ardently deny global warming when it is everywhere evident. The interesting thing is that deniers primarily get their information from right-wing propaganda. Another example of conservative delusions coming from the top.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

So here's the thing. We have empirical evidence of some warming. I doubt anyone is actually disputing this, at all.

What we don't have is agreement on the trigger, the basket of constantly changing variables that may fully explain why. What we do have is a fairly large group of folks who have discovered faith in the explanation of the destructive power of man, and are using that meme to replace apocalyptic religion with their devotion to this new myth.

I'd say it's pretty transparent. The absence of real faith being replaced by the hubris of self destructive man and the need to develop the morality play that demonstrates the veracity of the faith being lent.

That's why there aren't answers to questions like, could warming be beneficial. or could warming be temporary, or the most important, how much influence could man have on it?

If we listen to the faithful, man is completely responsible. And yet, literally, there is no data to actually support this. The global temp data shows fractional changes and zero influential impact is demonstrated as a result.

This is the foundation of the dispute. This is why there is a dispute at all.

 

The argument that you are making is not a scientific argument, and a especially not a physical one. You are making a religious argument. From the beginning of this human caused global warming denial silliness, it has been obvious that the core of the deniers came from the intelligent-design/creation-science/I-didn't-evolve-from-no-ape crowd. I get it. Humans can't be destroying the earth because god would have never given us a world we could destroy. ahhh, the comfort of imaginary friends.

 

This thread makes you wonder exactly how far the far right idiot machine has to insert something up denier's asses to get them to puppet idiocy effectively.

 

No, no and hell no! An observation is an observation. It's data and it's fact. But then it needs to be explained. Science is the explanation of that observation. "A rose is red" is an observation. But it's not Science. Why the rose is red, how it became red, why is it not blue... The peer-reviewed research that answers those questions is Science.

The temperature of the Earth's surface has been increasing in the last 2 centuries is an observation. But it's not Science. Why it's increasing, what mechanisms and factors are most involved in that increase, what are the consequences of the increase... that's Science.

The observation is the start of the Scientific process. After the observation, the Scientific Method kicks in.

So? Obviously there are and there have been throughout the history of Homo Sapiens many ways of obtaining knowledge: philosophy, religion, trial and error, wild guess (most on the right is still on this stage),... But now we know that the fastest, and most accurate is the Scientific Method. Aristotle produced a lot of useful knowledge. He also produced just as much (if not more) incorrect "knowledge".

Then why did you mention it? You accuse me of contradicting myself, and then you try to figure out where after the accusation?

Where???? Are you still trying to compare yourself to Newton?

Newton was one of the foundations for Modern Science. But if anybody tried to do Science today the way Newton did, they would be kicked out of the 3rd grade Science Project competition!. Only Newton could make Science the way Newton did. But what he did helped perfect the Modern Scientific Method. Along with Galileo, Descartes,... and later Kant, Hume, Popper, Khun, , ... even Charles Dawson,... Keep this in mind. Just a century ago the Scientific world was shaken by the Pildown Man "discovery". It was, of course, a fraud. But it helped improve the Scientific Method. Even so, the Scientific Method worked better 100 year ago than it did in Newton's time, and it works better today than it did 100 years ago, or 50 years ago... or even 10 years ago (Sokal Affair, "Frontier Journal" scandal, Soon and Baliunas Hoax,...) Because we have been improving it. And keep improving it.

But it would be laughable for a Scientist to claim today what you seem to believe: that they shouldn't be required to undergo peer-review (for example) because Newton wasn't required. Or any of the other requirements of Science today. Not only because of the arrogance. But because it shows absolute ignorance as to how the Scientific Method has changed an improved in the last 300+ years.

No, but I do agree that you are no Newton. So you, unlike Newton, need to comply with the current requirements of the Scientific Method. Just like those who performed thousands of studies to demonstrate AGW have done. They all knew they were no Newtons. So whining about how much more difficult it is today to be considered Science than it is for Newton is not going to help.

Why do you insist on discussing something you obviously understand so little about?

Look. Please read the following. That way you will know that what you just said is ridiculous. You might not admit it, but at least you will know it. Which will at least make you think twice before repeating it.

There are tens of thousands of peer-reviewed publications all over the world. The only interest that exists in these publications by any scientist is in research that either undermines, or changes something significant to known fact. Nobody reads about research that simply confirms something that was already known. Such research would probably not even be published, because there is no interest whatsoever. Real scientific research undermining any basic precept of AGW would be a gold-mine for any of the editors of these publications. Here is broadly how it works: Peer-reviewers analyze research before they are published. They look for methodological errors, or some data errors (easily verifiable data), or any inaccuracy. And, very important: if the conclusion really is a consequence of the process used . They also verify that the research contributes something to the body of knowledge of the Science it relates to. The editor makes the final decision. In most cases, the editor is not a Climatologist. But he is an expert in methodology. And he can consult other experts if he has any doubts about the legitimacy of the review. It's not just a matter of peer-reviewers giving a "white" or "black" ball. They have to explain in detail their recommendations. And even more so when they decide to reject the study. The editor can consult these objections with other experts and with the authors, if he wants.

Again: it would be a dream come true for an editor of any of these thousands of publications to publish an article that undermined AGW. But they would be happy with one that undermines even a secondary argument, which (if published) could lead to another, and another... and the whole thing would fall very quickly. And if they suspect that he has his hands on one, he will consult with many many people (including the authors) if he were to believe the peer-reviewers weren't straight-forward. Which, BTW, would be in itself a great scandal in the Scientific community (it would end their careers), so it's very unlikely that they would not be. But, for the sake of argument, I'm just assuming your position. Now... all this has to be multiplied by the thousands of publications out there. Can you even imagine the proportions of that conspiracy?. And the only evidence you have that this is not so, is that you don't like the conclusion? Give me a break!

 

Another issue is that the sun was cooler in the past when those CO2 concentrations were quit high, being that the sun increases its output by about 1% every 100 million years. When that warming CO2 was absent, the earth under that cooler sun was frozen into a snowball-earth phase. The paleorecord proves the warming effect of CO2.

 

Whatever.

Solar output has gone _down_. That means changes in the sun can't be causing the warming. That means your "It's the sun!" theory is totally wrong. This isn't a discussion. This is you being informed you're totally wrong.

Deflect and project all you want, it won't help. Your theory is still totally wrong, because the data says it is.

At this stage, you have a choice.

You can admit you were wrong. You don't even have to abandon the denier cult. After, there's still plenty of garbage denier pseudoscience that you can adopt as a fallback position.

Or, you can double down on your debunked theory here, knowing that it's totally wrong, simply because cultists are forbidden from admitting any of the cult teachings were in error.

You're going to choose the latter. True cultists always do. I don't blame you too much. Cultists hate nothing more than an apostate, and your cult is especially irrational and violent. Your fellow cultists would present a severe danger to you if you were to leave the cult.

 

Nothing in your graph states or implies that. Ice core graphs always start a ways back in the past. It's not possible to the base of an ice core measurement to be today, because it takes many years for snow to turn into airtight ice.

That all has nothing to do with the indisputable fact that the earth has been slowly cooling for the past 8000 years, and therefore your "It's a natural cycle!" theory is indisputably wrong.

Again, your ice core graph shows the temperature at a single point in Antarctica, therefore it has no relevance to a discussion of average global temperature. The data I provided was of global temperature.

Only the very last red bit, and you could take that out and not change the conclusion at all, being that the current warming spike is still very prominent in the blue line. The historical part comes from climate proxy measurements, which have nothing to do with models.

No. RSS TLT 4.0 shows a warming rate that agrees with the models and the surface data.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

 

If you don't like your climate, simply move. Just inside the USA you can find maybe a dozen to two dozen climates.

Averaging climate is crazy.

 

Why are you peeing all over Americans? Pick on the Chinese and the people of India. Tell china to stop building so many new coal plants. Tell our politicians we must get back to nuclear. It works so well on ships as well as on land.

 

So then why is it that the contingent of scientists who do not agree with the other scientists in regards to co2 based warming are blacked out? When in science, has such a thing ever happened? Never. So, why has it happened, why this tremendous change in the way science is done? This ruse began life from the UN, the IPCC, who said man and fossil fuel energy was not only warming up the earth, but that unless we taxed carbon, humanity was over. Then came the gov't grants. billions, with the goal not to research climate change, warming, but to research only co2 as the lone contributor, while being very clear as to what the IPCC wanted to see as the results. LOL

If there was not some sneaky **** going on here, there would have been lively and learned debates between the scientists, between the experts on both sides of the argument. And since that has not taken place, with no grants given to the opposing scientists, and the fact the opposing scientists have been blacked out, should make any serious person suspicious, and it should make any person who appreciates science very puzzled, since this is not how science is supposed to work. That you ignore this red flag, while calling others deniers, and cultists looks just like you see from cult members. Perhaps your team are the cultists here? Regardless, your ignoring of the lack of debate, the black out of opposing scientists isn't very science like, and you know it. What's next, book burning?

 

And yet you can't show this data that agrees with you. All you can do is endlessly parrot an unsupported conspiracy theory, as if repetition will turn your crap into gold. In comparison, we have the science and data of the entire world backing us up.

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!" -- Trenberth

Trenberth clearly says what the travesty is, the lack of instrumentation. Those who claim he was saying the lack of warming is a travesty are lying. That matter is not up for debate.

Yes, your side has been very prolific with it's fraud, and you fell for it. Most people didn't. It's hard to fool an honest person, You were easy to fool, because you so badly wanted to believe whatever junk science backed your religious beliefs.

I know perfectly well that the models have run about 10% too warm, meaning they've been very good. Being I know what the actual science is, your fraudulent claims can't fool me,

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



If you manage to find your courage, show us this data that supposedly agrees with you. After all, you wouldn't want people to think a conspiracy theory is all you have.

 

They're not.

That was easy.

You're peddling a dopey conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact.

Here's an exercise for you. Name one denier scientist who was fired from their position. If they're so discriminated against, that should be easy for you. If you can't name one, that should clue you in that you've fallen for some bad propaganda.

That's conspiracy babbling. Take it to the kiddie table, because the grownups just laugh at it.

There is, and your "experts" always get their butts kicked. That's because their science stinks.

When flat-earthers argue with round-earthers, the flat-earthers lose, and it's not because the round-earthers are discriminating against them. Your side loses the scientific debate because your "science" is flat-earther style junk.

 

No, it doesn't. It's way too expensive. It's much cheaper to go to renewable energy sources than to build nuke plants.

 

And you believe in science? While being unable to read a graph with the zero point at the right instead of the left?

ROFL!!!

I said nothing about a "natural cycle'. Stop putting words in my mouth!

Of course it does! The average global temperature is made up of a collection of individual points, many of them 1000 miles apart. Yet you seem to have no problem with pointing to those points as being representative of the global temp!

Sorry, it is far warmer today than during the last ice age. Something caused that warming. I'm not surprised you want to ignore it!

Directly from the RSS web site:



The climate models *are* diverging further and further from the satellite data.

It is obvious that you simply cannot read simple graphs. If you look at your own reference, specifically at the black line representing the difference between the satellite data and the climate models, you will see that the difference has grown from about zero in 1998 to almost 0.2degC today!

The RSS chart shows almost a 0.3degC difference today. And the difference is growing!

Your own reference proves you wrong.

 

They shut DOWN over 100 that had already begun construction

 

I fear you simply don't or are not willing to actually educate yourself. The willingness to express mischaracterized "factual" descriptions seems endemic of your comments. NOAA/NASA et al have established the ever increasing out put of the sun, over time. What you've mis characterized is the onset of a new marauder minimum which still doesn't express the overall picture.

So, over the last century or so, overall output has continued to increase from the sun. At the same time, the cyclic nature of the sun is likely going to enter into a lowering of output. We know this. At the same time, though, the expectation is that with the declining output that similar cooling will ensue as a function of the overall output decrease. As this hasn't yet fully happened, it's likely that we will have to wait for evidence of significant overall cooling.

What we do know is that all of the data sets statistically have been indicted, the conclusion that the expression of "warming" is inherently statistically generated, and not a function of the actual observable data. New study out, that eviscerates conventional dogmatic AGW conclusion.

Greenland, for example just experienced the lowest recorded temperature ever for July. An experience that should be impossible given the dogma. And yet, happened.

 

There's no point in getting hysterical. Everyone gets it. You have no idea what year the zero point on your graph was. You're just pretending it's today, even though the science says that has to be wrong.

You just said that earth has been warming since the last ice age, so the warming is natural. That is, you say the warming is part of a natural cycle. However, I can see why you want to ditch that theory now, being it's been so conclusively debunked.

So you're upset because I'm using a global average to represent the global average. Your logic is clearly not like our mere earth logic.

I'm not surprised how you're so upset that your "it's natural!" theory was ripped apart. It must have been a shock, learning how that your cult lied to you like that. You'll probably need time to adjust.

Yes, the models are a little high. What's you point? That you can't read graphs? Everyone already knew that. There's a fine paper out discussing that.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n7/full/ngeo2973.html
---
We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
---

"External forcings" are things like volcanoes and aerosols, which is reality were bigger than what was put into the models. That is, the models were good, but some of the inputs were bad.

Now, let's get back to what you've been running from, which is your debunked clam that the warming is natural because the earth has been warming since the last ice age. Do you have a new theory to replace your "it's natural!" theory that crashed and burned? You could just admit that you were wrong and the mainstream science is right. If you don't, you'll have to come up with a different crank theory that's even crazier than your previous crank theory.

 

I know you use that weasel routine as a coping mechanism every time reality smacks you.

A new Maunder Minimum event would only cancel out a few years of CO2-induced warming. The cooling sun is only slowing the fast warming a bit. There's no chance that global cooling is going to result from it.

Basically, you're saying climate follows the sun, but with a time lag of several decades.

That's been proven to be nonsense. In order for the theory to be true, heat would have to be hiding out somewhere, and then resurface 30 years later. That's not happening. The oceans are the only place that such heat could hide. We measure the deep oceans. We know heat isn't hiding there.

We know with 100% certainty that heat is continuing to flow _into_ the oceans right now, even with the cool sun. Your theory says the exact opposite should be happening, that stored heat must be flowing out of the oceans to cause the current warming. The observed data directly contradicts your theory, therefore your theory is wrong.

Conspiracy babbling. All the hard data points to strong warming. All the raw data points to strong warming. The adjustments, by warming the past and not the present, have made the rate of warming look _smaller_. That point is not debatable. If the adjustment were removed, the warming would look _bigger_, and so your conspiracy theory craters.

While that may be a problem for your religious dogma, the actual science has no issue with it. You'll have to work through your crisis of faith there on your own.

And that bit of bad science got laughed out of the room a 11 months ago. You need better talking points.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-temperature-so-what/?utm_term=.13183ae97c28

Speaking of religion, your religion has been constantly predicting strong cooling for over 40 years now, while the scientists have constantly been predicting warming. That cooling never gets here. Instead, it just keeps warming strongly. Is there any amount of warming that could get you to abandon your HolyIceAge theology?

 

ROFL! Well, you rationalize it to yourself however you wish. The fact that the right side of the graph was the zero point and represents *today* was obvious to everyone else!

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

I never used the word "cycle". And the earth has bee warming. I thought that was the whole point of the AGW religionists that you believe!

No, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of you denigrating ice samples taken in one spot while accepting the results of one measurement site in Paraguay for land temperature!

Creating rationalizations is a symptom of being upset. You seem to be the only one doing that here!

What's my point? If, after all this time, you don't know what my point is then you are hopeless!

This is what I've been saying on this thread since it started. The land/sea data is manipulated, the models *all* suffer from confirmation bias by using the same bad data, and that the model outputs are deviating from the real world!

But remember, the "external forcings" are just a partial excuse. The temps have been diverging since 1998. Volcanoes and aerosols have not been a continual factor for twenty years and would not offer a "growing" divergence. That requires the actual land/sea data to be wrong as well!

Nah, you've made up a strawman to argue with because you got embarrassed. Argue it with yourself!

 

Do you have a chart or something that shows this continued increased in solar irradiance? All of the charts I'm finding show an increase until about 1955'ish and then a gradual secular decline. I do agree though, if the Sun is the primary cause of warming then we should start seeing a decline in the global mean temperature. But, we've waited 60 years already and the global mean temperature has continued to increase.

If none of our datasets can be trusted then how will we know if we've started an extended secular cooling period?

AGW does not say that is impossible. Remember, it's one location at one point in time. You cannot draw any conclusions about the climate from one event.

By the way, the rest of the of the northern hemisphere ran well above average during this period...by a lot. So while Greenland was freezing an even larger area was baking.

Also, 2017 is currently running about +0.4C higher than the 1980-2010 average and is on pace to be the 2nd warmest year on record after 2016.