Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

Feel what ?

What was the earths average temperature in the dino period when the C02 was 4 to 5 times higher then today?

 

So why do you believe Micheal Mann's hockey stick when he just used tree ring samples from Siberia..please tell us how they know by some stuff I read by the AGW cult it was 0.5 C cooler ?


.

 

You mean when man wasn't even on the planet?

Tell us why that matters. Tell us if man COULD have survived at that time and what it would have been like for man if they did exist then

 

A. It was more than "tree ring samples from Siberia"
B. It was not just Mann. In fact numerous studies have found what he found

 

You know, the fun part about these conversations is the more it gets discussed, the more energy, and ostensibly energy derived from harmful generation sources, liberals have to expend to demonstrate the veracity of their claims.

One only has to look at the environmental destruction the protestors at the G20 left in their wake to understand that this isn't really a scientific discussion, it's a political one. Wrapped in a desperate blanket of the most tenuous "science", this political conversation continues to do nothing more than to highlight just how hypocritical and how brainwashed the dogmatic faithful really are.

 

Care to try that in English?

Yes because protesters are increasing climate change,

 

We are talking the phony junk science pimp who started it

Yes it was just one tree from Siberia.


.

 

So, an ad hominem tirade. Doesn't change the fact that new record lows are nothing unusual.

Where? I'm not checking back 60 pages. I do know you're completely wrong with that claim. New record highs have been outnumbering new record lows by about 1.8:1 for the past 15 years.

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/record-highs-vs-record-lows

As your posts are now mostly a continuous ad hominem, there's less and less reason to read them. Here's a thought. Instead of complaining about how unfair it is that I use facts and logic, try to debate using facts and logic yourself.

 

I never mentioned Paraguay, nobody on this thread mentioned Paraguay, and yet you suddenly decided to start raving about Paraguay as if it were applicable to the conversation. So I asked why, and you went off the deep end there. I still don't know why you started babbling about Paraguay.

Where do you come up with this stuff? It doesn't seem be related to reality at all.

 

Of course you didn't mention it. And I'm not surprised you didn't even know about it!

And yet it makes a *huge* difference in the land/sea record when there is only one site to represent the entire climate in Paraguay. And this is just one example! Much of the land/sea temperature data is just "in-filled" based on single measurement stations covering vast areas.

Just because you don't know about or don't even care enough to learn about it doesn't mean it isn't reality.

You denigrate a single site in Antarctica while accepting single sites covering much of Eastern Russia and Western China!

Hypocrisy, pure and plain![/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Where do you come up with this stuff? It doesn't seem be related to reality at all.

 

This is just more hokem science. Records are typically *weather* based, not global warming based.

Here in the central US we have been actually been setting records for the fewest days over 100 for the past five years!

Here is a graph for Iowa:


The trend is *certainly down.

It matches perfectly with my data from Kansas.

Tell me again how as the WORLD warms we will see more record highs? Is the central US not part of the world?

 

[/QUOTE]
Where do you come up with this stuff? It doesn't seem be related to reality at all.[/QUOTE]

I come up with it by researching on the internet.

Where do you come up with your stuff?

Just because *YOU* don't know about something doesn't mean it isn't related to reality.

For instance, in Western Africa there are only about seven stations within 1000km of the center of the area. For south central Africa there are only three stations within 1000km of the center of the area.

There are only about three current stations within 1000km of the center of the Arctic.

Vast amounts of the globe has its temperature guessed at by the data people.

And you wonder why people look sideways at the land/sea temperature data and wonder why it doesn't match the satellite data? And wonder why the divergence from the satellite data keeps on getting larger?

 

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that there is no GLOBAL Warming because of REGIONAL temps?

 

[/QUOTE]
Where do you come up with this stuff? It doesn't seem be related to reality at all.[/QUOTE]

No, it *is* reality.

The station data is on the internet. All you have to do is go look!

 

I am arguing that using "record temps" tells you very little about about global warming. Record temps are usually set by happenstance of local weather, not by global warming.

Why is that so hard to understand?

If warming is GLOBAL then results should be seen globally!

Are you trying to imply that the entire central US is somehow an anomaly when it comes to global warming?

 

If record low temps GLOBALLY outnumber record high temps and by a greater degree you would have a point but they don't and you don't and trying to use ONE region is just stupid

 

But record high temps are getting FEWER in the central US.

And you can't seem to understand that! It doesn't matter if we are getting more record cold temps if we are getting fewer record high temps!

If we are getting fewer record high temps coupled with fewer record low temps then what does that tell *you*? I know what it tells me but my guess is that you don't have a clue!

So you *are* saying the entire central region of the US is an anomaly when it comes to global warming. How many other anomalies are there that you don't know about?

 

Still stupidly trying to make GLOBAL claims because of regional temps?

And even THERE you are wrong

https://phys.org/news/2016-11-high-temps-outpace-lows.html

Jesus dude. You're on a bad streak

 

And you are still trying to claim that some regions are not impacted by global warming?

If some regions are not impacted then how can it be GLOBAL warming?

Give me a break with this kind of reference: "If society continues to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the current rate, Americans later this century will have to endure, on average, about 15 daily maximum temperature records for every time that the mercury notches a record low, new research indicates."

This is nothing more than more AGW alarmism. It's about as likely to happen as Al Gore's disappearance of the Arctic ice!

 

Are you now stupidly claiming that all regions are equally affected by Global Warming?

Oh and by the way...as demonstrated...you're wrong even there

 

If all regions are *NOT* impacted then how can it be "Global" warming? It doesn't have to be "equal". Did you think you were going to fool me with that little qualifier?

It might be REGIONAL WARMING but it can't be *Global* warming if some regions are not seeing any impact!

 

So you have no understanding of the term "average"? By the way...you were wrong even about North America...as shown above

I think I understand your stupidity now.

Just stop

 

Opinion or positive proof???

This link is in radical conflict with yours:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...sooner-than-you-imagine/ar-BBE6TNd?li=BBnb7Kz

Everything else should not be ignored for the sake of short-term capital generation.

 

These videos completely refute every point in your link with real world data. All of the models , projections .predictions , and fairy tales of the AGW Alarmist don''t match the real world data.








h

https://youtu.be/dIvLEwGS-70