Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

Who?

The decline began as soon as the strong El Nino ended.

Wrong:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/uah_lt_1979_thru_april_2017_v6.jpg

See the UAH satellite temperature graph cited above.

Your nonscience is showing. No realist could actually believe temperatures follow a linear increase, because it's absurd. And I have never encountered a skeptical analysis that breaks the last 45 years of temperature data into five flat segments. Never.

 

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

"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."

 

Garbage not supported by any credible science. It is VISUALLY OBVIOUS from all credible global temperature graphs that temperatures increased faster 1970-2000 than 2000-2017.

See the UAH satellite graph:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/uah_lt_1979_thru_april_2017_v6.jpg

 

Really??? Is it peer reviewed? Or is it only to be found on conspiracy theory sites and you tube?

 

Come on now, you've been in this thread as long as me and you didn't see that? You didn't even watch the video why are you even here?

 

Really. I have an ap on my phone that predict rain almost to the minute

 

How much WILL the price increase?

How much will the cost increase if we keep dithering.

Those are the subjects we SHOULD be discussing

And if you think our air is as clean as it needs to be you must be living in filth. Have you ever looked at the air over any major city from 20 miles outside that city?

It's friggin BROWN

 

Oh! My! "Whatupmybutt"

Yep credible source alright.

Anthony Watts would have waaaay more credibility if his site did not post every whackadoodle conspiracy theory regardless of whether or not it contradicts information already on the site. He is the Trump twitter of climate change. He has no qualifications in climate science and he was a supporter of the BEST project until the results were published confirming global warming http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

 

You guys still playing whackamole with Dishonest Deniers?

 

They don't watch it because they know it's factual and refutes every tenet of the AGW ALARMIST HOAXSTERS !!!!!
HASTAG: AFRAID OF THE TRUTH !!!!

 

If the data contained in the you tube is that world shattering it should be in writing somewhere

 

AGW denialists

 

Great, I acknowledge that this UAH graph is legit. How do you interpret that rapid decline? Does that mean the long term secular warming trend has now ceased and that Earth will cool from here on out? Or do you see it as a typical and usual short term variation?

Okay, my apologies. I honestly thought you viewed the global mean annual temperature anomalies that way. Don't let it be said that I won't admit my mistakes. So help me out...what did you mean when you said "You mean it WAS warming" in post #667?

 

You are showing your complete self-imposed ignorance of the subject of this thread. It IS in writing...But you didn't watch the video now did you?

 

Don't forget the basic dishonesty - they are using ONE temperature method to try to disprove multiple analysis

And it is UAH and it is an unsupported graph

 

It's hilarious to watch you flail around while the whole AGW Alarmist movement is losing more credibility every second, Just the info I'm presently sharing across the web is receiving over 1 million views a day with a 75% approval. Even the majority of Congress and the Senate no longer believe the AGW B.S. ROTFLMAO !!!!

 

So, link to the writing but if it by Easterbrook I can assure you it is either not peer reviewed or it has been debunked

 

With whom is it losing credibility? Some ignorant poor educated badkwoods Americans who would rather watch you tube than research the subject?

Over 190 countries signed the Paris agreement

That does not sound like a lessening of credibility to me

And a million views per day???

Sorry but that sounds like something out of Trump University - the original you tube site states the total views are less than 150,000

 

THE ONLY ONE THAT COUNTS DIDN'T !!!!! And there will be more gauranteed !!! Keep on denigrating people with common sense and see where that gets you.
it didn't get Hillary very far !!!!

 

Not quite sure how to respond to this.

 

t's obvious you haven't watched the video. Bottom line .....NONE OF THE HYPTHESIZES , MODELS , PROJECTIONS , PREDICTIONS , OR FAIRY TALES PRESENTED BY THE AGW ALARMIST HOAXTSERS CORRELATE WITH ACTUAL RECORDED PROVEN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT REAL WORLD DATA, PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The truth's a bitch ain't she !!!!!

 

Read "Lukewarming" by Michaels and Knappenberger - chapter 12 - 2015. It explains the dishonesty of adjusting argo buoy data up to "homogenize" with the earlier ship intake and canvas bag measurements.

 

It depends on the carbon tax proposed. Since fuel and electricity are staples the carbon tax must be very high to create any significant reduction in use. Any politician that pass a very high carbon tax will be voted out of office. This is a factor in the D loss of over 1000 governance seats and the state and federal level.

Global warming is net beneficial for the next 3 deg C. There is no net cost.

Where is it "friggin BROWN" ?? It used to be in the 70's but not any longer.