Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

If it is not peer reviewed it is someone's opinion not a fact

 

So tell me again how climate change is all some American Government conspiracy to get more money from the voters?

 

Not exactly whay I meant. You took that the wrong way.

 

You mean it's not PAL-REVIEWED !!!!

 

Sorry !

 

Peer review is meaningless. And it is peer reviewed.

 

Where did you pull that out of ??

 

And you've been proven totally wrong, while we've been proven absolutely correct. Hence, we have credibility, and the world laughs at you. That's how science works.

In response to being proven wrong, you've invoked a conspiracy theory about how all the temperature data was faked. You're not the first cultist here to invoke a conspiracy theory to explain the failure of your cult's dogma, and you won't be the last.

The fact that you believe very sincerely in your cult's religion doesn't make that religion's claims any less fraudulent.

 

'So' watch the video. 'So' the link is up near the OP.

 

How many scientists and scientific publications do you think there are?

A dozen?

A hundred?

 

More cartoons. The alarmists are always good for comic relief.

 

And more cartoons. The comedy keeps coming.

 

where do you live? Have you been NEAR a city in the last 20 years?

What's interesting is that you have no idea WHAT costs will be...

 

And it's one more thing that denialists are really lousy at....

 

rebuttal of Easterbrook

Warning the following contains science

https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

 

That's because you fail to understand anything else.

 

And yet you still won't show where on the RSS site you supposedly found the image, even after being directly asked twice.

And you're cornered, so you're attempted to move the goalposts.

Your originally said "This graph is direct from the RSS group showing their own data." That claim was shown to be a lie. Rather than admit that, you're switching to "Well, it's a similar graph, so my lie about getting the image direct from RSS really wasn't a lie!".

Next time, just tell the truth from the start, and you won't end up humiliated like this.

 

If peer reviewed is meaningless then science itself is meaningless.

Is that where we are now?

 

That was posted much earlier in this thread. Try to keep up. I read that piece of garbage. BTW your 'SkepticalScience' link is not skeptical of AGW at all it says "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism."
Talk about predetermined conclusions....Apparently AGW proponents are blind to real Science because they also don't realize the AGW is a predetermined conclusion and not Science at all.

 

So are you attacking the source or the science?

 

Stop crying. Pointing out that you're failing at statistics is a simple statement of fact.

Well yes, that's the problem. You just don't understand the topic. But everyone involved with the science does understand, and everyone familiar with statistics does understand, so your failure to understand how the statistics of an average works is only your problem.

No, that's incorrect. The standard deviations are known before you average them.

Which means it's not applicable at all to the situation, so there's no point in talking about it. You keep focusing with laser-like precision on things that aren't applicable to the situation. You have never taken a statistics course. That's very obvious. You don't know enough about the topic to understand how wrong you are, and you refuse to learn, because learning would threaten your quasi-religious beliefs.

So, I see Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. People who aren't smart can't understand that they're not smart.

And I see intellectually dishonesty. When you get spanked, which always happens, you make up stories about what your opposition supposedly believes.

What does it mean? That you're not worth wasting time on. I've taken your measure, and found you lacking both intellectually and morally.

 

Water is frozen at 32f. This is a predetermined scientific conclusion. Science has many predetermined conclusions.

 

By imposing an unneeded carbon tax on fossil fuels based on faulty models , data ,projections ,and predictions which will increase tax revenue
and in turn raise the prices of everything across the board !!!