Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

I lived in San Jose for forty years. It was terrible in the early 70's but the air was much cleaner starting in the 80's.

What cities have brown air these days ??

I've given you all the information for you to understand the net beneficial effects of global warming for the next 3 deg C.

 

It's not predetermined. It's physical chemistry.

 

Who is dana1981 ?? Was this blog post peer reviewed ??

 

Ooohh - your rapier like wit is too sharp for me.

 

You claim that science and the scientific method cannot exist without peer review ?? Really ??

 

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

Skeptic Mark Styn is very funny while debunking all the AGW ALARMIST B.S. !!!!!

 

New York. Newark. Chicago.Hartford Conn. Virtually every city I have ever been to.

 

Those cities have brown air in 2017 ??

 

NASA GISS uses the 1951-1980 average as a baseline. That wasn't abnormally cool period.

No, that's incorrect. There have been several cooling episodes since the end of the little ice age.

What's more, the temperature now is much higher than it was before the LIA. Therefore, the extra can't be part of a "recovery".

 

The temperature trend has been warming but there is no direct correlation with increasing CO2. There have been periods of warming, cooling, and steady temperatures.

The temperature in the MWP was higher than it is today.

 

A history of Patrick Michaels failing hard at the science.
https://thinkprogress.org/patrick-m...-has-history-of-getting-it-wrong-f20e9196160e

His history of deleting inconvenient data:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data.html

An overview of his life of making **** up for money
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

You get all your data from frauds like him. That's why you get everything wrong. You focus all your effort and intelligence on being wrong, and you succeed.

 

No, that's wrong. The MWP was only a local warmup, and the planet is significantly warmer right now.

I could post the temperature plots, but as you'd just say it's faked, there's really no point.

If you'd like, you could now post a list of papers that supposedly say the MWP was global, but which actually say no such thing. That's an old denier propaganda trick.

 

If you can't find the RSS site then I pity you. It just confirms how much of a troll you are.

I can't help it if you can't read!

Sorry, the graph *was* from the RSS group. That does *NOT* mean it has to be from their site. It is easy to copy their data to anther site. That doesn't invalidate the graph in any way.

Again, you are a troll. Go away![/quote][/QUOTE]

 

If you will search the internet you will find lots of articles decrying the state of peer-review today.

One of my son's articles was rejected by a peer-reviewer by saying he need to run a different experiment to see if it invalidate his experiment. Well running this kind of experiment is *expensive* in both time and resource costs. My son wrote the journal back saying that you can't invalidate an experiment and its results by saying you need to run another experiment. If the reviewer wanted to run the other experiment he was free to do so! Remember, not one criticism was leveled at either methodology, analysis, or conclusion. Just that another experiment needed to be run.

*THAT* is the state of so much peer-reviewing today. It's just terrible!

 

That's your response to getting spanked?

You are a troll go away?

 

I've been in NYC, Newark, and Chicago travelling for AT&T. Admittedly it was a little more than a decade ago but none of them had brown air then. I sincerely doubt that they have brown air today!

 

Sounds like you have a personal beef with actual scientists based on your son's ineptitude.

Oh well

 

You're either blind or a liar.

 

I didn't get spanked. I got TROLLED by an idiot that thinks a graph can't be copied from one site to another on the internet. If that is the case then copying a graph *here* to show something would be useless!

 

http://www.usa.com/san-jose-ca-air-quality.htm

So much for your powers of observation ...or your honesty

 

You didn't even bother to read my reply, did you?

go here: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1409
"Most researchers have a story about a beautiful study that has been unreasonably rejected. An editor might have turned it down summarily without review. A referee might have demanded a futile and time consuming extra analysis. Or a rival might have sat on a manuscript for months, consigning it to limbo under the cloak of anonymity."

My son can tell you about a manuscript being sat on so a rival could get his published first. Apparently it is not uncommon.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/12/problem-peer-review-scientific-publishing.html

evolutionnews.org/2012/02/problems_with_p/
This one is a good one, quite applicable here. Here is a quote:
"Point 4: Scientific dogmatists increasingly play the “peer-review card” to silence scientific dissent.
Despite the deficiencies in the peer-review system, “peer-review” serves as a rhetorical weapon, enlisted for the purpose of silencing dissenting, minority scientific viewpoints. In scientific debates, we often hear sneers like “Does your criticism appear in a peer-reviewed journal?” before it will be taken seriously. It’s hypocritical when scientists push their views upon the public through non-peer reviewed venues like the media, but then try to shut down critics for responding in non-peer-reviewed venues."

This seems to be in play here by mamooth quite a bit. It's a fallacious ploy.

 

No failing. I gave you the site that puts the lie to all your claims. But you won't even bother to read it.

The statistician who wrote the article I gave you understands it well and his understanding is the same as mine. You can't eliminate margin of error. Even NASA agrees. You seem to be the only one that doesn't!

Standard deviations are CALCULATED. You can't know them ahead of time.

What do you mean it's not applicable? That's just the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal! You can't refute my source or the equation from it. So you just dismiss it.

*THAT* is an indication of someone that doesn't know statistics at all!

If you can't eliminate margin of error from *one* measurement device then you can't eliminate from a conglomeration of measurement devices!

You've not been able to refute a single thing I've asserted in this thread. All you can do is offer up argumentative fallacies. Tell me again who can't figure out they aren't smart?

All I've done is post refutations that show you are full of crap. You are a troll. When confronted with proof that you don't even know basic measurement theory (do you even know what field of study that is?) all you can do is offer up argumentative fallacies.

go away troll!

 

Again ridiculous. The poster children of global warming alarmists and hockey team members - skeptical, rationalwiki, and thinkprogress.

And again attack the source with personal smears and insults. Ridiculous.

 

That is absolutely correct. Anyone with a basic understanding of climate science knows this. I've posted the papers supporting this. All it takes is initiative and curiosity with some intellectual honesty.

 

The originator of the claim is strangely silent.