Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

Because you ignore, dismiss, and misrepresent all the peer-reviewed papers I cite.

Typical content-free AGW screamer nonscience.

Don't make me laugh. What Meehl calls the solar forcing was essentially flat for the last 100 years, whereas the actual record of solar activity showed a strong increase in the mid-century sustained to the end.

Which Meehl pretends then stopped, but it didn't.

According to cherry-picked nonscience.

No, YOUR OWN GRAPH shows that SULFUR (not particulate) emissions did not rise significantly until the 1950s, well AFTER temperatures had established a downward trend. It's just more cherry-picked nonscience.

The facts say no such thing, and I will be proved right. Take it to the bank.

 

Are you friggin serious?

Weather predictions are REMARKABLY accurate.

 

Instead of playing whackamole with dishonest pretend scientist Deniers...Consider the following.

A. For AGW to be false...that would mean that it is some kind of GIANT conspiracy that involves basically the entire scientific community of the WORLD as well as nearly all of the governments of the world AND most of the corporate community worldwide (excepting the fossil fuel industry...who ARE however making plans for a Northwest Passage once the ice clears) That's one GIANT conspiracy

B. We KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we pump hundreds of billions of tons of it into the air daily

C. IF...and I say if for arguments sake...they are wrong...the end result of dealing with this would be a cleaner environment, which relies on renewables which in the long run would be SO much cheaper than the ever increasing cost of an fossil fuels that WILL RUN OUT...

D. It will free us from the tyranny of petro-states like Saudi Arabia and Russia.

I mean///are you kidding?

Oh and by the way...the longer we wait...the more expensive it will get to deal with this

 

There certainly is.

Not above the average for historical warm periods that INDISPUTABLY were NOT caused by CO2.

I have made no such prediction, nor have I quoted one. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

How would we know if it did? The instrument record is hopelessly compromised by manipulations designed to support AGW nonscience.

Garbage with no basis in fact.

Listen up, pal, and try to learn something. 15 years ago, YOUR cult was predicting continued strong warming in lockstep with exponentially increasing CO2, while I was predicting a 30-year period of flat or even slightly cooling temperatures. So far, I have been proved right by events, and your cult has been proved wrong.

Clear?

Strawman.

It won't, any more than it has for the last ten.

Where did I predict strong cooling? Where? Put up or shut up.

Nope. See above. Even AGW screamers have admitted they were wrong: "It's a travesty that we can't account for it." Remember?

Garbage. AGW nonscience predicted continued warming on the 1970-2000 trend, and it did not happen. Full stop.

So far, I'm right, and AGW nonscience is wrong.

I'm not the one manipulating the data, pal, and I'll thank you to remember it.

 

No I need someone who will support thier arguments - which you are not doing

But maybe if I start doing it for you - would I find the same information or would I find that the information you claim at one point to have provided is either missing or has been debunked - I am guessing the latter

 

I invite you to look at the official model verification page here. You're statement that 1 day weather forecasts aren't reliable is wrong. But, don't take my word for it. Take a look for yourself. The anomaly correlation score is running about 0.97+ for global 850mb temperatures right now. In other words, it's astonishingly accurate!

 

LOL.... Locally, our stalwart meteorologists were calling for "sizzling heat and humidity this week in their long range forecast from early last week. Turns out its high 70s and almost no humidity. It's like early spring. "Remarkably accurate"...that...

 

Try googling "Argo"

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

As for ice age/ no ice age that is a complex issue which relies on data relating to orbital variances, sunspot activity and atmospheric composition

The part of this we cannot predict is sunspot activty

 

Do not confuse weather with climate

 

You sure about that. The warming from 1970-2000 was about 0.15/decade. The warming from 2000-2017 is about 0.25C/decade. Not only has it not stopped, but the rate has actually increased...by a lot.

And what rapid decline are you talking about?

 

Typical ^^

 

Predicting ONE variable, is quite a different thing from predicting the interactions of hundreds of variables, and their results.

 

And once again we have those who will dismiss reams of data compiled across the globe analysed by thousands of people who have studied the subject because, and this is the good part, they saw somehitn on You Tube.

 

It's immoral to raise the price of energy for no temperature reduction.

Our environment is as clean as it needs to be. We passed all the clean air/water regulations in the 70's that we need.

The US has enough fossil fuel energy sources to supply ourselves and still export. This means wealth creation and jobs.

 

I don't think you realize how comical that statement is. I have no doubt that is true, if you live in San Diego, where the weather is the same every day. In the Midwest, they are laughably wrong nearly every day.

 

It increased after the dishonest Karl manipulation.

 

I grew up in Upper Michigan. The local joke was that if you didn't like the weather wait 15 minutes.

 

There are 'reams of data' skeptical of AGW as well but, I guess, to the dogmatic AGW believers that data doesn't count because they are told not to see it.

 

NWP models don't predict just one variable at a time. They predict all of them by evolving them according to the primitive equations governing atmospheric mass and energy flows. I encourage you research how NWP works. It's a fascinating topic!

 

Mr. Easterbrook did not present a conspiracy theory but, then again, you don't know that because some actor told you not to look.....

 

I think I already get it. You make a model say 5 years out, when it doesn't come true, you adjust the model and claim victory post humonously.

 

Thx!

 

Same here. These people amaze me. I mean, I get it that they get frustrated by the total denier types who refute any verifiable trends. But, the notion that they have the capability to predict the futures of literally millions of eco subsystems is just ridiculous.

 

It is on You Tube then it has a high probability of being a conspiracy theory and not science. The mainstream scientific community has accepted AGW and unless he has a published peer reviewed paper that refutes all the research done by all those other scientists ACROSS THE WORLD then it is definitely a conspiracy theory