Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

For those that are skeptical of global warming what are the real reasons behind your skepticism? Is it driven mainly because you really don't think the Earth is warming and that it will not warm in the future? Or is it the political aspect and the choices our politicians are making that you disagree with?

I ask because acknowledging that the Earth is most likely warming and that humans are probably causing some it isn't going to magically cause you to switch your political allegiance. You're not all of sudden going to be labeled as a liberal or Democrat. You don't have to sign off on some multi-trillion dollar mitigation effort that might have questionable prospects of success and that might treat the United States unfairly.

 

And this is why you're not credible, in any way. First, your reference is roughly a year ago, and not reflective of the record set on the 4th just a couple days ago.



The fact that you are unaware of the information isn't indictable, but the fact that you simply refused to even research the assertion simply demonstrates the smug indifference to the truth folks who are faithful so often demonstrate.

The study of recent statistic smoothing demonstrates the "upward bias" of current data sets, and as the study published this month demonstrates, significantly over states the heating while ignoring historic temp data. I'd say that's a fairly scathing indictment. Of course, you won't believe it. Why would you. The rest of us however, are rational, and can read the charts.

https://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html

So, the question is, what happens now, as the sun retreats into its lower output? As temperatures decline, then what? Will you recant? I doubt it.

 

Well, the question isn't skepticism about the possibility that the climate does or will change in the future. It has and I expect that it will. It makes the conversation fallacious at best if you couch it without adding the dynamic of warming attributed to humanity. So, see what you did there? Take a position that literally no one would actually take, and then forget to insert the causality assertion that is the basis of the AGW claim. And that is incredibly dishonest.

So, your half step in the second para simply demonstrates the con. Start from a position that no one refutes, and then add the grand assertion that "the earth is most likely warming and that humans are probably causing some of it". See that right there isn't the normal assertion. According to the acolytes, man is the sole cause, no? Without man, and his evil industrialization, the climate would still be mid 1850s levels, right? It's laughable.

And what the dishonesty demonstrates is the unwillingness to actually have a discussion, and more dictate to the public what they are supposed to believe as opposed to what is rational. It's just like any cult. So, how about this. Natural climactic changes are adding to some degree (and be honest here, we're talking less than 1F after all) of total warming, what percentage of that less than 1F did we add? Show the conclusive evidence that demonstrates X amount of 1F that humans caused. I'm not interested in the "specter of future warming" because it's unknowable. Just as the "promise" Al Gore made attempting to frighten the world telling those who live on the east coast they would be shortly inundated under 16' of sea state rise...Of course, that didn't happen already. So, tell us. Help us out here. If humanity caused 50%, 10%, what? How much did humanity actually cause of the less than 1F of warming the average global temp has achieved since 1865. We'll wait.

 

Very.

 

Can you provide a link so that I can read the study?

Read the actual study. It's talking about solar activity in terms of sunspots over long periods of time. The goal of the study is to test the validity of other sunspot models and to see how the 44TI method compares. The study does not discuss solar irradiance or power output.

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2006/39/aa5803-06.pdf

The authors conclude:

"In particular, we conclude that the model based on group sunspot numbers via the open magnetic flux (Solanki et al. 2002; Usoskin et al. 2002) is in a good agreement with the 44Ti record, thus confirming the validity of the method."

By the way, I looked up some of the authors other academic works. He agrees that solar cycles and solar output cannot explain the warming of Earth over the last century.

I realize the question was not posed to me, but I'll answer anyway. Yes, if the warming halts, reverses course and continues to decline for decades then I will definitely admit that I was wrong. I have no emotional investment in AGW either way. I just strive for understanding and bettering my scientific knowledge. I'll go whichever way the data leads me.

But, serious question...if you don't think any of our temperature data can be trusted then how are you going to hold me accountable?

 

I was referring to the statement "CO2 has been and is going to keep on rising, and temperature has not and is not." (emphasis mine). When you look at charts of the global mean land and ocean anomalies you see no warming at all?

 

I'll be brutally honest because I'm not ashamed of it. I can't definitively and unquestionably show to what amount humans are contributing to the observed warming. All I can do is weigh the evidence like everyone else. And IMHO the evidence tips towards AGW. I realize you might not be interested in the specter of future warming, but one of the tenants of science is to make predictions and then see how they pan out. And since I'm about as sciency as they come I'm very interested in predicting the future and seeing how well we did. I think the future IS knowable. We prove this day-in and day-out with our shorter range weather predictions so why should we not try with longer range climate scale predictions?

Regarding Al Gore...of course his coastal inundation and Arctic sea ice melt didn't pan out. That didn't shock the reputable part of the climate change community because those predictions didn't match the consensus. Those predictions were nothing more than unsubstantiated hype.

And for the record. I am willing to have a discussion about the merits of AGW from a scientific standpoint. However, I will shy away from the politics. I'm just not that passionate about politics anyway and it's worse when anything science related is involved. If my statement was construed as being deceptive or having a hidden agenda then I apologize. I just want people to know where I was coming from. I am far being a liberal and I'm certainly no Democrat. Yet, I still acknowledge that AGW has merit.

 

The land temperature record is too contaminated by land use changes and night-time human activity, and the ocean anomaly by data fudging and changes in instruments and calibration. There was a big El Nino in 2015-16, but temps have fallen back since then. Where I live, Dec 2016-Feb 2017 was the coldest three-month period ever recorded. That's not just weather. That's climate. Mark my words: within 15 years, the CO2 warming scare will have been proved the second biggest scientific hoax in history, and the attempts to stop it will have been proved misguided at best, disastrous at worst.

 

What is the biggest scientific hoax in history?

 

And while you're being honest, at least also be honest enough to include the rest of the faithful and their inability to also not be able to demonstrate any actual additive influence in the climate created by humans. I would say this. For those who believe we can create expectation models and then rely on them for accuracy I'd suggest you take your models and try them out in the real world, like the gaming tables of Las Vegas. Try them out. See how well your predictive models work in the real world.

Short term predictive models are essentially fallible most of the time. There are too many examples of where models simply fail the real world results. Simply put, nature is still too unpredictable for models who's requirement for constants to function are constantly confounded by the reality that what models require to be constant in fact are not. Perhaps, over time, and better computational power, we might be able to, in the future, be able to allow these constants to become variable. Perhaps.

So, the result is this. The data sets that are being used to drive the hyperventilation of AGW are being evaluated themselves. The scrutiny they are receiving is indicating the abundance of error, and the specter of purposeful manipulation to achieve a pre determined outcome. That isn't science. That's propaganda. We have reputable data collections, they simply aren't being transitioned into the conversation absent the statistical smoothing that is required to deliver the hyperbolic message of impending apocalyptic doom that the AGW faithful are so intent on demonstrating for the world.

Yes, it's insidious. it's shameful, and frankly it undermines the credibility of science and the pursuit of it.

 

Eugenics.

 

Funny...it works for livestock. They call it selective breeding.

 

What is funny about the millions and millions of folks who died as a result of it in WWII?

 

Climate models are tested ex post facto. They're called hindcasts. They aren't perfect, but they are useful. Also, they don't call them games of chance for nothing. Weather and climate and not games of chance so the casino analogy doesn't really fit.

Model skill scores disagree with you. Models show remarkable skill in spite of all the challenges. It's actually a testament to human ingenuity that we've come as far as we have in regards to our ability to the forecast the weather. Anyway, you can view the various skill metrics at the official verification page here.

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/gmb/STATS_vsdb/

 

What a wonderful word.. "hindcast"... It's a much more polite version of intellectual gaseous exhaust....

So, if you agree to your own assertion, the Mann Hockey stick is officially now debunked, right?

 

You don't agree with the concept of testing a model's predictions against real data?

I'm not sure how that relates to what I've posted. But, yes, even Mann himself says his original work was not rigorous enough for the academic community. The funny thing is...there have been dozens of reconstructions since Mann's original work of the pre-industrial global mean temperature and they all came to the same conclusion...the Earth had been cooling until the modern era and supported Mann's original conclusion. So has that hockey stick been debunked? I don't know...I'll let you be the judge of that one. I think the know the answer though.

So what do you think the global mean temperature of the Earth was doing in the millennium leading up to the industrial revolution?

 

I'd say that from what has been investigated, that the last millennium produced several variations of climate, it both warmed as well as cooled. We have several events, but at least the two most validated are the medieval warming period, and the subsequent mini ice age.

The historic/geologic record shows us this. It also shows us that the medieval warming period was warmer than it is today. It also shows us the rapid onset of the mini ice age. We also know that the end of the mini ice age was around the same time as the beginning of the industrial revolution. Since the cooling period was ending, rationally, the expectation is that the climate would warm. And it did. At least less than 1F so far.

I'd say, we are warming to a natural cycle. Essentially similar to the one that produced the medieval period, or some variation of that.

 

Glad you asked. Neoclassical economics.

 

ORRRRRRR...if we do nothing it will be too late to have any effect...

 

That is simply absurd and impossible. It is relatively easy to just temporarily increase the earth's albedo if it ever really gets too hot. So far, there is no evidence it is going to do so.

 

I don't really know much about either of these so I'm going to let you both duke this one out

 

Which does not apply to most of the Australian data - a heck of a lot of which is rural AND remote

But even those that have been affected - do you not think this has been taken into account? Steve McIntyre found a few in America and since then has been running a blog trying to find more without success. The few anomalies he did find were reported to GISS who thanked him and adjusted the data according to Mcintyres findings however since the temperature records of the USA are only about 2% of total global data then it did not impact on global temperature measures very much

 

It IS????

Oh! Please tell me more about how you propose to do THIS!!!

Giant mirrors in the desert?

BIG snow making machines in the Australian outback? Giving a bottle of sparkles to every person on earth and telling them to cover everything with them?

how about we paint roads white?

 

Australia is fairly close to the equator in a high pressure zone. It's weather is naturally hotter.

 

We've already had a discussion similar to this. *My* data shows the maximum temperatures are actually going down. It is the mean that is going up, i.e. more warm days that are less than max.

How much of the globe is actually showing the same thing? I can't find a chart that shows mean vs max on a global basis. Just a few areas could drive the max up while the rest of the globe is seeing what I am seeing.