The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It is absolutely cometely utterly irrelevant and there isn't a more banal or frivolous thing you could possibly worry about. The world is not going to end, cities won't be swollowed by the ocean, the air will remain breathable and water drinkable. Nothing noticeable will change. Nobody has presented one shred of evidence otherwise.

It's a rough ridin' money grab and you're a rough ridin' sucker for allowing them to take your money.

Lastly, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim clean technology is so rapidly progressing as to be competitive with fossil fuels, while simultaneously throwing a fit of hysteria at the notion of the government curtailing its support for clean energy, whether through enormous tax incentives or by loosening the punishimg regulations on fossil fuels.

But, by far and away the most pathetic thing about this, is your pius and dogmatic view on the matter which you use to justify your infantile and mean spirited attacks against anyone who hasn't swollowed the bowl of kool aid with you.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

emo of all people should appreciate someone challenging themself

He doesnt seem to be handling it very well.  Puni didn't either.

And why should I handle it well?  I've outlined why one shouldn't.

To even remotely defend this is beyond reproach.  It's not even worth debate.

Then you're just as boneheaded as the people you're lashing out at.  Sad.

There. Is. No. Debate. The science is settled.

You want to talk solutions and ideas on how to bring renewable energy to the market through public and/or private means? Fine. Let's do that.

But there is no debate on whether climate change is happening. There is no debate on whether or not humans are causing it.  There is a little wiggle on impacts, but that's like debating if you want your whole house to burn down vs. your garage.

There is no point to having meaningful discussions with most conservatives on this issue because you want to take the debate to some weird ass fringe where we may as well debate whether or not the sky is green.

That's what's sad. We need to have a debate on how to combat climate change. Not whether or not it exists or if we should just ignore it. The reason the entire world is pissed is because we have the greatest ability to impact change, and 40% of our country has been brainwashed to believe there's no there, there.

So, you want a debate? Fine. Let's talk solutions. But say the science isn't settled, and you can go sit in the corner with the people who think Obama is listening to people through their microwaves.

This is exactly why you are losing the debate badly.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I'm 93 posts behind, but skimming them makes it even more believable that the Dax/FSD/KSUW of the world  don't care about anything related to the environment.

The global grasp is so lacking.  They lack the understanding that simple change can have a global impact. They think only a single person is trying to change, which by themselves won't do crap. 

They ignore the massive marches because hurting feels is such a burden.  Instead of looking at improving worldwide emissions they look at what they "could" have done.  Being respectable was gone long ago, but even worth reading their posts has passed
It's bearable mark.

You guys are so foolish as to consequence of any of this, you've actuallu taken the most fringe position itt:

Anyone who doesn't support the paris circle jerk mass cash transfer hates the environment.

Completely juvenile, but wonderfully demonstrative of the dearth of critical thought and abundance of ignorance on the issue. I will say, this sort of response is page 1 of the libtard playbook, completely predictable.

[The Big Train]

I'm 93 posts behind, but skimming them makes it even more believable that the Dax/FSD/KSUW of the world  don't care about anything related to the environment.

The global grasp is so lacking.  They lack the understanding that simple change can have a global impact. They think only a single person is trying to change, which by themselves won't do crap. 

They ignore the massive marches because hurting feels is such a burden.  Instead of looking at improving worldwide emissions they look at what they "could" have done.  Being respectable was gone long ago, but even worth reading their posts has passed
It's bearable mark.

You guys are so foolish as to consequence of any of this, you've actuallu taken the most fringe position itt:

Anyone who doesn't support the paris circle jerk mass cash transfer hates the environment.

Completely juvenile, but wonderfully demonstrative of the dearth of critical thought and abundance of ignorance on the issue. I will say, this sort of response is page 1 of the libtard playbook, completely predictable.

It's hilarious to me that climate change deniers talk about me being foolish of consequence. The consequence for climate change deniers is that their children and grandchildren will have a different planet than us. Devoid of so many things that are deteriorating right now because of climate change.

Wrapping your entire body in tin foil in 100 degree heat and telling yourself it's 50 degrees out is the stupidity climate change deniers have. Use whatever stupid political label for me you want but you have a very descriptive and truthful label.  Stupid.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

And of course this is about impact. Nobody is denying that it's warmer when there are 5 people in a closet (where you idiots belong) than when there is just 1. You don't need billions of dollars in scientific funding to establish that. And there is a very significant debate worth having about cost v reward, and you are wholly unwilling to have that debate because you don't have a leg to stand on. What you want to do is extraordinarily expensive and will result in no measurable change.  So you make absurd and outlandish attacks like "you hate the environment" or "the science is settled" or "the world is going to end". It's pathetic.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I'm 93 posts behind, but skimming them makes it even more believable that the Dax/FSD/KSUW of the world  don't care about anything related to the environment.

The global grasp is so lacking.  They lack the understanding that simple change can have a global impact. They think only a single person is trying to change, which by themselves won't do crap. 

They ignore the massive marches because hurting feels is such a burden.  Instead of looking at improving worldwide emissions they look at what they "could" have done.  Being respectable was gone long ago, but even worth reading their posts has passed
It's bearable mark.

You guys are so foolish as to consequence of any of this, you've actuallu taken the most fringe position itt:

Anyone who doesn't support the paris circle jerk mass cash transfer hates the environment.

Completely juvenile, but wonderfully demonstrative of the dearth of critical thought and abundance of ignorance on the issue. I will say, this sort of response is page 1 of the libtard playbook, completely predictable.

It's hilarious to me that climate change deniers talk about me being foolish of consequence. The consequence for climate change deniers is that their children and grandchildren will have a different planet than us. Devoid of so many things that are deteriorating right now because of climate change.

Wrapping your entire body in tin foil in 100 degree heat and telling yourself it's 50 degrees out is the stupidity climate change deniers have. Use whatever stupid political label for me you want but you have a very descriptive and truthful label.  Stupid.

Nobody had the same planet as their predecessors. It's rough ridin' insane to think we need to freeze time and embalm the planet as it is today. Most importantly, the thing that's caused to come completely unglued doesn't even purport to do what you want.

You are a puppet. Accept it.

[The Big Train]

Stupid. Accept it.

[SdK]

It is absolutely cometely utterly irrelevant and there isn't a more banal or frivolous thing you could possibly worry about. The world is not going to end, cities won't be swollowed by the ocean, the air will remain breathable and water drinkable. Nothing noticeable will change. Nobody has presented one shred of evidence otherwise.

It's a rough ridin' money grab and you're a rough ridin' sucker for allowing them to take your money.

Lastly, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim clean technology is so rapidly progressing as to be competitive with fossil fuels, while simultaneously throwing a fit of hysteria at the notion of the government curtailing its support for clean energy, whether through enormous tax incentives or by loosening the punishimg regulations on fossil fuels.

But, by far and away the most pathetic thing about this, is your pius and dogmatic view on the matter which you use to justify your infantile and mean spirited attacks against anyone who hasn't swollowed the bowl of kool aid with you.

This may be the nicest FSD post in the pit that I've seen in ages. Perhaps a corner is being turned. I, for one, am optimistic.

[SdK]

Only one name call after that! I'm jazzed to read pit posts that are a debate rather than name calling and hyperbole.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

We won’t dwell on the media hysteria since the Trump decision, or why many of you, dear readers, in defiance of your own reason, will participate in the hysteria even when you know better. Human beings are social animals. When a mob is forming, we experience high anxiety if we’re not part of it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-skips-climate-church-1496431295

[chum1]

Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

[renocat]

These dang warmalists act like a teenager who have had their girlie mgazines taken by mom.  We can't masturbate without them.  Global warming can be fought without a crap agreement we pay for.  Warmalists act like this Paris agreement is their girly magazines, or maybe Holy Book.  They are saying if you are against the Paris agreement you are a climate denyer.  Maybe you  are just against crap agreements.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/does-donald-trump-still-think-climate-change-is-a-hoax-no-one-can-say/ar-BBBQ29J

[steve dave]

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'm 93 posts behind, but skimming them makes it even more believable that the Dax/FSD/KSUW of the world  don't care about anything related to the environment.

The global grasp is so lacking.  They lack the understanding that simple change can have a global impact. They think only a single person is trying to change, which by themselves won't do crap. 

They ignore the massive marches because hurting feels is such a burden.  Instead of looking at improving worldwide emissions they look at what they "could" have done.  Being respectable was gone long ago, but even worth reading their posts has passed
It's bearable mark.

You're right, it's about collective change - one person is irrelevant. So once every person on the planet makes the same "contribution" as Panjy by owning a high efficiency AC and Energy Star fridge, that's going to reduce carbon emissions?

Actually, it would increase emissions by a staggering amount. So please continue with your rank hypocrisy. It is really funny.

[chum1]

Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.

[wetwillie]

we should have stayed in it and not complied with it

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

It was meant to be as shallow and thoughtless as your questions. Demonstration only. Not substantive discussion points.

[chum1]

Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.

So, it makes you feel good not to pursue what you believe to be a fruitless endeavor. It makes other people feel good to pursue what they believe is not a fruitless endeavor. What is the reason to exit the agreement?

[renocat]

http://www.npr.org/2017/05/25/530051945/as-trump-slams-nato-allies-obama-defends-international-order
Obama and Europe want a transnational juanta of elite socialists.  Climate change is an issue manufactured as a means and vehicle to attain their dream.  Paris Accord was going to be the foundation.  Now we ripped the guts out of their dream.  George Soros has spent billions pushing nations without borders.  Trump exerting our sovereignty is what is pissin off the elites.  Big dang laugh.

[star seed 7]

 

[Emo EMAW]

And of course this is about impact. Nobody is denying that it's warmer when there are 5 people in a closet (where you idiots belong) than when there is just 1. You don't need billions of dollars in scientific funding to establish that. And there is a very significant debate worth having about cost v reward, and you are wholly unwilling to have that debate because you don't have a leg to stand on. What you want to do is extraordinarily expensive and will result in no measurable change.  So you make absurd and outlandish attacks like "you hate the environment" or "the science is settled" or "the world is going to end". It's pathetic.

This is a good post. 

[Emo EMAW]

Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.

So, it makes you feel good not to pursue what you believe to be a fruitless endeavor. It makes other people feel good to pursue what they believe is not a fruitless endeavor. What is the reason to exit the agreement?

The juice isn't worth the squeeze.

[chum1]

Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.

So, it makes you feel good not to pursue what you believe to be a fruitless endeavor. It makes other people feel good to pursue what they believe is not a fruitless endeavor. What is the reason to exit the agreement?

The juice isn't worth the squeeze.

You think staying in vs. exiting can be quantified? I don't.