Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread  (Read 435405 times)

Woogy and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3100 on: June 03, 2017, 07:33:11 PM »
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.

Then how can we make any judgements for or against?

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21915
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3101 on: June 03, 2017, 08:37:35 PM »
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.

Then how can we make any judgements for or against?

Is there value in being a part of the team rather than pissing off everyone else on the team? What sorts of values are there in exiting the agreement?

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3102 on: June 03, 2017, 08:40:39 PM »
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?

So now we're down to acknowledging this is nothing more than liberal butthurt feelings. Progress!!!
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21915
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3103 on: June 03, 2017, 08:59:48 PM »
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?

So now we're down to acknowledging this is nothing more than liberal butthurt feelings. Progress!!!

I'd put it this way. You say that all there is on the other side is liberal butthurt. Show me that you've got more than conservative butthurt on your side.

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9557
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3104 on: June 03, 2017, 09:44:05 PM »
If I've learned anything from posting on here it's that Dax, FSD, and KSUW are smarter than NASA scientists.

Let me remind you that Dax, FSD, and KSUW are not being paid to peddle lies like the NASA scientists are to people in this country.

The fact that we're seeing more hurricanes and large-scale wildfires in addition to the fact that we reach record high temperatures every year is no reason to be alarmed. WARMER WEATHER IS BETTER!

Trying to protect ourselves and future generations would be stupid.

Investing in alternative energy is dumb. Therefore the Paris Climate Agreement is very dumb!

Cancer is in no way related to climate change!!!

Miami underwater? Who cares!
« Last Edit: June 03, 2017, 11:25:31 PM by bucket »

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3105 on: June 03, 2017, 11:20:30 PM »
Large scale wildfires lol.

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51497
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3106 on: June 03, 2017, 11:27:04 PM »
So someone give me an objective thumbnail sketch of what this changes.  I'm incredibly busy with things and need to know if I should cate

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9557
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3107 on: June 03, 2017, 11:36:05 PM »
Large scale wildfires lol.

Please explain why that's lol?

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3108 on: June 04, 2017, 07:17:36 AM »
Large scale wildfires lol.

Please explain why that's lol?

Please explain to me why it's attributable to global warming.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3109 on: June 04, 2017, 07:30:38 AM »
The fact that we're seeing more hurricanes and large-scale wildfires in addition to the fact that we reach record high temperatures every year is no reason to be alarmed. WARMER WEATHER IS BETTER!

You should try doing basic google searches before making claims like this - you'd avoid sounding foolish.

From NOAA 2017, hardly an AGW skeptic.... https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/

TL/DNR Version: increased hurricane activity during the past century is due to better monitoring of hurricanes and is not indicative of an adverse effect of global warming.

Quote
Gabriel A. Vecchi and Thomas R. Knutson

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA, Princeton, NJ.

How well do we know the historical cyclone record?

Observational records of tropical storm and hurricanes are essential in order to discern how climatic changes have influenced tropical storms and hurricanes, and to build predictive understanding of the influence of climate on hurricanes. Here we provide a brief summary of work, in which GFDL scientists have been involved, that aim at assessing and improving our century-scale records of Atlantic tropical cyclones. This website includes access to storm databases with estimates of the influence of observational changes, images and audio files.

Recent papers (Vecchi and Knutson 2008; Landsea et al 2010; Vecchi and Knutson 2011.; Villarini et al. 2011) suggest that, based on careful examination of the Atlantic tropical storm database (HURDAT) and on estimates of how many storms were likely missed in the past, it is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency in HURDAT since the late-1800s is primarily due to improved monitoring.

There has been a very pronounced increase in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic since the late-1980s. However, to gain insight on the influence of climate change on Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency, we must focus on longer (> 100 yr) records of Atlantic hurricane activity since very strong year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability appears in records of Atlantic tropical cyclones. If greenhouse warming causes a substantial increase in hurricane activity, then the century scale increase in global and tropical Atlantic SSTs since the late 1800s should have been accompanied by a long-term rising trend in measures of Atlantic hurricanes activity.

Existing records of past Atlantic tropical storm numbers (1878 to present) in fact do show a pronounced upward trend, correlated with rising SSTs (see Figs. 1 and 9 of Vecchi and Knutson 2008). However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic wasrelatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.” We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.

Your increased wildfire claim is likewise incorrect, and further incorrect because we would be expected to have more wildfires during drier conditions caused by El Niño climate cycles.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2017, 07:50:20 AM by K-S-U-Wildcats! »
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3110 on: June 04, 2017, 07:46:54 AM »
I asked some very fundamental questions several pages back that the liberals refused to answer. Instead I got a bunch of name calling. Liberals glom on to the latest "study" promising catastrophe they read a headline about, but they've never really stopped to ask themselves the much more fundamental questions.

They say the earth is warming, but they can't tell you what our optimal planetary temperature is.

They say CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm, but they can't tell you with any certainty how much warming will be caused by an increase in CO2 from, say, .04 percent to .05 percent of the atmosphere and they don't acknowledge that the models hypothesizing this warming effect have badly missed the mark.

They say we should go ahead and scale back our CO2 emissions anyway because what's the harm, but never want to talk about how many American jobs they'd be willing to destroy, or how much higher the price of gas and electricity (and thereby everything else) should be, of how many trillions of dollars we should spend reducing the plant food we emit with every breath.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

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

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3111 on: June 04, 2017, 07:53:20 AM »
Lol@bucket.

Climate change causes cancer??? What about AIDS?
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3112 on: June 04, 2017, 07:58:58 AM »
I did some planting of plants this morning. I'm combating global warming!

(Ignore the fact that the plants were already alive and i just transplanted them from the nursery. I guess you could say that them being closer to where I breath is a bigger help though.)

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3113 on: June 04, 2017, 08:15:17 AM »
I did some planting of plants this morning. I'm combating global warming!

(Ignore the fact that the plants were already alive and i just transplanted them from the nursery. I guess you could say that them being closer to where I breath is a bigger help though.)

Pop quiz: what gas do plants require for photosynthesis?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3114 on: June 04, 2017, 08:17:38 AM »
:dubious:

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

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3115 on: June 04, 2017, 08:17:54 AM »
I did some planting of plants this morning. I'm combating global warming!

(Ignore the fact that the plants were already alive and i just transplanted them from the nursery. I guess you could say that them being closer to where I breath is a bigger help though.)

Pop quiz: what gas do plants require for photosynthesis?

American tax dollars???
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline SdK

  • Libertine
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 20951
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3116 on: June 04, 2017, 08:18:47 AM »
I did some planting of plants this morning. I'm combating global warming!

(Ignore the fact that the plants were already alive and i just transplanted them from the nursery. I guess you could say that them being closer to where I breath is a bigger help though.)

Pop quiz: what gas do plants require for photosynthesis?

American tax dollars???
Hahaha. The saying has been wrong the whole time?

It's actually money that grows trees? Who added the "on"? Mfer

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

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3117 on: June 04, 2017, 08:34:18 AM »
What a noble agreement

Quote
Like the Iran nuclear deal, this was, in effect, a treaty. But because President Obama never brought it to the Senate for ratification (it wouldn’t have passed in its current form) it amounts to an executive order that Trump felt free to undo. Why wouldn’t he? He campaigned against it, and nearly the entire Republican Party considers it a lousy deal for American taxpayers, bad for the U.S. economy and of infinitesimal benefit to the environment.

For starters, the accord is non-binding and countries are free to set their own goals. Putting his money where his mouth was, Obama committed the U.S. to achieving a 26 percent to 28 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2025. The other big polluters didn’t match Obama’s bravado. China, the only nation to emit more carbon dioxide than the United States, merely offered that its carbon emissions would cap in 2030. India announced goals that represented an increase in what it had already predicted. Pakistan promised to try to reduce its output after reaching “peak” emissions “to the extent possible.”

To facilitate these nebulous and unenforceable goals, the Obama administration agreed to spearhead a transfer of wealth from prosperous nations to developing economies: These payments were to total $10 billion, $3 billion of it from the U.S., of which $1 billion has already been paid. So Trump saved American taxpayers $2 billion on Thursday, which is a nice day’s work for a guy who’s not even taking a salary
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53278
    • View Profile
The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3118 on: June 04, 2017, 09:35:27 AM »
The United States:  Okay we're going to give somebody a lot of money, institute draconian policies that will place many of our citizens in energy poverty while killing economic growth.  Even though we don't have the faintest of clues if what we do is going to accomplish anything at all.  Oh, and through this process we're going to pump a whole bunch of money into the pockets of a very small handful of new energy oligarchs who are politically connected. 

Other noted G7 and developing countries:  Okay, sounds great Obama err the United States.  Okay, we promise to take these ideas under consideration.  We promise to show up at conferences to tell everyone how strongly we are considering making changes.  We'll then talk about some long term goals, show some really great power points and then go home and basically do nothing.   We'll assign some politicians to some committees and they'll meet (at some really nice hotels and resorts) to talk about things.  Oh, but keeping pumping that cash in there United States. 

Barrack:  Sounds like a great deal!

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 64022
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3119 on: June 04, 2017, 10:21:27 AM »
What an emotional issue for regresocons, my goodness
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline camKSU

  • SLTH
  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 346
  • That's just like, your opinion, man
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3120 on: June 04, 2017, 10:47:04 AM »
The United States:  Okay we're going to give somebody a lot of money, institute draconian policies that will place many of our citizens in energy poverty while killing economic growth.  Even though we don't have the faintest of clues if what we do is going to accomplish anything at all.  Oh, and through this process we're going to pump a whole bunch of money into the pockets of a very small handful of new energy oligarchs who are politically connected. 

Other noted G7 and developing countries:  Okay, sounds great Obama err the United States.  Okay, we promise to take these ideas under consideration.  We promise to show up at conferences to tell everyone how strongly we are considering making changes.  We'll then talk about some long term goals, show some really great power points and then go home and basically do nothing.   We'll assign some politicians to some committees and they'll meet (at some really nice hotels and resorts) to talk about things.  Oh, but keeping pumping that cash in there United States. 

Barrack:  Sounds like a great deal!


:dunno:
Considering the alternative this actually sounds like a lot of progress and a great framework to build from when ignoring your over-the-top exaggerations ("energy poverty", "kill economic growth", climate change denialism, etc).

I mean moving the entire world towards greater sustainability, clean alternative energy sources, reduced emissions is going to be a pretty hard, messy, and definitely not perfect at first, transition. But just like with healthcare or wall street reform, because of how large, powerful, and entrenched the status quo is, incremental progress is easier and better than doing nothing at all or doubling down on failed policies. Google, Apple, GE, Tesla, 150 Mayors, the Vatican, the rest of the planet, and most americans are all on the same page in what this was, that being a first step forward, cooperation and compromise together. But no, not to the GOP and Trump...  to them itt was a "bad deal" (not for the rest of us but for their oil gas extraction buddies).

Silver-lining in this all is that Trump is becoming the villain that everyone can rally against. It's almost as if he watched the classic oscar Willis film Unbreakable and thought to himself, "I have to be as bad a president as I possibly can be so that the best heros will emerge to take me down". I'm an optimist in that I still have hope in humanity. Trump, the GOP, Putin, Alex Jones,  David Duke, Dax, KSU-W, Reno, FSD, Emo, etc... they all are pessimists that want to regress society (and the world) back to barbaric tribalism. It's the only way they feel they will maintain their "superiority" to young people, LGBT, women, muslims, europeans, asians, jews, moderates, the pope, liberals, progressives, uppity blacks, regular everyday americans, etc...

It's really sad we will have to endure the consequences of their intellectually and philosophically corrupt and bankrupt decisions for decades to come.

 :fan-1:
untuck manhattan

Offline Cartierfor3

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 27091
  • I just want us all to be buds.
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3121 on: June 04, 2017, 12:38:45 PM »
I did some planting of plants this morning. I'm combating global warming!

(Ignore the fact that the plants were already alive and i just transplanted them from the nursery. I guess you could say that them being closer to where I breath is a bigger help though.)

Pop quiz: what gas do plants require for photosynthesis?

I read this in Dennis Hopper's voice

Offline bucket

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9557
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3122 on: June 04, 2017, 12:46:57 PM »
Your increased wildfire claim is likewise incorrect, and further incorrect because we would be expected to have more wildfires during drier conditions caused by El Niño climate cycles.

Not according to the EPA.

Quote
Although wildfires occur naturally and play a long-term role in the health of these ecosystems, climate change threatens to increase the frequency, extent, and severity of fires through increased temperatures and drought (see the U.S. and Global Temperature and Drought indicators). Earlier spring melting and reduced snowpack (see the Snowpack indicator) result in decreased water availability during hot summer conditions, which in turn contributes to an increased wildfire risk, allowing fires to start more easily and burn hotter. An increase in the length of the fire season has been observed in some areas.2

Online sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40513
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3123 on: June 04, 2017, 03:21:26 PM »
Large scale wildfires lol.

Please explain why that's lol?

Please explain to me why it's attributable to global warming.

come take a drive through the sierra nevadas.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 53278
    • View Profile
Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
« Reply #3124 on: June 04, 2017, 04:11:29 PM »
Has there be any changes to land management policies in the past 20 years or so?