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

[camKSU]

So, to be clear, you guys are denying the world is getting warmer and is causing things like rapid ice melt?  Or just the causes of it?

Or you just don't really care about the causes and "think" everything is just going to be hunky-dory?
 

FSD... 1 degree celcius will have massive changes but we could probably survive it as a species and society. However when you talk about +4 degrees... the world as we know it will be a dramatically different place. The southwest and great plains will nearly be uninhabitable (due to drought and extreme temperatures), coastal cities will be flooded by rising seas and battered by extreme storms. The overall global weather will be extreme due to dramatic changes in oceans temperatures and thus current patterns. Fish stocks will plummet impacting a huge percentage of the population worldwide that depend on the sea for their food (and economy).

The good news is we can mitigate and lessen the rise in global temperatures by changes to our processes, behaviors, laws, economies, and infrastructure. But it has to be now and it has to be serious. There isn't time to mess around with weening off (ensuring continued profits for established industries) or slow transitions. It needs to be quick, decisive, and widespread.

Otherwise...

 

Then again, you don't really care about everyone else, right?

Lotta certitude going up in here. It's funny how liberals are so certain of something so complex. But when you ask them for any specificity it always boils down to "Didn't you hear what I said? It's gonna be BAD! 4 degrees! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!"

Ice caps expand and contract. Artic ice is down. Antarctic ice is UP. For liberals it doesn't really matter - it's all evidence of manmade climate change (as opposed to just climate change, which has been happening since the earth was formed 6000 years ago).

I predict it's going to be cold this winter, and that is definitive prove that manmade global warming is a sham.

A lot to unpack there.
First, nothing is 100% certain... But scientists that study these things can make projections and hypothesizes, which, in my mind, we should heed bearing in mind the consequences. Moreover though, you are asking for something that is impossible to predict with absolutes. And just because we don't have the capabilities to make things black or white with the science we have today doesn't mean that we should allow for business as usual, burying our heads in the sand.

Second, given the predictions, there isn't time or forgiveness to wait and see whether they come true. Just because it snows in the winter or is cold doesn't mean that the larger global climate isn't changing in a myriad of ways we greatly contribute to. The global climate has been changing since its existence... Just not at this rapidly accelerating pace.

Currently, we have 7.5 billion people on the planet with production and infrastructure to support it based on 19th and 20th century technologies and consumption patterns. We need to quickly start to model the transition to a sustainable and renewable economy and society so that the rest of the world, developing and otherwise can follow suit.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

First, nothing is 100% certain... But scientists that study these things can make projections and hypothesizes, which, in my mind, we should heed bearing in mind the consequences. Moreover though, you are asking for something that is impossible to predict with absolutes. And just because we don't have the capabilities to make things black or white with the science we have today doesn't mean that we should allow for business as usual, burying our heads in the sand.

Second, given the predictions, there isn't time or forgiveness to wait and see whether they come true. Just because it snows in the winter or is cold doesn't mean that the larger global climate isn't changing in a myriad of ways we greatly contribute to. The global climate has been changing since its existence... Just not at this rapidly accelerating pace.

Currently, we have 7.5 billion people on the planet with production and infrastructure to support it based on 19th and 20th century technologies and consumption patterns. We need to quickly start to model the transition to a sustainable and renewable economy and society so that the rest of the world, developing and otherwise can follow suit.

Go back and reread the first post in this thread. I'm not a proponent of making our energy more expensive (and everything else as a result) for less than half-baked theories when the hypotheses (models) are continually proven wrong. Our climate is far too complex to be making any rash decisions.

[sys]

even though he's not a real person, i agree completely with reno.  it doesn't make any sense to fret oneself into a tither about global warming if you are afraid to address overpopulation.


unless your goal is to see how many people we can cram onto the world before we kill everything else off, i guess.  but anyone who has that goal is an bad person, so eff them.

[wetwillie]

It's manmade and is getting warmer and none of us care enough to inconvenience ourselves to do something about it including myself.

[Mrs. Gooch]

It's manmade and is getting warmer and none of us care enough to inconvenience ourselves to do something about it including myself.

Well I personally am not contributing to overpopulation.

[star seed 7]

You're alive and not killing people (that I know of)

[Mrs. Gooch]

You're alive and not killing people (that I know of)

My parents only had 2 kids. 1 for each parent. Then I had no kids. Therefore the number of members of my family per generation have decreased.

[Mrs. Gooch]

Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would tend towards zero.

Therefore if I have exactly 2.33 children I am neither increasing nor decreasing the overall global population. If I have less than 2.33 children I am helping to reduce the global population.

[CNS]

even though he's not a real person, i agree completely with reno.  it doesn't make any sense to fret oneself into a tither about global warming if you are afraid to address overpopulation.


unless your goal is to see how many people we can cram onto the world before we kill everything else off, i guess.  but anyone who has that goal is an bad person, so eff them.

Isn't this a major tenet in most religions?

[sys]

i don't know, cns.

[CNS]

Low info voter.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Have you guys read this new book? Really makes you think. 

https://www.amazon.com/Population-Bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/0345216571/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480533809&sr=8-1&keywords=population+bomb

[camKSU]

Go back and reread the first post in this thread. I'm not a proponent of making our energy more expensive (and everything else as a result) for less than half-baked theories when the hypotheses (models) are continually proven wrong. Our climate is far too complex to be making any rash decisions.

Through cap and trade or by carbon taxing we can start the process of switching over to renewable or sustainable... Otherwise, it is just not going to get there in time. At some point in the near future the ship will have sailed on reducing our impact.

And by your logic... Wouldn't the conservative position be to play it safe and change our behaviors? What is the worst that will happen? We become more energy independent, with a greater distributed network of energy producing sources, creating more jobs, investing in new technologies. Gas may go up and the oil and gas industry may not see record profits... but isn't that the nature of technology development. Certain sectors start to fall away as better ones take their place.

Isn't that less rash than just continuing to accelerate over the cliff?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Go back and reread the first post in this thread. I'm not a proponent of making our energy more expensive (and everything else as a result) for less than half-baked theories when the hypotheses (models) are continually proven wrong. Our climate is far too complex to be making any rash decisions.

Through cap and trade or by carbon taxing we can start the process of switching over to renewable or sustainable... Otherwise, it is just not going to get there in time. At some point in the near future the ship will have sailed on reducing our impact.

And by your logic... Wouldn't the conservative position be to play it safe and change our behaviors? What is the worst that will happen? We become more energy independent, with a greater distributed network of energy producing sources, creating more jobs, investing in new technologies. Gas may go up and the oil and gas industry may not see record profits... but isn't that the nature of technology development. Certain sectors start to fall away as better ones take their place.

Isn't that less rash than just continuing to accelerate over the cliff?

The worst that could happen is that most people can't afford to eat meat, people can't run air conditioning in the summer, people are cold in the winter, and the overall economy tanks, making it much harder to earn a decent living. That stuff you listed is the best that could happen.

[camKSU]

Go back and reread the first post in this thread. I'm not a proponent of making our energy more expensive (and everything else as a result) for less than half-baked theories when the hypotheses (models) are continually proven wrong. Our climate is far too complex to be making any rash decisions.

Through cap and trade or by carbon taxing we can start the process of switching over to renewable or sustainable... Otherwise, it is just not going to get there in time. At some point in the near future the ship will have sailed on reducing our impact.

And by your logic... Wouldn't the conservative position be to play it safe and change our behaviors? What is the worst that will happen? We become more energy independent, with a greater distributed network of energy producing sources, creating more jobs, investing in new technologies. Gas may go up and the oil and gas industry may not see record profits... but isn't that the nature of technology development. Certain sectors start to fall away as better ones take their place.

Isn't that less rash than just continuing to accelerate over the cliff?

The worst that could happen is that most people can't afford to eat meat, people can't run air conditioning in the summer, people are cold in the winter, and the overall economy tanks, making it much harder to earn a decent living. That stuff you listed is the best that could happen.

1) Really it's just red meat, not all meat. 2) Saying people wouldn't be able to run their air conditioning or heating is not necessarily true, or if so could be easily mitigated through the tax money raised through low income subsidies. 3) The economy would not tank due to cap and trade or a carbon tax... in fact, it could be argued that it will boost the overall economy as new or emerging businesses and industries see increased use, investment and growth.

[wetwillie]

I bet cam rides a bicycle everywhere huh

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Go back and reread the first post in this thread. I'm not a proponent of making our energy more expensive (and everything else as a result) for less than half-baked theories when the hypotheses (models) are continually proven wrong. Our climate is far too complex to be making any rash decisions.

Through cap and trade or by carbon taxing we can start the process of switching over to renewable or sustainable... Otherwise, it is just not going to get there in time. At some point in the near future the ship will have sailed on reducing our impact.

And by your logic... Wouldn't the conservative position be to play it safe and change our behaviors? What is the worst that will happen? We become more energy independent, with a greater distributed network of energy producing sources, creating more jobs, investing in new technologies. Gas may go up and the oil and gas industry may not see record profits... but isn't that the nature of technology development. Certain sectors start to fall away as better ones take their place.

Isn't that less rash than just continuing to accelerate over the cliff?

The worst that could happen is that most people can't afford to eat meat, people can't run air conditioning in the summer, people are cold in the winter, and the overall economy tanks, making it much harder to earn a decent living. That stuff you listed is the best that could happen.

I am belatedly realizing Cam is a sock. Fell for it. 

[renocat]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/the-nordic-food-lab-wants-you-to-eat-blood-insects-and-brains-to-save-the-world-a7446876.html
Dang.  I will take a face up close cow fart any day to this even if it can save the planet.

[star seed 7]

Classic tapout technique from kdub. Get bodybagged - - > claim boddybagg'r is a sock. So predictable and sad

[camKSU]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/the-nordic-food-lab-wants-you-to-eat-blood-insects-and-brains-to-save-the-world-a7446876.html
Dang.  I will take a face up close cow fart any day to this even if it can save the planet.

http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/30/losses-soil-carbon-under-global-warming-might-equal-us-emissions

eff you and your rough ridin' apathy.

[sys]

 


i may roast a steak over an open barrel of oil to celebrate my selflessness.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

 


i may roast a steak over an open barrel of oil to celebrate my selflessness.

It makes all warm and fuzzy inside - a real Chris Matthews tingle kind of feeling - to imagine there are millions of hipster millenials who actually believe this crap and won't ever have children. And then as their genitals slowly wither away, they can watch the progeny of myself and other likeminded rational people take over the country.

Your line dies with you. How sad. Sad for you I mean. Again, great for me.

[star seed 7]

Sys, did you know that ksuw has 4 kids?

[camKSU]

It makes all warm and fuzzy inside - a real Chris Matthews tingle kind of feeling - to imagine there are millions of hipster millenials who actually believe this crap and won't ever have children. And then as their genitals slowly wither away, they can watch the progeny of myself and other likeminded rational people take over the country.

Your line dies with you. How sad. Sad for you I mean. Again, great for me.

Idiocracy sure hit the nail on the head in multiple ways...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9nVLXMhPc[/youtube]


And your president!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA[/youtube]

[camKSU]

I bet cam rides a bicycle everywhere huh

Only when I leave my bunker...

Speaking of bunkers, I bet there is a big conspiracy among all the security folks around the world to invent climate change to create wars to line their pockets... Couldn't be that we are actually causing it or have the capacity to lessen the impact through changes to the status quo. Just too hard and too complex.

http://www.aol.co.uk/news/2016/11/30/military-experts-warn-of-epic-humanitarian-crisis-sparked-by-c/