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

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I don't think there is enough incentive for corporations to invest huge amounts of money to disprove a hoax. They will simply pass the taxes on to consumers. The problem is the voice of the consumers is the one funding the hoax.

Yes, this is why they don't spend any money on lobbying, they're cool with just passing costs on to consumers.

I don't think they have consumers in mind when they are lobbying.

[Emo EMAW]

the only way the denier's system works is if you reject the scientific method. in fact any use of the scientific method they see as a reason to reject the main hypothesis (see Dax ranting with unethical sources about the adjustment to temp data).

I think questioning the application of the scientific method is applicable.  For example poor application gave us predictions that NYC would be underwater right now, which obviously is not the case.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I thought this was a better rebuttal:

https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.3xywvxlf5

I agree it's bad to call resort to name calling.

Ha, bloggers calling out a blogger for just being a blogger.

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

Renewable energy only accounts for 13.2% of the grid in the US, so it does get a disproportional amount of federal subsidies.

Oil is a pretty established thing.  I mean, you don't need to stimulate the R&D of the oil market.

Incredibly ignorant comment considering the technological advances made in O&G in the last decade as compared to wind energy

[sys]

Ha, bloggers calling out a blogger for just being a blogger.

yeah, pretty funny.

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

Globally in 2013, the most recent figures available,the coal, oil and gas industries benefited from subsidies of $550bn, four times those given to renewable energy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[27] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies


the largest renewable subsidies go to ethanol production, not wind or solar.  on the whole, it seems like the us subsidizes fossil fuel production less than the world as a whole does, but the wikipedia entry only discusses federal subsidies, not state subsidies.  per the guardian article, state subsidies appear numerous and substantial.

The 2008 data would be beyond stale as renewable energy credits, particularly wind energy, have expanded exponentially since then, as have state subsidies.  Global subsidies are obviously skewed/unreliable due to the fact that States control mineral rights everywhere but here, not to mention OPEC countries. The information I provided is from the EIA, not some think tank.

But thanks for the red herrings.

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

here's a good read:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Some obscure interofiice memo where ExxonMobil acknowledges a risk that carbon output will be regulated in the future does not mean ExxonMobil tried to cover up climate change.  Good grief, that is bad.

[EMAWican]

With the EPA raising their fuel standards again, get ready for worse fuel mileage that is "offset" by a decrease in CO2/GHG emissions and a "renewable" resource (corn).

[sys]

The information I provided is from the EIA.

link it up.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

the only way the denier's system works is if you reject the scientific method. in fact any use of the scientific method they see as a reason to reject the main hypothesis (see Dax ranting with unethical sources about the adjustment to temp data).

are you familiar with the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

the only way the denier's system works is if you reject the scientific method. in fact any use of the scientific method they see as a reason to reject the main hypothesis (see Dax ranting with unethical sources about the adjustment to temp data).

Reject the scientific method? The warmist hypotheses are post #1 of this thread. They're not doing so hot. Hardly settled science. Just admit it, you didn't even read the essay I linked.

[sonofdaxjones]

In EDN Warmist Propagandist Agendist Economy Killer world, anyone who doesn't wholly buy into the propaganda is unethical.

[ednksu]

In EDN Warmist Propagandist Agendist Economy Killer world, anyone who doesn't wholly buy into the propaganda is unethical.

which do you think will have longer negative impacts on the economy
1) clean energy and long term prosperity
or
2) the death of humanity

[sonofdaxjones]

In EDN Warmist Propagandist Agendist Economy Killer world, anyone who doesn't wholly buy into the propaganda is unethical.

which do you think will have longer negative impacts on the economy
1) clean energy and long term prosperity
or
2) the death of humanity

Complete strawman.   Where have I said we shouldn't gradually be moving towards cleaner energy.?  Warmist Scarist Propaganda has no room in this discussion.

[wetwillie]

it's going to be ok EDN, I promise. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

In EDN Warmist Propagandist Agendist Economy Killer world, anyone who doesn't wholly buy into the propaganda is unethical.

which do you think will have longer negative impacts on the economy
1) clean energy and long term prosperity
or
2) the death of humanity

It's just so hilariously over the top!

[Ptolemy]

Where have I said we shouldn't gradually be moving towards cleaner energy.?

Where is there any evidence that we need to be concerned about the "cleanliness" of energy use?

[ednksu]

the only way the denier's system works is if you reject the scientific method. in fact any use of the scientific method they see as a reason to reject the main hypothesis (see Dax ranting with unethical sources about the adjustment to temp data).

I think questioning the application of the scientific method is applicable.  For example poor application gave us predictions that NYC would be underwater right now, which obviously is not the case.

I totally agree questioning the method is acceptable.  But the only way for Dax or KSUW's systems to work is to reject the method entirely when you re-evaluate your measurements and adjust your theories and hypothesis.  They see adjusting the measurements of temps as justifications to reject the entire method, rather than an improvement and logical outcome of "good" science.  See their rejection of AGW et al because the scientists found better, more accurate ways to measure temps.  They toss out the entire system instead of finding fault with the method's various components and outcomes.

[ednksu]

Where have I said we shouldn't gradually be moving towards cleaner energy.?

Where is there any evidence that we need to be concerned about the "cleanliness" of energy use?

cancer clusters?
being able to set water on fire?

[sonofdaxjones]

The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.   

[sonofdaxjones]

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/12/Truth-about-China.pdf

China, giving no effs about the world savers

[ednksu]

The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.

I've asked for real scientific data that disproves their's.  The best you've managed are shifting histograms which compare the shift in temp datas which are readily acknowledged as updated info. Find me real credible sources with real credible problems with data sets.

[Emo EMAW]

The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.

I've asked for real scientific data that disproves their's.  The best you've managed are shifting histograms which compare the shift in temp datas which are readily acknowledged as updated info. Find me real credible sources with real credible problems with data sets.

Is the fact that NYC isn't underwater "real scientific data" ?

[slobber]

The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.

I've asked for real scientific data that disproves their's.  The best you've managed are shifting histograms which compare the shift in temp datas which are readily acknowledged as updated info. Find me real credible sources with real credible problems with data sets.

I think this is stupid. Bad science does not have to be disproved with good science. Bad science is just bad science.


Gonna win 'em all!

[CHONGS]

The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.

I've asked for real scientific data that disproves their's.  The best you've managed are shifting histograms which compare the shift in temp datas which are readily acknowledged as updated info. Find me real credible sources with real credible problems with data sets.

I think this is stupid. Bad science does not have to be disproved with good science. Bad science is just bad science.


Gonna win 'em all!

If we can keep this separate from climate change (yeah right with this crew...) I think I would have to probably disagree with you dobber. Maybe we can start a new topic in BWWFSOB about this.  I am not sure how you are defining "bad" in this sense tho.