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

[camKSU]

Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public

That's what I call playing fast and loose with "lying to the public", you implied that there was some sort of broad based consumer disinformation campaign.   That's nothing more than stuff out of beltway lobbying 101, which the vast majority of American's pay no attention to or don't even know even exists.

Ok, Dax. Do you have a tattoo on your forehead that says "gullible"? How about "In Exxon We Trust"? 'Cause you sure do put a lot of trust in them!

[Dugout DickStone]

dax did you know that cover was completely fake or did you get duped by another website?  It is a pretty good totally fake cover I have to say

[sonofdaxjones]

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/doc/147902052.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=&type=historic&date=washingtonpost+%2C+&author=Washington+Post+Staff+Writer%3B+By+David+R.+Boldt&pub=The+Washington+Post%2C+Times+Herald+%281959-1973%29&desc=Colder+Winters+Held+Dawn+of+New+Ice+Age&pqatl=top_retrieves

Plus, lol at Newsweek, actually coming back three decades later, in the midsts of AGW hysteria saying that they "got it wrong" thirty years earlier.

http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-prediction-perils-111927

Propagandists playing every side of the coin . . . again.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

[sonofdaxjones]

Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public

That's what I call playing fast and loose with "lying to the public", you implied that there was some sort of broad based consumer disinformation campaign.   That's nothing more than stuff out of beltway lobbying 101, which the vast majority of American's pay no attention to or don't even know even exists.

Ok, Dax. Do you have a tattoo on your forehead that says "gullible"? How about "In Exxon We Trust"? 'Cause you sure do put a lot of trust in them!

No, I just understand the difference between a mass consumer driven marketing campaign, and what corporations send their lobbyists up from K street to talk to congress people about most behind closed doors.

[sonofdaxjones]

dax did you know that cover was completely fake or did you get duped by another website?  It is a pretty good totally fake cover I have to say

There was a Time or Newsweek cover from that time, that was very similar.

[camKSU]

Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public

That's what I call playing fast and loose with "lying to the public", you implied that there was some sort of broad based consumer disinformation campaign.   That's nothing more than stuff out of beltway lobbying 101, which the vast majority of American's pay no attention to or don't even know even exists.

Ok, Dax. Do you have a tattoo on your forehead that says "gullible"? How about "In Exxon We Trust"? 'Cause you sure do put a lot of trust in them!

No, I just understand the difference between a mass consumer driven marketing campaign, and what corporations send their lobbyists up from K street to talk to congress people about most behind closed doors.

It's so hard to keep up with what you view as normal k-street stuff and what you view as corruption/disinformation! It's almost like if they are republicans it is cool and if they are democrats it's bad.

 

[sonofdaxjones]

Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public

That's what I call playing fast and loose with "lying to the public", you implied that there was some sort of broad based consumer disinformation campaign.   That's nothing more than stuff out of beltway lobbying 101, which the vast majority of American's pay no attention to or don't even know even exists.

Ok, Dax. Do you have a tattoo on your forehead that says "gullible"? How about "In Exxon We Trust"? 'Cause you sure do put a lot of trust in them!

No, I just understand the difference between a mass consumer driven marketing campaign, and what corporations send their lobbyists up from K street to talk to congress people about most behind closed doors.

It's so hard to keep up with what you view as normal k-street stuff and what you view as corruption/disinformation! It's almost like if they are republicans it is cool and if they are democrats it's bad.

 

First of all, I've discussed Big Energy on here many times (t sucks to try and talk to an idiot who keeps covering stuff from a 100 pages ago).   What idiots like you don't get is they hold the patents many of the things that you hold so dear, including the licensing on the majority of the carbon trading systems in existence.

But you're too stupid to realize that you implied that there was some sort of mass consumer oriented disinformation campaign and what you just showed me was nothing more than politicking.   I'm sure in about two minutes I can drum up enough BS that was used to drive trillions in taxpayer investment in wind/solar which still only meets 2% of the worlds energy needs.

[sonofdaxjones]

[Emo EMAW]

I would not be the least bit shocked if you were a flat earther too. sad

tapping out again?

Yes, I refuse to argue with idiots.

Avoid talking in front of mirrors.

[star seed 7]

I'm sorry dax but I can no longer take any information from you on this subject as credible without sources.

[sonofdaxjones]

You can look it up yourself.  Source, direct quote and dates. 

Put down the bong and quit being lazy.

[sonofdaxjones]

Here, lib, since you're so lazy, I'll help out a little.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9906E2DC1239E63BBC4951DFB366838E669EDE

I wonder if those, you know, got retracted 30 years later.

[star seed 7]

I'm not going to waste my time on more fake evidence dax, you did this to yourself. Sad, but I think we can close this thread

[sonofdaxjones]

I'm not going to waste my time on more fake evidence dax, you did this to yourself. Sad, but I think we can close this thread

I can admit I forgot about the fake Time cover.  You implied there was a singular article.

So, that's about right.  Best to admit that you really suck at this (and you have, good for you) when you try and engage. 

Sad

[Rage Against the McKee]

dax did you know that cover was completely fake or did you get duped by another website?  It is a pretty good totally fake cover I have to say

There was a Time or Newsweek cover from that time, that was very similar.

The similar cover was from 2007.

[The Big Train]

This is tough to watch Dax flail around not being able to post his usual infowars links anymore. Sad.

[sonofdaxjones]

This is tough to watch Dax flail around not being able to post his usual infowars links anymore. Sad.

Given the amount of whackadoo conspiracies the resident left comes up with, it would seem they're (you're) channeling their inner Alex Jones.

[sonofdaxjones]

The real story here is not that the models got it all wrong, we've known the models are severely flawed for a long time (but let's continue to drive policy off of them anyway).

The real (but not surprising) story is the persistent attempts to message the data by Warmist Alarmist "consensus" Scientists to make the pause disappear (like they make so many other things disappear through data manipulation).

 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/the-new-consensus-on-global-warming-a-shocking-admission-by-team-climate/

What’s interesting, though, is Santer and his co-authors say their paper is “unlikely to reconcile the divergent schools of thought regarding the causes of differences between modeled and observed warming rates.”

#(un)knownscience

[camKSU]

Scientists again confirm through multiple sources in multiple locations that the oceans (and thus the globe) are warming... Rapidly.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/26/new-study-confirms-the-oceans-are-warming-rapidly

[SdK]

I'll wait a few pages before I decide what to believe. Tia.

[sonofdaxjones]

Weird, the warmest alarmist also basically admitted that the pause in increasing temps (I won't get into their persistent data manipulation that cools the past to make the today look warmer) that went on for twenty years (while they were saying it was getting warmer) was in fact real.

#settledscience

[Gooch]

Scientists again confirm through multiple sources in multiple locations that the oceans (and thus the globe) are warming... Rapidly.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/26/new-study-confirms-the-oceans-are-warming-rapidly

But, but, but we don't know what the optimal ocean temperature even is.

[sonofdaxjones]

Ah yes, The Guardian, possibly the greatest propaganda conduit the Warmist Alarmists have.

Good to see their back in-line with the company line.

In other great news, according to Richard Branson (huge polluter BTW, built his fortune on the back of fossil fuels) is saying that more companies are going to start doing their own R&D on "green" energy sources because of the U.S. decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement.   Fantastic news for the U.S. taxpayers who, based solely on the agreement would have been the only ones footing any bills for anything (already down with a cool billion bucks), while the rest of the major polluters were phoning it in and going to get back to us in 20-30 years.   

[sonofdaxjones]

https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761

Translated:  Every Tesla and Nissan Leaf battery produced under current  production methods equals 7 or 8 years of emissions from a typical modern internal combustion engine. 

Battery powered cars:  Leading to a worse tomorrow?

#moregovernmentsubsidies!

[camKSU]

Weird, the warmest alarmist also basically admitted that the pause in increasing temps (I won't get into their persistent data manipulation that cools the past to make the today look warmer) that went on for twenty years (while they were saying it was getting warmer) was in fact real.

#settledscience

So... You're not going to address the study or the science? Got it.

#daxipad