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

[bones129]

You go first

 

[CNS]

KSU just hosted some high up from Cargill.   His speech was centered around Cargill ' s stance that this is indeed happening and how it will effect corn and wheat production by something like 18% by 2050 and by something like 42% by 2100. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[steve dave]

Whom among you believes that man causes the planet's environment - temperature - to change?

I had a discussion at a recent tailgate with a KSU engineering student that floored me so I thought I would poll the masses on this fine tableau.

What say you?

there's still a remarkable amount of people that believe human's aren't effecting global warming. But, there's a remarkable amount of people that believe humans lived with dinosaurs (or alternatively satan planted dinosaur bones in the ground to eff with people) and that evolution isn't real. so the climate change stuff isn't the most ridiculous thing I guess.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Here is the thread on global warming. http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27893.0

Temperatures aren't playing along with AGW theory, despite dumping more and more plant food into the atmosphere. The latest theory seems to be that the warming is hiding in the oceans. Oh - and "97%."

[Ptolemy]

You go first

O.K. The best evidence that the whole AGW thing is a political movement and not a legitimate science concern is who is pushing it. If the political left is able to sway the public their way, they seize control over a the largest part of the economy - carbon. Imagine if they get what they want - a carbon tax - EVERYTHING you buy, consume, make, do uses carbon in some form.

As for the science: carbon dioxide is 0.038% of the planet's atmosphere. Man generates 3% of that, so man is responsible for 0.114% (based on the effective volume; if using the actual volume it's FAR less) of the earth's atmosphere. There is no possible way that man steers the ship. Besides, if man could control the planet's temperature, you'd think we would want to raise it for the areas of the world that are useless and frigid.

 

[Rage Against the McKee]

You go first

O.K. The best evidence that the whole AGW thing is a political movement and not a legitimate science concern is who is pushing it. If the political left is able to sway the public their way, they seize control over a the largest part of the economy - carbon. Imagine if they get what they want - a carbon tax - EVERYTHING you buy, consume, make, do uses carbon in some form.

As for the science: carbon dioxide is 0.038% of the planet's atmosphere. Man generates 3% of that, so man is responsible for 0.114% (based on the effective volume; if using the actual volume it's FAR less) of the earth's atmosphere. There is no possible way that man steers the ship. Besides, if man could control the planet's temperature, you'd think we would want to raise it for the areas of the world that are useless and frigid.

Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

[MeatSauce]

that tailgate sounds like it was a blast.

[michigancat]

The greenhouse effect is proven science, not a theory. What's in question is how much humans have contributed and will contribute to the effect. Also "If the models are all wrong" is a much better thread title.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The greenhouse effect is proven science, not a theory. What's in question is how much humans have contributed and will contribute to the effect. Also "If the models are all wrong" is a much better thread title.

Well, it is a theory, but by definition, theories are proven science.

[Emo EMAW]

KSU just hosted some high up from Cargill.   His speech was centered around Cargill ' s stance that this is indeed happening and how it will effect corn and wheat production by something like 18% by 2050 and by something like 42% by 2100. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Pro-top:  Cargill stands to make a lot of money if people believe it is happening.

[michigancat]

Um

[Rage Against the McKee]

KSU just hosted some high up from Cargill.   His speech was centered around Cargill ' s stance that this is indeed happening and how it will effect corn and wheat production by something like 18% by 2050 and by something like 42% by 2100. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Pro-top:  Cargill stands to make a lot of money if people believe it is happening.

Well, yeah, considering that one of the best ways to stop global warming is to stop eating meat, I think Cargill is set up nicely.

[Ptolemy]

Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

Actually, carbon is an element on the periodic table. I assume you were referring to carbon dioxide. If we were generating 50% of the earth's carbon dioxide, we would still only be responsible for 0.019% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is food for the plant life all over the globe, not to mention all the plant life under the oceans.

I believe you were trying to say that if man generated 50% of the total amount of CO2, the earth wouldn't be HABITABLE.

Oh, and my ciphering was a bit off. man is not responsible for 0.114% - it's actually at most 0.00114%.

[michigancat]

Ptolemy - what if there was a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without a "carbon tax"? Would you still oppose efforts to reduce emissions?

[sunny_cat]

Ptolemy: those numbers are v small, no way we're causing any harm guys

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You go first

O.K. The best evidence that the whole AGW thing is a political movement and not a legitimate science concern is who is pushing it. If the political left is able to sway the public their way, they seize control over a the largest part of the economy - carbon. Imagine if they get what they want - a carbon tax - EVERYTHING you buy, consume, make, do uses carbon in some form.

As for the science: carbon dioxide is 0.038% of the planet's atmosphere. Man generates 3% of that, so man is responsible for 0.114% (based on the effective volume; if using the actual volume it's FAR less) of the earth's atmosphere. There is no possible way that man steers the ship. Besides, if man could control the planet's temperature, you'd think we would want to raise it for the areas of the world that are useless and frigid.

Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

3%... of a gas that makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere.

The greenhouse gas theory neither postulates nor proves the impact upon "global temperture" (however that may be measured) of a nominal increase in what is already such a trace gas to begin with.

That's why scientists use models to hypothesize the effect of this increase in CO2 on tempertures, and those models aren't doing too hot. Which is why we already have a thread devoted to this called "If the models are all wrong..." http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27893.0

[Rage Against the McKee]

Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

Actually, carbon is an element on the periodic table. I assume you were referring to carbon dioxide. If we were generating 50% of the earth's carbon dioxide, we would still only be responsible for 0.019% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is food for the plant life all over the globe, not to mention all the plant life under the oceans.

I believe you were trying to say that if man generated 50% of the total amount of CO2, the earth wouldn't be HABITABLE.

Oh, and my ciphering was a bit off. man is not responsible for 0.114% - it's actually at most 0.00114%.

So doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be no big deal, then?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Cargill = Enthanol.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

Actually, carbon is an element on the periodic table. I assume you were referring to carbon dioxide. If we were generating 50% of the earth's carbon dioxide, we would still only be responsible for 0.019% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is food for the plant life all over the globe, not to mention all the plant life under the oceans.

I believe you were trying to say that if man generated 50% of the total amount of CO2, the earth wouldn't be HABITABLE.

Oh, and my ciphering was a bit off. man is not responsible for 0.114% - it's actually at most 0.00114%.

So doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be no big deal, then?

How do you get from 3% to "doubling?" You might as well ask about tripling or quadrupling. Maybe this is why the warmers are so fixated on the "97%" mantra. Numbers just aren't their thing.

[Ptolemy]

So doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be no big deal, then?

If that were possible, there would be no political Left in this country.

The Left thrives on human need. If man could generate 50% of the planet's carbon dioxide, we would be so productive and wealth would be spread over humanity to such a degree that government would be largely non-existent (one can dream!).

That aside, the earth is a massive system. If one of its created entities (and we ARE that) produced a large disproportionate amount of a given element, it would correct it.

[Rage Against the McKee]

So doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be no big deal, then?

If that were possible, there would be no political Left in this country.

The Left thrives on human need. If man could generate 50% of the planet's carbon dioxide, we would be so productive and wealth would be spread over humanity to such a degree that government would be largely non-existent (one can dream!).

That aside, the earth is a massive system. If one of its created entities (and we ARE that) produced a large disproportionate amount of a given element, it would correct it.

Nobody is arguing that the earth is going to get destroyed by CO2. Just humans and other animals.

Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

Actually, carbon is an element on the periodic table. I assume you were referring to carbon dioxide. If we were generating 50% of the earth's carbon dioxide, we would still only be responsible for 0.019% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is food for the plant life all over the globe, not to mention all the plant life under the oceans.

I believe you were trying to say that if man generated 50% of the total amount of CO2, the earth wouldn't be HABITABLE.

Oh, and my ciphering was a bit off. man is not responsible for 0.114% - it's actually at most 0.00114%.

So doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be no big deal, then?

How do you get from 3% to "doubling?" You might as well ask about tripling or quadrupling. Maybe this is why the warmers are so fixated on the "97%" mantra. Numbers just aren't their thing.

I wasn't getting from 3% to anywhere. I was just asking if doubling was ok.

[Ptolemy]

How do you get from 3% to "doubling?" You might as well ask about tripling or quadrupling. Maybe this is why the warmers are so fixated on the "97%" mantra. Numbers just aren't their thing.

Amen! BTW, the 97% figure that they often refer to is actually based on 75 out of 77 papers. The actual response to the "study" was more than 10,000 papers but the author of the "study" excluded all but 77 of the papers. Talk about crafting a result!

[star seed 7]

Welcome,  fellow Satan dinosaur bone believer guy 

[Rage Against the McKee]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

[ednksu]

I really love it when we ignore the other greenhouse gases (like methane) that are far more harmful in retaining heat. 

Pretty much every metric (including temp as much as you guys don't want to admit it) shows a massive spike correlating to human influence.