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

[michigancat]

Ptolemy please learn the quote function

[puniraptor]

ptomely

there are many more carbon compounds that are greenhouse gasses than carbon dioxide

[puniraptor]

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.

CH₄

[Panjandrum]

I love how this particular debate generally breaks down...

Side 1: There is overwhelming scientific evidence that shows humans are impacting global warming

Side 2: Well, it's because of Cargill paying everyone off so they can sell corn for ethanol

I mean, really, how can you not believe #2 is the more realistic option?

Also, that kid's degree needs to be rescinded for being such a dumbass.

[DQ12]

obviously humans are influencing the climate and that's probably a bad thing.  but is it crazy to think that it's also a little rad?  like, wow in your face, weather.  humans are so far ahead of every other species it's not even funny.

[Emo EMAW]

I love how this particular debate generally breaks down...

Side 1: There is overwhelming scientific evidence that shows humans are impacting global warming

Side 2: Well, it's because of Cargill paying everyone off so they can sell corn for ethanol
I mean, really, how can you not believe #2 is the more realistic option?

Also, that kid's degree needs to be rescinded for being such a dumbass.

If you're referring to my post, that's quite the strawman argument.

[Rage Against the McKee]

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!

A sample size of 97, population of 10,000, with 97% supporting global warming, gives a confidence interval of 4.45 with a confidence level of 99%. So your best case scenario is that the number of scientists supporting global warming is really only 93%.

[Ptolemy]

A sample size of 97, population of 10,000, with 97% supporting global warming, gives a confidence interval of 4.45 with a confidence level of 99%. So your best case scenario is that the number of scientists supporting global warming is really only 93%.

Sample size is 10,000.

[Rage Against the McKee]

A sample size of 97, population of 10,000, with 97% supporting global warming, gives a confidence interval of 4.45 with a confidence level of 99%. So your best case scenario is that the number of scientists supporting global warming is really only 93%.

Sample size is 10,000.

No, it was actually 77. That gives a confidence interval of 5.0. So we are down to 92% being the lowest possibility.

[ednksu]

A sample size of 97, population of 10,000, with 97% supporting global warming, gives a confidence interval of 4.45 with a confidence level of 99%. So your best case scenario is that the number of scientists supporting global warming is really only 93%.

Sample size is 10,000.

No, it was actually 77. That gives a confidence interval of 5.0. So we are down to 92% being the lowest possibility.

see your models constantly need adjusting, it's obvious to anyone in academia you don't know what you're doing and your entire theory is bunk.

[Rage Against the McKee]

A sample size of 97, population of 10,000, with 97% supporting global warming, gives a confidence interval of 4.45 with a confidence level of 99%. So your best case scenario is that the number of scientists supporting global warming is really only 93%.

Sample size is 10,000.

No, it was actually 77. That gives a confidence interval of 5.0. So we are down to 92% being the lowest possibility.

see your models constantly need adjusting, it's obvious to anyone in academia you don't know what you're doing and your entire theory is bunk.

Yeah, I know. I pulled the wrong damn number from the post the first time I ran the calculation and now I have no credibility.

[ednksu]

Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

[sonofdaxjones]

Fantastic that modern technology is now able to fully record events such as this that have happened numerous times over the course of Earth's history.   Hopefully this technology can help mankind in many, many ways.

 "Strongest Hurricane Ever . . . recorded by modern technology"

[ednksu]

Fantastic that modern technology is now able to fully record events such as this that have happened numerous times over the course of Earth's history.   Hopefully this technology can help mankind in many, many ways.

 "Strongest Hurricane Ever . . . recorded by modern technology"

oh man, just wait till tax learns that we've had barometers since 1643...now if only we had a device for measuring wind speed....

[sonofdaxjones]

Fantastic that modern technology is now able to fully record events such as this that have happened numerous times over the course of Earth's history.   Hopefully this technology can help mankind in many, many ways.

 "Strongest Hurricane Ever . . . recorded by modern technology"

oh man, just wait till tax learns that we've had barometers since 1643...now if only we had a device for measuring wind speed....

What a bunch of brave souls those Hurricane Hunters were in 1643 flying through Cat. 5  in flying machines not even invented yet, and their network of Ocean sensing buoys while a bit rudimentary rivaled anything found 400 years later.

[ednksu]

Fantastic that modern technology is now able to fully record events such as this that have happened numerous times over the course of Earth's history.   Hopefully this technology can help mankind in many, many ways.

 "Strongest Hurricane Ever . . . recorded by modern technology"

oh man, just wait till tax learns that we've had barometers since 1643...now if only we had a device for measuring wind speed....

What a bunch of brave souls those Hurricane Hunters were in 1643 flying through Cat. 5  in flying machines not even invented yet, and their network of Ocean sensing buoys while a bit rudimentary rivaled anything found 400 years later.

  still doesn't get it

hurricanes, so isolated, much localized

[sonofdaxjones]

Oh man, really?   

What's it like to be such a puppet/parrot for an agenda?   

The technology to read the pressure, wind speeds in various parts of hurricanes with the accuracy that they can today, didn't even exist 20 years ago.

[ednksu]

Oh man, really?   

What's it like to be such a puppet/parrot for an agenda?   

The technology to read the pressure, wind speeds in various parts of hurricanes with the accuracy that they can today, didn't even exist 20 years ago.

Dax I thought you said you lived in hurricane country?  Hint, we've known a lot about hurricanes for hundreds of years.  It's sad you refuse to use science. But keep on keepin' on with the agenda instead of real quantifiable proof.

[sonofdaxjones]

Oh man, really?   

What's it like to be such a puppet/parrot for an agenda?   

The technology to read the pressure, wind speeds in various parts of hurricanes with the accuracy that they can today, didn't even exist 20 years ago.

Dax I thought you said you lived in hurricane country?  Hint, we've known a lot about hurricanes for hundreds of years.  It's sad you refuse to use science. But keep on keepin' on with the agenda instead of real quantifiable proof.

I'm not at all questioning the science parrot boy, I'm actually extolling the science, and I know the science needed to make such bold statements as "Strongest Hurricane Ever"  didn't exist even 20 years.   They're measuring specific parts of the storm and making those calls, the ability to isolate and measure specific parts of Hurricanes like they do today has only been available in the last twenty years at best.  The entire hurricane is not the "Strongest Hurricane Ever", only a part of the hurricane is the strongest hurricane ever . . . recorded.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

 

[star seed 7]

Media 

[Gooch]

Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

Relax it's Mexico

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

humans call it el nino. Nature's cycle of life.

[renocat]

God likes Trump?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

humans call it el nino. Nature's cycle of life.

That's Spanish for the nino, right?