Author Topic: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread  (Read 429471 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53675
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile

Online CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 36550
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #851 on: June 02, 2014, 06:03:09 PM »
What is ideal?



A denier in the white house, amirite?

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #852 on: June 02, 2014, 06:29:28 PM »
What is ideal?



A denier in the white house, amirite?

Or an administration that doesn't politicize an agency to make sweeping changes based information that's been audited by the GAO and found flawed.

Not difficult.


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

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #853 on: June 02, 2014, 07:30:48 PM »
Yes, the goal should be that everything be back to ideal tomorrow.

Wut? Eliminating ALL carbon emissions is a realistic goal?  Good lawd, we in troubs.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #854 on: June 03, 2014, 08:26:14 AM »
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph. 

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

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #855 on: June 03, 2014, 09:18:16 AM »
I still can't believe any deviation from baseline is characterized as an anomaly on all these graphs.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #856 on: June 03, 2014, 02:21:13 PM »
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I know how to read that graph.


Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #857 on: June 03, 2014, 03:34:09 PM »
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I would like a detailed explanation. Michcat and beems can jump in here if they like.

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53675
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #858 on: June 03, 2014, 05:27:47 PM »
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I would like a detailed explanation. Michcat and beems can jump in here if they like.

The graph shows warming, even if it's slight. The amount of warming depends on how the anomaly is calculated (which isn't on that guy's desktop for some reason).

Regardless, it's a terrible example of cherry-picking data (something folks on both sides do plenty).

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63770
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #859 on: June 03, 2014, 05:44:27 PM »
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I would like a detailed explanation. Michcat and beems can jump in here if they like.

The graph shows warming, even if it's slight. The amount of warming depends on how the anomaly is calculated (which isn't on that guy's desktop for some reason).

Regardless, it's a terrible example of cherry-picking data (something folks on both sides do plenty).

still makes me lol everytime i see it just thinking about some dude screen shotting his desktop  :lol:
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #860 on: June 03, 2014, 09:20:58 PM »
Regardless of what the data shows, I think we can all  :lol: at the idea of fitting it with a horizontal line and declaring no change.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #861 on: June 03, 2014, 09:56:14 PM »
You guys calling remote sensing systems liars?


Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #862 on: June 03, 2014, 11:40:39 PM »
Regardless of what the data shows, I think we can all  :lol: at the idea of fitting it with a horizontal line and declaring no change.

The only way to tell is to do the math.

Offline husserl

  • Fan
  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #863 on: June 04, 2014, 07:08:04 AM »

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #864 on: June 04, 2014, 08:34:07 AM »
Skeptical Science are noted cherry pickers and as MichCat would said, just like everyone else.




Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #865 on: June 04, 2014, 09:30:50 AM »
How alarmists see global warming:



How realists see global warming:


Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #866 on: June 06, 2014, 08:45:15 AM »
92% chance of a moderate el Nino, so a hot summer and wet winter coming.  :)

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #867 on: June 06, 2014, 10:58:45 AM »
92% chance of a moderate el Nino, so a hot summer and wet winter coming.  :)

YES!!! (link tho?)

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #868 on: June 06, 2014, 11:19:02 AM »
moderate el ninos only slightly improve the odds of wet winters in the southwest.  we need a strong el nino.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile

Offline #LIFE

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1792
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #870 on: June 07, 2014, 01:04:28 AM »
CASE CLOSED!  E-mail from the White House

Quote

Hi, everyone --

This past Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants for the first time.

Since then, folks across the country -- on editorial boards, in classrooms, on front porches -- have been weighing in on why this is so important. And with that in mind, here's something I want to make clear:

We’re already experiencing the effects of climate change today -- but don't just think about this proposed rule in terms of the country we're living in right now. Think about the one we and our children are going to be living in by 2030.

Thanks to these limits, that country will have a 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution from the power sector. It will also have 25 percent less smog and soot, meaning children will have an estimated 150,000 fewer asthma attacks each year -- and they'll miss an estimated 180,000 fewer days of school. Americans across the board will have up to 3,300 fewer heart attacks a year.

And now that the rule has been proposed, you can participate in the process.

Right now, we're accepting comments from the public about the proposed power plant rule.

So if you've got something to say, you can submit a public comment here.

And if you want to get some more details about why this is good for the environment and public health -- or spread the word about why it's a big deal -- you can take a look at this infographic, and then pass it on.

Right now, we're in the process of developing the policies that will keep our planet clean and our kids healthy for years to come.

You can participate in that process right now. So if you've got a comment, you can make it here.

Thanks,

Administrator Gina McCarthy
 Environmental Protection Agency

 :facepalm:
 



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

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #871 on: June 07, 2014, 01:17:11 PM »
The EPA seems to be more of a special interest group and progressive mouthpiece than a government agency .
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #872 on: June 08, 2014, 01:04:34 PM »
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.

Offline ChiComCat

  • Chawbacon
  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 17542
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #873 on: June 08, 2014, 01:11:17 PM »
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.


Please tell me your argument isn't "because scientists have been wrong before we should just ignore them"

Reminds me of the dumbass belief that some people have on the football board that because player X was a two star and successful, every two star is going to be just as successful.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52963
    • View Profile
Re: If the models are all wrong
« Reply #874 on: June 08, 2014, 01:26:26 PM »
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.


Please tell me your argument isn't "because scientists have been wrong before we should just ignore them"

Reminds me of the dumbass belief that some people have on the football board that because player X was a two star and successful, every two star is going to be just as successful.

LOL, that's not the point of the article nor the argument.