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

[ednksu]

I really enjoy how Dax thinks all the studies clown suiting his position are at the behest of "big-research"; while all the studies he suckles at the tit of, proven to be rigged by "small" energy, are legit.  Because ya know the NSF and NIH and all of these other bodies are known to be so corrupt.

[sonofdaxjones]

I really enjoy how Dax thinks all the studies clown suiting his position are at the behest of "big-research"; while all the studies he suckles at the tit of, proven to be rigged by "small" energy, are legit.  Because ya know the NSF and NIH and all of these other bodies are known to be so corrupt.

I don't suckle on the teat of anything, I fully admit there's bias in research by some parties.   But it's absolutely laughable that you ProgLibs believe that all so called deniers are sell outs, while the warmist alarmists have no sell outs who work at the behest of politicians with specific agendas.   Why do you believe that there are no agendas within the warmist alarmist community?   I mean the K-State news release and the people involved (for example) absolutely reeks of a research and grant money grab.   

[CNS]

global warming studies, a waste of time -- neocon philosophy

Yes. The market will figure out out.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

Plus edn, I really don't think you want to start going down the list of some of the stuff the NSF had funded over the years . . . like $5.7 million dollars to Columbia so they could essentially set up a VM system to allow people to pretend they're calling from the future so they can warn us about Climate Change.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I really enjoy how Dax thinks all the studies clown suiting his position are at the behest of "big-research"; while all the studies he suckles at the tit of, proven to be rigged by "small" energy, are legit.  Because ya know the NSF and NIH and all of these other bodies are known to be so corrupt.

I don't suckle on the teat of anything, I fully admit there's bias in research by some parties.   But it's absolutely laughable that you ProgLibs believe that all so called deniers are sell outs, while the warmist alarmists have no sell outs who work at the behest of politicians with specific agendas.   Why do you believe that there are no agendas within the warmist alarmist community?   I mean the K-State news release and the people involved (for example) absolutely reeks of a research and grant money grab.

I tend to agree if you are talking about the people modeling future weather patterns based upon projected temps. People who declare that the climate isn't drastically affected by all of the non-natural CO₂ we are pumping into the air are a joke, though.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I think you need to read into a bit more. The current research is predicting these droughts will be 6 to 7 times more likely (occurring more often), longer severity, and lasting longer.

Oh "the current research is predicting"?! Climate alarmists never get their predictions wrong... Said the polar bears, and the ice caps, and the hurricanes, and the warming models... We should make a list of all the stellar predictions - but I'm betting a quick google search would provide many such lists.

I see Edna has checked back in. I go ahead and bump my last comment, was probably just overlooked.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I mean we can't even accurately predict the weather for this coming summer at a regional scale. Like hell somebody is going to accurately predict droughts based upon projected climate changes.

[ednksu]

I think you need to read into a bit more. The current research is predicting these droughts will be 6 to 7 times more likely (occurring more often), longer severity, and lasting longer.

Oh "the current research is predicting"?! Climate alarmists never get their predictions wrong... Said the polar bears, and the ice caps, and the hurricanes, and the warming models... We should make a list of all the stellar predictions - but I'm betting a quick google search would provide many such lists.

I see Edna has checked back in. I go ahead and bump my last comment, was probably just overlooked.

Being mostly right and being mostly wrong are very different sides of the same coin here.  I know what side I'm on and i think the current state of the Arctic ice cap and the reservoirs in the SW agree with me.   

[sonofdaxjones]

Really?  I mean we're debating a drought in the Southwest, talking about the water level in reservoirs that were by and large all man made?    How can anyone say that with a straight face?

Why would anyone look at the actual climatic history of the Southwest and the look at a man-made reservoir and think to themselves, "this thing is going to stay full of water forever"?  It's just laughable.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think you need to read into a bit more. The current research is predicting these droughts will be 6 to 7 times more likely (occurring more often), longer severity, and lasting longer.

Oh "the current research is predicting"?! Climate alarmists never get their predictions wrong... Said the polar bears, and the ice caps, and the hurricanes, and the warming models... We should make a list of all the stellar predictions - but I'm betting a quick google search would provide many such lists.

I see Edna has checked back in. I go ahead and bump my last comment, was probably just overlooked.

Being mostly right and being mostly wrong are very different sides of the same coin here.  I know what side I'm on and i think the current state of the Arctic ice cap and the reservoirs in the SW agree with me.   

both driven by ocean currents, not air temperatures.  Frozen Great Lakes are driven by air temps.

[sonofdaxjones]

Never bring up currents when discuss the Arctic FSD.   Warmist Alarmists hate that.

They banter about the words unprecedented all the time in relation to the arctic, yet climate history says that there have been numerous arctic ice minimums (and maximums) and that iceless expanses of the arctic during the summer months are far from unprecedented.

[ednksu]

LOL yeah because currents aren't affected at all by warming oceans.  What that Gulf Stream do, nothing to do with temps!! 

[ednksu]

Really?  I mean we're debating a drought in the Southwest, talking about the water level in reservoirs that were by and large all man made?    How can anyone say that with a straight face?

Why would anyone look at the actual climatic history of the Southwest and the look at a man-made reservoir and think to themselves, "this thing is going to stay full of water forever"?  It's just laughable.

Sure they're man made.  And cities like Phoenix are testaments to mans hubris, building cities in the desert.  But the fact remains that the lack of rain is an issue, and we'll see it very much an issue when no snow is there to melt for spring run off. 

[sonofdaxjones]

So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

[star seed 7]

dax called JD FSD... low blow dax, low blow

[ednksu]

So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic.

I think it has more to do with growing populations and water demands, plus sedimentation.

[ednksu]

So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic.

I think it has more to do with growing populations and water demands, plus sedimentation.

I agree a large part of the issue are the ridiculous water needs of the SW.  But you can't deny the fact snowfalls and average precipitation have changed in places which feed the rivers and reservoirs.   

[ednksu]

Dax what is your thesis against reducing so called global warming factors?  Is it a rejection that humanity is too hubris in thinking they can alter the world?  Do you genuinely not believe in any climate change?  Also what if the climate change apologists are right while you're wrong?  Isn't the safe long term bet to secure the environment?  I'm asking for your personal interpretation here. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic.

I think it has more to do with growing populations and water demands, plus sedimentation.

I agree a large part of the issue are the ridiculous water needs of the SW.  But you can't deny the fact snowfalls and average precipitation have changed in places which feed the rivers and reservoirs.

Changed since when? 5000 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5 years ago?

[ednksu]

So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic.

I think it has more to do with growing populations and water demands, plus sedimentation.

I agree a large part of the issue are the ridiculous water needs of the SW.  But you can't deny the fact snowfalls and average precipitation have changed in places which feed the rivers and reservoirs.

Changed since when? 5000 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5 years ago?

LOL stats how do they work?

I'll wait for you to potato a real post.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic.

I think it has more to do with growing populations and water demands, plus sedimentation.

I agree a large part of the issue are the ridiculous water needs of the SW.  But you can't deny the fact snowfalls and average precipitation have changed in places which feed the rivers and reservoirs.

Changed since when? 5000 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5 years ago?

LOL stats how do they work?

I'll wait for you to potato a real post.

It's called a drought and they can last for several years to decades. We should have been building more reservoirs as populations increased to deal with droughts.

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

The reason there's less water in SW Kansas is because our federal government, at the request of the envirotards, decided to turn corn into gasoline.  Now every dry land farmer with a water right is spraying a billion gallon of water on each of his quarter sections every summer.

[Rage Against the McKee]

dry land farmer with a water right

interesting concept

[star seed 7]

Dax sounds like a secret warmist alarmist