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

[star seed 7]

In the closet, if you will

[star seed 7]

on the down low

[sonofdaxjones]

Stalkerish

Sad

[star seed 7]

are you afraid your parents will reject you if you acknowledge you were born a warmist alarmist?

[husserl]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/

[ednksu]

Dax probing question you do know that there are other warming gasses right?  I'm not sure how else to phrase that because as is, it sounds pretty dickish. 

I think the reason why people use unprecedented is because we're seeing changes in environments which haven't occurred in prior drought years or prior  cyclical warming years.  See tundra melt and the loss of methane sequestration.  Another point so called "alarmists" look to are the frequency of events.  I think all agree with that point, but we've run off that we've run off the tracks of these cycles.  I'd ask you for your explanation of Beem's post which has the graph about C02 through out the years in relation to temp where you can clearly see these large cycles of cooling and warming, but under the domination of humanity we don't see a return in temp loss.  How do you personally see those graphs Dax?  I worry about people extrapolating out too far in history.  I think we should only take a smaller sample and compare it to another smaller sample.  So for instance I would take Beem's graph and compare only those 150 to 200 year cycles in relation to one another. 

[ednksu]

lib
what you did there

I see it

[ednksu]

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.

awesome potato post

[renocat]

Water going to Denver hurts too.  The John Remond Dam and mudhole has ruined the Ark River.

[ednksu]

whelp looks like one of the favorite lines is proven to be bullshit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/26/yes-global-warming-has-slowed-down-a-little-and-yes-you-should-still-worry/?postshare=5581424985247552

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

whelp looks like one of the favorite lines is proven to be bullshit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/26/yes-global-warming-has-slowed-down-a-little-and-yes-you-should-still-worry/?postshare=5581424985247552

That article does a pretty good job of convincing people that decadal type warming and cooling are natural events mostly caused by ocean currents and the sun.

[ednksu]

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scientists-confirm-amassing-co2-heats-earth%E2%80%99s-surface

more clown suit for deniers

[ednksu]

whelp looks like one of the favorite lines is proven to be bullshit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/26/yes-global-warming-has-slowed-down-a-little-and-yes-you-should-still-worry/?postshare=5581424985247552

That article does a pretty good job of convincing people that decadal type warming and cooling are natural events mostly caused by ocean currents and the sun.

I see you have a 3rd grade reading level, since the article specifically discussed and destroyed that point.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

whelp looks like one of the favorite lines is proven to be bullshit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/26/yes-global-warming-has-slowed-down-a-little-and-yes-you-should-still-worry/?postshare=5581424985247552

That article does a pretty good job of convincing people that decadal type warming and cooling are natural events mostly caused by ocean currents and the sun.

I see you have a 3rd grade reading level, since the article specifically discussed and destroyed that point.

If you think words like 'could, maybe, possibly, might', etc, constitut "destroying" that point, then you win. I did notice the journalism grad has dumped the term 'denier' for a less toxic word 'doubter'.  Good for him.

[sonofdaxjones]

Well, I know the first thing the usual suspects are going to do is attack the source, but we'll just have to set that aside.

Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/21/nyt-smears-scientist-willie-soon-for-telling-the-truth-about-global-warming/

[star seed 7]

Major media ignored a report about a shadowy billionaires club with no sources?  I wonder why

[sonofdaxjones]

Dumb question.

[slobber]

Maybe relevant?
I hate it when a university researcher says, "we set out to prove that A causes B."

That might be the hypothesis, but the test should be set up and the thought process going in should be "does A cause B". Not "that" it causes B.

I have to deal with similar crap nearly daily. Won't go into details, I already did in another thread, but not bringing it up again here.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Maybe relevant?
I hate it when a university researcher says, "we set out to prove that A causes B."

That might be the hypothesis, but the test should be set up and the thought process going in should be "does A cause B". Not "that" it causes B.

I have to deal with similar crap nearly daily. Won't go into details, I already did in another thread, but not bringing it up again here.

Yeah, that's a big pet peeve of mine, as well. People should use scientific theory to prove A causes B and research to find out what causes B.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Maybe relevant?
I hate it when a university researcher says, "we set out to prove that A causes B."

That might be the hypothesis, but the test should be set up and the thought process going in should be "does A cause B". Not "that" it causes B.

I have to deal with similar crap nearly daily. Won't go into details, I already did in another thread, but not bringing it up again here.

This is why they manipulate measured temperature data and 'adjust' it  to fit the agenda of their funding source.

[Jabeez]

Maybe relevant?
I hate it when a university researcher says, "we set out to prove that A causes B."

That might be the hypothesis, but the test should be set up and the thought process going in should be "does A cause B". Not "that" it causes B.

I have to deal with similar crap nearly daily. Won't go into details, I already did in another thread, but not bringing it up again here.

This is why they manipulate measured temperature data and 'adjust' it  to fit the agenda of their funding source.

So what you're saying is: CONSPIRACY!!!!?  What do the scientists call their secret meeting where they hash out big science agendas?     

Also, do you believe in conspiracy theories?  Which ones are real? the world must know

[star seed 7]

Who should be in charge of science research if scientists are so corrupt?

[slobber]

I didn't say scientist were corrupt. I just don't like it when scientists start off research trying to prove a preconceived opinion.


Gonna win 'em all!

[Jabeez]

I didn't say scientist were corrupt. I just don't like it when scientists start off research trying to prove a preconceived opinion.


Gonna win 'em all!

My comments were directed at dougie.  I mean there's literally less than 1% of scientists who don't agree that the rise in co2 is man-made, and it is contributing to   the warming of the earth.  These guys aren't out to prove this anymore.  It's redundant research at this point, the only research they can do is to estimate the historical and future effects we have caused.  like bug oil is the best at making new uses for their product,  why isn't big science?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Maybe relevant?
I hate it when a university researcher says, "we set out to prove that A causes B."

That might be the hypothesis, but the test should be set up and the thought process going in should be "does A cause B". Not "that" it causes B.

I have to deal with similar crap nearly daily. Won't go into details, I already did in another thread, but not bringing it up again here.

This is why they manipulate measured temperature data and 'adjust' it  to fit the agenda of their funding source.

So what you're saying is: CONSPIRACY!!!!?  What do the scientists call their secret meeting where they hash out big science agendas?     

Also, do you believe in conspiracy theories?  Which ones are real? the world must know

It's only a conspiracy in the same way the lotteries advertise the jackpot amount to entice people to buy more tickets.