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

[michigancat]

I thought this was a better rebuttal:

https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.3xywvxlf5

I agree it's bad to call resort to name calling.

thanks for reposting the stuff I posted 8 posts up.

It looked like a single link on tapatalk, and you're welcome

[sonofdaxjones]

He makes good points, but they're pretty much captain obvious points to anyone who pays attention.

But with Western Gov't subsidization of "green" energy and climate research on a rocket ship ride to $1 trillion plus a year, who wouldn't want to hop on the gravy train?

To what tune does the govt subsidize oil?  How about farming?  Are we all being fooled by big oil and big Ag?  Is the science even in yet?

"Green Energy" to "save the world" subsidization and research funding is accelerating at 20% per year, fossil fuel subsidization is on similar percentile decline.

I also appreciate the president offering to toss money into a pot for 3rd world countries to mitigate what is nearly impossible to quantify or to even prove is actually happening at the hand one of singular scientific theory   

[CNS]

Is your issue the science or the subsidies?  I mean, decline or not, oil subsidies surely dwarf green ones by, what, 10x?

[star seed 7]

He makes good points, but they're pretty much captain obvious points to anyone who pays attention.

But with Western Gov't subsidization of "green" energy and climate research on a rocket ship ride to $1 trillion plus a year, who wouldn't want to hop on the gravy train?

To what tune does the govt subsidize oil?  How about farming?  Are we all being fooled by big oil and big Ag?  Is the science even in yet?

"Green Energy" to "save the world" subsidization and research funding is accelerating at 20% per year, fossil fuel subsidization is on similar percentile decline.

I also appreciate the president offering to toss money into a pot for 3rd world countries to mitigate what is nearly impossible to quantify or to even prove is actually happening at the hand one of singular scientific theory   

Sounds pretty appropriate

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

Is your issue the science or the subsidies?  I mean, decline or not, oil subsidies surely dwarf green ones by, what, 10x?

Surely you are a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if you think oil subsidies dwarf green subsidies.

Oil "subsidies" largely come in the form of depletion and run about $8 billion per year.  AG subsidies I think run about $40-60 billion per year. Not sure, but I think society has a vested interest in maintaining a consistent food supply. We don't want to be WW1 russia, starving because there aren't any farmers. In 2013 Wind and Solar energy got about 65% (75% if you include nuclear) of all energy subsidies and made up about 4% of the power grid.

Basically, your preconceived notion is unfounded and incredibly ignorant. Maybe tune into less msnbc and thinkprogress.

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

Oil and gas got about 5% of all energy subsidies during the same period.

[renocat]

Obama is never wrong.  So how can his science be wrong.

[lopakman]

Is your issue the science or the subsidies?  I mean, decline or not, oil subsidies surely dwarf green ones by, what, 10x?

Surely you are a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if you think oil subsidies dwarf green subsidies.

Oil "subsidies" largely come in the form of depletion and run about $8 billion per year.  AG subsidies I think run about $40-60 billion per year. Not sure, but I think society has a vested interest in maintaining a consistent food supply. We don't want to be WW1 russia, starving because there aren't any farmers. In 2013 Wind and Solar energy got about 65% (75% if you include nuclear) of all energy subsidies and made up about 4% of the power grid.

Basically, your preconceived notion is unfounded and incredibly ignorant. Maybe tune into less msnbc and thinkprogress.

   FSD represent

[michigancat]

the theory that scientists pretty much only report that man-made climate change is taking place because of money is pretty fascinating. Like, wouldn't a scientist that can convince the scientific community that it was all a hoax be rich beyond their wildest dreams?

[sys]

Globally in 2013, the most recent figures available,the coal, oil and gas industries benefited from subsidies of $550bn, four times those given to renewable energy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[27] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies


the largest renewable subsidies go to ethanol production, not wind or solar.  on the whole, it seems like the us subsidizes fossil fuel production less than the world as a whole does, but the wikipedia entry only discusses federal subsidies, not state subsidies.  per the guardian article, state subsidies appear numerous and substantial.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Renewable energy only accounts for 13.2% of the grid in the US, so it does get a disproportional amount of federal subsidies.

[star seed 7]

Renewable energy only accounts for 13.2% of the grid in the US, so it does get a disproportional amount of federal subsidies.

Good, it should be that way

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

the theory that scientists pretty much only report that man-made climate change is taking place because of money is pretty fascinating. Like, wouldn't a scientist that can convince the scientific community that it was all a hoax be rich beyond their wildest dreams?

How so?

[michigancat]

the theory that scientists pretty much only report that man-made climate change is taking place because of money is pretty fascinating. Like, wouldn't a scientist that can convince the scientific community that it was all a hoax be rich beyond their wildest dreams?

How so?

Corporations would be lining up to sponsor further research. Maybe not rich beyond their wildest dreams, but they would likely have all the research dollars they would ever need.

[CNS]

Is your issue the science or the subsidies?  I mean, decline or not, oil subsidies surely dwarf green ones by, what, 10x?

Surely you are a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if you think oil subsidies dwarf green subsidies.

Oil "subsidies" largely come in the form of depletion and run about $8 billion per year.  AG subsidies I think run about $40-60 billion per year. Not sure, but I think society has a vested interest in maintaining a consistent food supply. We don't want to be WW1 russia, starving because there aren't any farmers. In 2013 Wind and Solar energy got about 65% (75% if you include nuclear) of all energy subsidies and made up about 4% of the power grid.

Basically, your preconceived notion is unfounded and incredibly ignorant. Maybe tune into less msnbc and thinkprogress.

Well, it's certainly a good thing that no one has gotten rich off of oil subsidies.  Pretty relieved. Keeps the convo honest.

[CNS]

Renewable energy only accounts for 13.2% of the grid in the US, so it does get a disproportional amount of federal subsidies.

Oil is a pretty established thing.  I mean, you don't need to stimulate the R&D of the oil market.

[CNS]

Globally in 2013, the most recent figures available,the coal, oil and gas industries benefited from subsidies of $550bn, four times those given to renewable energy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[27] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies


the largest renewable subsidies go to ethanol production, not wind or solar.  on the whole, it seems like the us subsidizes fossil fuel production less than the world as a whole does, but the wikipedia entry only discusses federal subsidies, not state subsidies.  per the guardian article, state subsidies appear numerous and substantial.

Both of those studies are obvsly by researchers who are obvsly trying to get rich off of Big Data subsidies.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I don't think there is enough incentive for corporations to invest huge amounts of money to disprove a hoax. They will simply pass the taxes on to consumers. The problem is the voice of the consumers is the one funding the hoax.

[CNS]

I don't think there is enough incentive for corporations to invest huge amounts of money to disprove a hoax. They will simply pass the taxes on to consumers. The problem is the voice of the consumers is the one funding the hoax.

You think oil companies haven't funded their own studies on this? 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Renewable energy only accounts for 13.2% of the grid in the US, so it does get a disproportional amount of federal subsidies.

Oil is a pretty established thing.  I mean, you don't need to stimulate the R&D of the oil market.

Some oil subsidies fall under welfare programs to help poor people with their energy bills.

[michigancat]

I don't think there is enough incentive for corporations to invest huge amounts of money to disprove a hoax. They will simply pass the taxes on to consumers. The problem is the voice of the consumers is the one funding the hoax.

Yes, this is why they don't spend any money on lobbying, they're cool with just passing costs on to consumers.

[ednksu]

Globally in 2013, the most recent figures available,the coal, oil and gas industries benefited from subsidies of $550bn, four times those given to renewable energy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[27] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies


the largest renewable subsidies go to ethanol production, not wind or solar.  on the whole, it seems like the us subsidizes fossil fuel production less than the world as a whole does, but the wikipedia entry only discusses federal subsidies, not state subsidies.  per the guardian article, state subsidies appear numerous and substantial.

[michigancat]

here's a good read:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I don't think there is enough incentive for corporations to invest huge amounts of money to disprove a hoax. They will simply pass the taxes on to consumers. The problem is the voice of the consumers is the one funding the hoax.

You think oil companies haven't funded their own studies on this?

Yeah, there was one.

[ednksu]

the only way the denier's system works is if you reject the scientific method. in fact any use of the scientific method they see as a reason to reject the main hypothesis (see Dax ranting with unethical sources about the adjustment to temp data).