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

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

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/asia/china-beijing-pollution-red-alert/

Does this play into the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet?

Regresocon utopia.

My cousin lives there and has told me the air he breaths daily is equal to smoking 2 packs a day. Amazing that regresocons want that for the US

It should be noted again, that this patently idiotic and ignorant commentary started this subsequent idiotic dialogue. And none of the resident libtards identified how stupid the above comments are, which, in my book, makes them stupid ny association.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

This discussion took a hilarious turn. There are people here who honestly didn't know the difference bw CO2 and smog.

They also apparently don't know that we've had the Clean Air Act of 1990 since... 1990. Which appropriately focused on reducing harmful particulate air pollution. At least until 2011, when the EPA added CO2 by regulation. Because "climate change."

Hey libtards. If you want to talk CO2 and climate change, fine. Just don't wrap it in the mantle of "clean air." That's rough ridin' stupid.

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

So, libtards think global warming is causing smog in a city in china. #partyofscience

[CNS]

This discussion took a hilarious turn. There are people here who honestly didn't know the difference bw CO2 and smog.

They also apparently don't know that we've had the Clean Air Act of 1990 since... 1990. Which appropriately focused on reducing harmful particulate air pollution. At least until 2011, when the EPA added CO2 by regulation. Because "climate change."

Hey libtards. If you want to talk CO2 and climate change, fine. Just don't wrap it in the mantle of "clean air." That's rough ridin' stupid.

No one thinks that.  also, the link was in china, not in US.  Climate change is being discussed as a global problem, btw.  Pollution goes somewhere, other than what gets sucked up by the inhabitants(LOL, apparently). 

Reframe how you wish. 

[star seed 7]

Look at this regresocon meltdown, my goodness 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Guys, I stand corrected. Apparently we've got a real problem with CO2 polluting our air. We have to clean up our air, pronto. STOP CO2!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Really though, I think the alarming level of dihydrogen monoxide routinely found in our municpal water supplies is of greater concern.

[ednksu]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks. 

[CNS]

Really though, I think the alarming level of dihydrogen monoxide routinely found in our municpal water supplies is of greater concern.

The dihydrogen monoxide stunt that kid pulled was pretty great. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

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

The libtards are really tilting a windmill with this co2 smog stuff.  Ignorance/insanity is bliss, I suppose.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

CO2 gets toxic when it gets to about 3% (that's 3 whole perctage points - not the 1/100th of a percent mentioned above).

Are you guys following the math? So basically, I'll be Ok in Edna's sealed room. I'm more likely to die of drought, starving polar bears, skin cancer, terrorism, or any of the other things blamed on global warming.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

[sonofdaxjones]

 :ROFL:Look at PLJB logic . . . wanting highly unethical and probably illegal sue and settle that is done by the EPA in conjunction with special interests stopped ='s no clean air or water.

PLJB logic!!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

[Rage Against the McKee]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

[CHONGS]

gE is having all sorts of trouble with percents this week

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

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

Since the sum of percents must equal 100% we probably need to figure out what .1% of atmospheric gas has been displaced by co2. That could also be causing climate change!!!!!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.

[ednksu]

what neocons think they're doing


Reality



But oh man, you guys really turned the CO2 thing around on everyone.  What skilled posts!!!!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

And Edna taps out, but points for such an adorable cat!

Ok, now that we've put these smog/CO2 and percentage of CO2 dumbasseries to rest, what's the next hysteria?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.

It's increased by .01 pp, or 33%. There is a big difference there because percentages are unit-less and coming up with the difference in percentage points that CO2 constitutes in the atmosphere gives you a number that means nothing at all. It's like saying the decline of the blue whale is insignificant because it made up far less than 1% of all oceanic life in the first place.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.

It's increased by .01 pp, or 33%. There is a big difference there because percentages are unit-less and coming up with the difference in percentage points that CO2 constitutes in the atmosphere gives you a number that means nothing at all. It's like saying the decline of the blue whale is insignificant because it made up far less than 1% of all oceanic life in the first place.

Well if a problem was being blamed on the number of blue whales in the ocean.... then yes, it would be like that. I didn't think you were this libtarded!

Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.

It's increased by .01 pp, or 33%. There is a big difference there because percentages are unit-less and coming up with the difference in percentage points that CO2 constitutes in the atmosphere gives you a number that means nothing at all. It's like saying the decline of the blue whale is insignificant because it made up far less than 1% of all oceanic life in the first place.

Well if a problem was being blamed on the number of blue whales in the ocean.... then yes, it would be like that. I didn't think you were this libtarded!

Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

Is it a tiny number? .01% of a very large number might still be a very large number.

[CHONGS]

I posted a very informative wikipedia link.