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

[DQ12]

I think what Dax is trying to say is that these "i f'ing love science!" claims of "year x was the warmest in history!" are a little dubious considering 1. ice caps receding aren't unprecedented, and 2. there aren't any reliable historical world temperature records

[star seed 7]

I think what Dax is trying to say is that these "i f'ing love science!" claims of "year x was the warmest in history!" are a little dubious considering 1. ice caps receding aren't unprecedented, and 2. there aren't any reliable historical world temperature records

3. The scientists made it up anyway #hoax

[The Big Train]

The biggest thing I don't get with people like Dax is what's wrong with trying to find alternative power sources?  I mean eventually fossil fuels will run out even if global warming wasn't happening(it is).  To just completely dismiss finding another renewable power supply when ours will run out eventually is so stupid.

[AbeFroman]

Dax is upset that someone with different politics than him might contribute to the human race and make some money while doing so even if he's right about climate change (he isn't)

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

The biggest thing I don't get with people like Dax is what's wrong with trying to find alternative power sources?  I mean eventually fossil fuels will run out even if global warming wasn't happening(it is).  To just completely dismiss finding another renewable power supply when ours will run out eventually is so stupid.

If only Republicans would support alternative energy    Are their any pubs that dont?

I think the pubs take issue with the draconian tax and regulatory scheme being imposed on fossil fuels, and the enormous tax subsidies received by "renewable" energy sources, each justified by a "climate" that is allegedly changing in large part by human activity.

[sonofdaxjones]

dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.

By implication you are saying that this is the first time in all climate history that the ice caps have disintegrated.   First off, thankfully the Ice Caps have "disintegrated" substantially over world history, or it's highly likely that neither you or I are here to even have this fantastic conversation.

Next, the problem that all warmist have is that they want to lay all supposedly extraordinary climate events (of which many if not all have been found to be with substantial precedence over climatic history) solely and exclusively at the feet of AGW, which is nonsense.

Last (and for example) two Sat Temp sets of data indicate that at best (or worst) 2016 was the warmest year since 1998 and it's highly unlikely to be the "Warmest Year Ever" (or since we actually started taking semi decent Temp readings and recording them in a semi decent fashion about 150 years ago aka a tiny fraction of Earth's climatic history).  Not to mention the substantial and strong La Nina pattern which started around the Spring of 2016.

Anyone else notice how awesome it is we can say with absolute crystal certainty that the Ice Caps have disintegrated substantially over world history....yet average temperature readings can only be ascertained for approximately the last 150 years? 

Pretty amazing if you ask me that we can know that Ice Caps existed and then disintegrated over the whole history of the planet yet the cause for said disintegration is apparently unknown since temperature data only exists for the past 150 years or so.

So we had actual real time temp readings and recording across the globe 200 years ago?   Strange, I wonder why so many have said we've only kind of gotten that capability in the last, oh, 30 years or so, give or take.

Whereas Ice Caps left an undeniable geologic footprint that's visible with the naked eye.

So, then you ARE acknowledging that you don't have even the slightest clue what the difference between weather and climate is.  Okay then, glad we got that cleared up!

Carry on.

Obtaining and keeping temp records (particularly over a substantial geographic area) for the purposes of year - to - year comparisons is exclusively for the study of climate.  The expansion and retraction of Ice Caps is clearly climate as well.

Weird little meltdown and digression.

[passranch]

dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.

bla

bla

bla

bla

Obtaining and keeping temp records (particularly over a substantial geographic area) for the purposes of year - to - year comparisons is exclusively for the study of climate.  The expansion and retraction of Ice Caps is clearly climate as well.

Weird little meltdown and digression.

No, really these kinds of discussions are pretty fun for me.  No meltdown at all, and certainly not a digression, at least not on my part.  I'm not here to argue AGW because I don't really give a flying f about it (or at least anyone's opinion of it) and I am not here to argue politics either, which you seem to clearly want to bait folks into.  Sorry, but I'm not interested in that.  You see, for me it's more the semantics of the thing...and the logic too.

My point is you were clearly correlating two separate concepts:

Climate = ice caps disintegrating and growing over earth's history based on geologic information (not weather data)
and
Weather = accurate terrestrial temperature measurements and records over the past century and a half (weather data)

As false equivalences go, this is a pretty common one.  I mean, most average people won't notice or care, they'll just get into a shouting match with you which I'm sure is the goal.  But any half intelligent person would dismiss you out of hand because of your carelessness.  I'll try to explain.

You can't say we can know for certain that there has been other warm or cold periods in Earth's history based on geologic information (read: not accurate weather data) on one hand, then immediately turn around and dismiss assumptions like 2016 and 1998 were historically warm years because we only have accurate weather data for the past 150 years on the other.  False equivalency.  Can you disprove the second assumption using geologic information?  If so, then leave the weather records out of it.  If not, why bring it up?  Doesn't do any good.  Can you prove the first assumption using weather data?  Of course not.

See?  You're arguing two sides of the same debate with yourself and getting mixed up in the process.  It would have been smart to just stick with the ice cap thing and roll with that for now.  It's a good one and you're right about it...uh, sorta.  But by injecting your political agenda you got caught in a logic trap, oh well.  Next time, maybe try not to rage-post so much and put a little more thought into what you're writing, and you'll probably be a lot more interesting...or don't do that and stay boring, doesn't really matter.

Bu now I'm sure you'll pound out a 5 minute paragraph or two in response here being all rage-y about what I'm saying then add a dismissive little tag at the end...perhaps questioning whether I'm someone's sock...I bet if I kept this thread alive I could even get you to resort to personal insults.  In the end, though, you'll move on to one of maybe a dozen or so other little internet discussions you have that you feel compelled to "win" daily, and I hope they're fulfilling for you.  Maybe you can get a better shouting match out of one of them.

[OK_Cat]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.

bla

bla

bla

bla

Obtaining and keeping temp records (particularly over a substantial geographic area) for the purposes of year - to - year comparisons is exclusively for the study of climate.  The expansion and retraction of Ice Caps is clearly climate as well.

Weird little meltdown and digression.

No, really these kinds of discussions are pretty fun for me.  No meltdown at all, and certainly not a digression, at least not on my part.  I'm not here to argue AGW because I don't really give a flying f about it (or at least anyone's opinion of it) and I am not here to argue politics either, which you seem to clearly want to bait folks into.  Sorry, but I'm not interested in that.  You see, for me it's more the semantics of the thing...and the logic too.

My point is you were clearly correlating two separate concepts:

Climate = ice caps disintegrating and growing over earth's history based on geologic information (not weather data)
and
Weather = accurate terrestrial temperature measurements and records over the past century and a half (weather data)

As false equivalences go, this is a pretty common one.  I mean, most average people won't notice or care, they'll just get into a shouting match with you which I'm sure is the goal.  But any half intelligent person would dismiss you out of hand because of your carelessness.  I'll try to explain.

You can't say we can know for certain that there has been other warm or cold periods in Earth's history based on geologic information (read: not accurate weather data) on one hand, then immediately turn around and dismiss assumptions like 2016 and 1998 were historically warm years because we only have accurate weather data for the past 150 years on the other.  False equivalency.  Can you disprove the second assumption using geologic information?  If so, then leave the weather records out of it.  If not, why bring it up?  Doesn't do any good.  Can you prove the first assumption using weather data?  Of course not.

See?  You're arguing two sides of the same debate with yourself and getting mixed up in the process.  It would have been smart to just stick with the ice cap thing and roll with that for now.  It's a good one and you're right about it...uh, sorta.  But by injecting your political agenda you got caught in a logic trap, oh well.  Next time, maybe try not to rage-post so much and put a little more thought into what you're writing, and you'll probably be a lot more interesting...or don't do that and stay boring, doesn't really matter.

Bu now I'm sure you'll pound out a 5 minute paragraph or two in response here being all rage-y about what I'm saying then add a dismissive little tag at the end...perhaps questioning whether I'm someone's sock...I bet if I kept this thread alive I could even get you to resort to personal insults.  In the end, though, you'll move on to one of maybe a dozen or so other little internet discussions you have that you feel compelled to "win" daily, and I hope they're fulfilling for you.  Maybe you can get a better shouting match out of one of them.

Well, that was a fancy screed, and it appears we are divided by a common language.   So, no 5 10 minute paragraph (like you just did).   My discussion of temp data was reflective of the fact that due to the lack of technology, record keeping et. al.   Other methods must be used to determine what temps were like beyond 150 plus years, methods that are subject to variables and challenges in accuracy due to limits in technology and possible contamination in handling and processing (thus obviously not real time).

At the end of the day, I don't know what one really has to do with the other in this particularly discussion, but if you want to pound out another 5 10 minute screed, by all means . . .

[ednksu]

Dax serious question, how do you feel about the climate data we've extrapolated from ice core samples?

[ednksu]

Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data

[sonofdaxjones]

Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data

This is the typical false argument people like you try to put forth, attempting to paint a picture that government funded climate scientists and related are just out there tin cupping it and have no chance in the face of Big Energy.    A total myth.   Per the GAO, the U.S. government spent $12 BILLION dollars funding climate change science in Federal FY 2014.   

[ednksu]

Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data

This is the typical false argument people like you try to put forth, attempting to paint a picture that government funded climate scientists and related are just out there tin cupping it and have no chance in the face of Big Energy.    A total myth.   Per the GAO, the U.S. government spent $12 BILLION dollars funding climate change science in Federal FY 2014.   

No you're deflecting from the obvious point being made.  You're directly saying that climate scientist/green energy/etc are willing to unehtically alter their science in order to continue their funding.   But you ignore that their vested interest isn't even half of what petrol chemical gets in subsidies:
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

So the point is who has the bigger amount of skin in the game to lie to the public, lobby governmental leaders, and keep their industry going? 

[ednksu]

http://climate.nasa.gov/images-of-change?id=591#591-older-thicker-arctic-sea-ice-declines

[star seed 7]

Well, we should be seeing a lot of science denier scientists now that the president and epa guys are like dax and on the #hoax train #gottagetthatfunding

[sonofdaxjones]

Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data

This is the typical false argument people like you try to put forth, attempting to paint a picture that government funded climate scientists and related are just out there tin cupping it and have no chance in the face of Big Energy.    A total myth.   Per the GAO, the U.S. government spent $12 BILLION dollars funding climate change science in Federal FY 2014.   

No you're deflecting from the obvious point being made.  You're directly saying that climate scientist/green energy/etc are willing to unehtically alter their science in order to continue their funding.   But you ignore that their vested interest isn't even half of what petrol chemical gets in subsidies:
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

So the point is who has the bigger amount of skin in the game to lie to the public, lobby governmental leaders, and keep their industry going?

Over $60 billion spent on climate change research during the Obama administration alone.

Also understand that Big Energy owns thousands of patents on alternative energy mechanisms and even owns the licences on carbon trading IT platforms and related.   At the end of the day it's a win-win no matter which way it goes for them. 

But back to your original idiocy.  If you want to believe that government funded scientists didn't see the gravy train, you're as partisan as I've ever thought you were.

[sonofdaxjones]

Well, we should be seeing a lot of science denier scientists now that the president and epa guys are like dax and on the #hoax train #gottagetthatfunding

I don't think it's a hoax, I've said that before, but then again, you're kind of dumb.

Sad

[sonofdaxjones]

http://climate.nasa.gov/images-of-change?id=591#591-older-thicker-arctic-sea-ice-declines

Old news

[ednksu]

Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data

This is the typical false argument people like you try to put forth, attempting to paint a picture that government funded climate scientists and related are just out there tin cupping it and have no chance in the face of Big Energy.    A total myth.   Per the GAO, the U.S. government spent $12 BILLION dollars funding climate change science in Federal FY 2014.   

No you're deflecting from the obvious point being made.  You're directly saying that climate scientist/green energy/etc are willing to unehtically alter their science in order to continue their funding.   But you ignore that their vested interest isn't even half of what petrol chemical gets in subsidies:
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

So the point is who has the bigger amount of skin in the game to lie to the public, lobby governmental leaders, and keep their industry going?

Over $60 billion spent on climate change research during the Obama administration alone.

Also understand that Big Energy owns thousands of patents on alternative energy mechanisms and even owns the licences on carbon trading IT platforms and related.   At the end of the day it's a win-win no matter which way it goes for them. 

But back to your original idiocy.  If you want to believe that government funded scientists didn't see the gravy train, you're as partisan as I've ever thought you were.

So your contention right now is that we should discount peer reviewed science because over 8 years one admin spent 60 Billion when that same admin in one year, with tax subsidies alone, not including the income they generated or the infrastructure of their industry, "spent" almost half that sum. 

tens of trillions of dollars over 8 years versus $60 billion.  Yep, that gravy train is a flowin'.  Amazing how you can tell when someone has never tried to apply for a grant and knows nothing about the process.

[sonofdaxjones]

Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data

This is the typical false argument people like you try to put forth, attempting to paint a picture that government funded climate scientists and related are just out there tin cupping it and have no chance in the face of Big Energy.    A total myth.   Per the GAO, the U.S. government spent $12 BILLION dollars funding climate change science in Federal FY 2014.   

No you're deflecting from the obvious point being made.  You're directly saying that climate scientist/green energy/etc are willing to unehtically alter their science in order to continue their funding.   But you ignore that their vested interest isn't even half of what petrol chemical gets in subsidies:
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

So the point is who has the bigger amount of skin in the game to lie to the public, lobby governmental leaders, and keep their industry going?

Over $60 billion spent on climate change research during the Obama administration alone.

Also understand that Big Energy owns thousands of patents on alternative energy mechanisms and even owns the licences on carbon trading IT platforms and related.   At the end of the day it's a win-win no matter which way it goes for them. 

But back to your original idiocy.  If you want to believe that government funded scientists didn't see the gravy train, you're as partisan as I've ever thought you were.

So your contention right now is that we should discount peer reviewed science because over 8 years one admin spent 60 Billion when that same admin in one year, with tax subsidies alone, not including the income they generated or the infrastructure of their industry, "spent" almost half that sum. 

tens of trillions of dollars over 8 years versus $60 billion.  Yep, that gravy train is a flowin'.  Amazing how you can tell when someone has never tried to apply for a grant and knows nothing about the process.

"tens of trillions of dollars".   You do get that it would take the total market cap of the first three or four largest energy companies in the world just to reach a trillion dollars, now you're putting forth a false narrative that Big Energy is expanding dollars to the tune of multiple times their collective total market cap JUST on a disinformation campaign?   

[ednksu]

Dax are you capable of reading?

I clearly said revenue + infrastructure + tax benefits from these entire companies. 

Is that simple enough for you?


But lets harp on Big Green Energy getting $60 billion over nearly a decade when we spend half that in a year just in tax subsidies.  Clearly BFE is the one we need to worry about getting jaded for money.

[sonofdaxjones]

Dax are you capable of reading?

I clearly said revenue + infrastructure + tax benefits from these entire companies. 

Is that simple enough for you?


But lets harp on Big Green Energy getting $60 billion over nearly a decade when we spend half that in a year just in tax subsidies.  Clearly BFE is the one we need to worry about getting jaded for money.

First of all subsidies for traditional energy are on the decline, and subsidies for inefficient and so called "green energy" are on the increase.     
   
I'm also not harping on anything, you are.

Also, the $60 billion dollar number wasn't Big Green Energy subsidization, it was Climate Change Research funding.   

[sonofdaxjones]

In Federal Fiscal Year 2013 Federal Subsidies for wind and solar were nearly $11 billion dollars, for fossil fuels they were $3.5 billion, when you add in bio-fuel subsidies and other renewables, they collectively dwarfed fossil fuel subsidies.

[CHONGS]

Dax is too much of a coward to call it a hoax.

[star seed 7]

Maybe he just doesn't know what hoax means?