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

[Emo EMAW]

Well it is the Midwest pan.

[star seed 7]

Philadelphia hayseeds

[Panjandrum]

Well it is the Midwest pan.

That is true.  Philadelphia, PA is on the eastern edge of the Midwest.

[sonofdaxjones]

Weather 

[sonofdaxjones]

Fossil Fuels:  The Building Block of Green Energy

Fossil Fuels:  Don't need sun, or wind, or rain for the crops (Rolling blackouts in South Australia, why?  The wind isn't blowing). 

[camKSU]

Fossil Fuels:  The Building Block of Green Energy 50 years ago

FTFY

Also... as the republican conservatives that want to institute a carbon tax cite, why wouldn't you want to have a robust and ubiquitous "insurance" plan in alternative sustainable (practically infinite) energy sources for the long term future of society? Takes a real knuckle-dragger to oppose "saving" for the future when it comes to energy and the environment, or concerning ourselves over "clean air or water"... then again dax and the trumpeters are pretty rough ridin' stupid.

[sonofdaxjones]

Fossil Fuels:  The Building Block of Green Energy 50 years ago

FTFY

Also... as the republican conservatives that want to institute a carbon tax cite, why wouldn't you want to have a robust and ubiquitous "insurance" plan in alternative sustainable (practically infinite) energy sources for the long term future of society? Takes a real knuckle-dragger to oppose "saving" for the future when it comes to energy and the environment, or concerning ourselves over "clean air or water"... then again dax and the trumpeters are pretty rough ridin' stupid.

You just continue to babble.

Good luck even approaching anything remotely reliable in the form of so called "green energy" without using copious amounts of fossil fuels to get there.

As the people of Western Australia are finding out, alternative energy has a long long way to go.   Hopefully the healthcare facilities and related have traditional power sources to see them through.

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

People who are afraid of "climate change" are sad and pathetic.

[SleepFighter]

Can we at least all agree that we should be using a whole lot more nuclear energy?

[wetwillie]

Can we at least all agree that we should be using a whole lot more nuclear energy?

get the eff out of here with that noise

[SleepFighter]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html?m=1

Your can find similar numbers from other sources.


Plus a very low carbon footprint. 

[wetwillie]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html?m=1

Your can find similar numbers from other sources.


Plus a very low carbon footprint. 

Go Fukushima yourself

[SleepFighter]

Those numbers include worst case exposure models for both Chernobyl and Fukushima.

[camKSU]

People in my herd do not deny climate change.  Climate has had swings in variation for thousands of years.  Man has altered the environment and it affects weather - urban asphalt or plowing the prairies.  My herd doesn't accept the conclusions from chicken little doomsdayers who are observing something and then using false data and mathematical gymnastics to come up a scenario that becomes a weapon to achieve the leftist aim of one world government, replacing personal liberty with state control, and creating a communist economy.  Many are whipping up hysteria so they can enrich themselves.

As evident from the drivel you spouted above, your "herd" is rough ridin' misinformed paranoid reactionaries. Turn off fox news and info wars, stop listening to the Koch brothers (who actually are "trying to enrich themselves"), and read what respected scientists and experts the world over are saying on the subject.

It's happening, humans are accelerating it, we have an alternate path to avoid destruction and peril, and it is going to take a concerted and sustained effort... But don't trust me, trust business insider and the pentagon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-debunks-strongest-argument-against-global-warming-climate-change-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/

[camKSU]

People in my herd do not deny climate change.  Climate has had swings in variation for thousands of years.  Man has altered the environment and it affects weather - urban asphalt or plowing the prairies.  My herd doesn't accept the conclusions from chicken little doomsdayers who are observing something and then using false data and mathematical gymnastics to come up a scenario that becomes a weapon to achieve the leftist aim of one world government, replacing personal liberty with state control, and creating a communist economy.  Many are whipping up hysteria so they can enrich themselves.

As evident from the drivel you spouted above, your "herd" is rough ridin' misinformed paranoid reactionaries. Turn off fox news and info wars, stop listening to the Koch brothers (who actually are "trying to enrich themselves"), and read what respected scientists and experts the world over are saying on the subject.

It's happening, humans are accelerating it, we have an alternate path to avoid destruction and peril, and it is going to take a concerted and sustained effort... But don't trust me, trust business insider and the pentagon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-debunks-strongest-argument-against-global-warming-climate-change-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/

It should also be noted that most americans agree that global warming is real, international actions should fight/limit it and that we should tax and regulate to help try and minimize it... According to recent studies.

So it seems your "herd" is pretty small reno/dax.

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/what-trump-voters-think-climate-change

"The report highlighted that most of Trump’s voters support an international agreement to limit climate warming...When it comes to pollution regulation and a carbon tax, the majority of his supporters are also on board. Sixty-two percent support taxing and/or regulating pollution that exacerbates climate change. Unsurprisingly, 77 percent support renewable energy generation on public land.

[sonofdaxjones]

Cam seems to be on a general theme here, anyone who disagrees with him MUST get their information from Fox News and Infowars.

Great way to win hearts and minds and convince people to go with your propaganda, Cam

[sonofdaxjones]

Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

[star seed 7]

You do get your news from infowars tho, you are on record saying that bud

[camKSU]

Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher

[sonofdaxjones]

Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   

[camKSU]

Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   

Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable

[sonofdaxjones]

Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   

Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable

Cam, in this day an age you can say the same thing about any so called MSM source.   Numerous other MSM get it wrong, a lot.   In fact, if you were to go back to the time when many MSM media sources were building their "go to" reputation, and start doing some research, you can find example after example where they just essentially made crap up.   But no databases or technology or ability to truly fact check them existed.   

In this case, this is the typical response of Warmests when they get caught, repeatedly attack the sources who have exposed them. 

[camKSU]

Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   

Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable

Cam, in this day an age you can say the same thing about any so called MSM source.   Numerous other MSM get it wrong, a lot.   In fact, if you were to go back to the time when many MSM media sources were building their "go to" reputation, and start doing some research, you can find example after example where they just essentially made crap up.   But no databases or technology or ability to truly fact check them existed.   

In this case, this is the typical response of Warmests when they get caught, repeatedly attack the sources who have exposed them.

Hey dumb-crap either actually read the article or work on your comprehension because as is pointed out numerous times the difference between a reliable source and fox news/infowars/dailymail is that when proven wrong or when new information comes out a reliable source will update/correct the information or verify the rebuttal. As opposed to doubling down on the stupidity, "fake news", or calling it all a conspiracy... Which is why wikipedia banned them.

The source for the dailymail's own article has disavowed them and their conclusion, the very expert they are saying gives them credence.

Wake up to bullshit you've been fed, my friend.

[camKSU]

Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   

Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable

Cam, in this day an age you can say the same thing about any so called MSM source.   Numerous other MSM get it wrong, a lot.   In fact, if you were to go back to the time when many MSM media sources were building their "go to" reputation, and start doing some research, you can find example after example where they just essentially made crap up.   But no databases or technology or ability to truly fact check them existed.   

In this case, this is the typical response of Warmests when they get caught, repeatedly attack the sources who have exposed them.

Hey dumb-crap either actually read the article or work on your comprehension because as is pointed out numerous times the difference between a reliable source and fox news/infowars/dailymail is that when proven wrong or when new information comes out a reliable source will update/correct the information or verify the rebuttal. As opposed to doubling down on the stupidity, "fake news", or calling it all a conspiracy... Which is why wikipedia banned them.

The source for the dailymail's own article has disavowed them and their conclusion, the very expert they are saying gives them credence.

Wake up to bullshit you've been fed, my friend.

Applicable and pertinent to this discussion...
 [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xecEV4dSAXE[/youtube]

[sonofdaxjones]

You keep going the current politics route and it only exposes how little depth you have.

Sad