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

[sys]

you're awfully self-righteous for someone who is producing children, camksu.

[The Big Train]

Drill baby drill and suck that ground dry!  Burn burn burn and torch that sky!

[camKSU]

you're awfully self-riotous for someone who is producing children, camksu.

No question, it is something I think about.

However, I find solace in knowing that I will educate my offspring to be skeptical but also logical and rational when it comes to science and information. Stubbornness. ignorance, and pride can certainly go too far.

Plus, I would like to be the change I want to see in the world and the best way I can see to succeed in that is by "walking the walk" when it comes to being active and engaged in the political process and society at large... and also by raising children in my own image. Arrogant I know, but I think being a parent in this world requires a little delusional arrogance and self-righteousness.

[sys]

I think being a parent in this world requires a little delusional arrogance and self-righteousness.

i believe so.

[sonofdaxjones]

The problem cam has, and I'll state it again, the continual character assassination of individuals who expose the warmest propagandist community for what it is, and that is they're a body driven by a political agenda . . . that is not the way to go to make your case. 

But that's the way they go to every time they're exposed.   It's a climate Star Chamber who believes that they get to decide what's good science and what isn't.   That believes they get to decide what gets published and what doesn't get published.  If you'd paid any attention, you'd understand that it's a body that has no stomach at all for anyone that wants to: Question them, fact check them, or analyze their data.   That's why they repeatedly avoid FOIA requests (illegally), that's why they repeatedly ignore subpoena's from Congress (illegally), that's why they repeatedly must be taken to court to be forced to hand over their work that's funded by taxpayers in most cases.

There's no use in responding to cam anymore because he just trundles out the same old nonsensical blather that's yanked straight from the headlines and has zero depth or substance.

[camKSU]

The problem cam has, and I'll state it again, the continual character assassination of individuals who expose the warmest propagandist community for what it is, and that is they're a body driven by a political agenda . . . that is not the way to go to make your case. 

But that's the way they go to every time they're exposed.   It's a climate Star Chamber who believes that they get to decide what's good science and what isn't.   That believes they get to decide what gets published and what doesn't get published.  If you'd paid any attention, you'd understand that it's a body that has no stomach at all for anyone that wants to: Question them, fact check them, or analyze their data.   That's why they repeatedly avoid FOIA requests (illegally), that's why they repeatedly ignore subpoena's from Congress (illegally), that's why they repeatedly must be taken to court to be forced to hand over their work that's funded by taxpayers in most cases.

There's no use in responding to cam anymore because he just trundles out the same old nonsensical blather that's yanked straight from the headlines and has zero depth or substance.

Yes, yes, it's the 97% of scientists, the pentagon, world community, and a consensus of americans that are delusional and wrong. Keep clinging to the conspiracy.

Dailymail, breitbart, infowars, and trump are such trustworthy sources to gather your information and knowledge.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dax...

[Emo EMAW]

Cam would do better convince people if he wasn't such an bad person, IMO.

[SdK]

Cam. Earth will always win in the end. If humans die off, oh well. I could care less. We belong to Earth not the other way around.

[camKSU]

Cam would do better convince people if he wasn't such an bad person, IMO.

There is absolutely no convincing dax, ksuw, fsd, etc... and I'm not trying to do that. They live in "alternate world".

I am trying to point out their hypocrisy and logical-fallacies though. And it's not the first time, nor the last, that I will be called an bad person.

I embrace it.

And yeah, it goes without saying that earth will survive. I care though if humans survive... I'm self-righteous enough to not have lost hope in mankind.

[SdK]

It's a circle of life not a circle of hope. Species come species go. Earth lives on.

[Emo EMAW]

Cam would do better convince people if he wasn't such an bad person, IMO.

There is absolutely no convincing dax, ksuw, fsd, etc... and I'm not trying to do that. They live in "alternate world".

I am trying to point out their hypocrisy and logical-fallacies though. And it's not the first time, nor the last, that I will be called an bad person.

I embrace it.

And yeah, it goes without saying that earth will survive. I care though if humans survive... I'm self-righteous enough to not have lost hope in mankind.

If you know you can't convince them then why waste the breath?

Meanwhile here you are arguing with them anyway sounding like an bad person and dozens of people are silently reading who all might be convinced, but they won't because of your tact.  You're detracting from your own cause. 

You might ask yourself which is more important, that people perceive you as having won an argument or if people are convinced?

[Gooch]

Cam would do better convince people if he wasn't such an bad person, IMO.

There is absolutely no convincing dax, ksuw, fsd, etc... and I'm not trying to do that. They live in "alternate world".

I am trying to point out their hypocrisy and logical-fallacies though. And it's not the first time, nor the last, that I will be called an bad person.

I embrace it.

And yeah, it goes without saying that earth will survive. I care though if humans survive... I'm self-righteous enough to not have lost hope in mankind.

If you know you can't convince them then why waste the breath?

Meanwhile here you are arguing with them anyway sounding like an bad person and dozens of people are silently reading who all might be convinced, but they won't because of your tact.  You're detracting from your own cause. 

You might ask yourself which is more important, that people perceive you as having won an argument or if people are convinced?

wrong

[EMAWican]

The same scientists and experts that claim without a doubt that humans are 100% a major contributor to global climate change are the same ones that find 15-20,000 new species of organisms each year with millions of undiscovered ones still out there. The same ones that have discovered less than 10% of our oceans, that discovered new human tribes in the Amazon, that find millions of unknown archaeological finds each year that force reevaluation of what we thought we know/knew, and that still can't accurately predict the weather two days from now.   

[Rage Against the McKee]

The same scientists and experts that claim without a doubt that humans are 100% a major contributor to global climate change are the same ones that find 15-20,000 new species of organisms each year with millions of undiscovered ones still out there. The same ones that have discovered less than 10% of our oceans, that discovered new human tribes in the Amazon, that find millions of unknown archaeological finds each year that force reevaluation of what we thought we know/knew, and that still can't accurately predict the weather two days from now.   

Greenhouse theory is proven science, though.

[camKSU]

Cam would do better convince people if he wasn't such an bad person, IMO.

There is absolutely no convincing dax, ksuw, fsd, etc... and I'm not trying to do that. They live in "alternate world".

I am trying to point out their hypocrisy and logical-fallacies though. And it's not the first time, nor the last, that I will be called an bad person.

I embrace it.

And yeah, it goes without saying that earth will survive. I care though if humans survive... I'm self-righteous enough to not have lost hope in mankind.

If you know you can't convince them then why waste the breath?

Meanwhile here you are arguing with them anyway sounding like an bad person and dozens of people are silently reading who all might be convinced, but they won't because of your tact.  You're detracting from your own cause. 

You might ask yourself which is more important, that people perceive you as having won an argument or if people are convinced?

All great points. And in large part I agree with you, I should be a better poster/person in dealing with people like dax, ksuw, fsd, etc... I am probably wrong in my approach with how I am trying to broach reality, their cognitive dissonance, and in convincing others of my point of view.

But to be honest, I have lost my patience trying to "play nice" or "have patience" with the fringe alt-right. It's cathartic to tell them how it is, and give them a taste of their own medicine... When in real life I would keep my mouth shut, letting them spout off, spewing their ignorance or misinformation.

And to be clear I don't think scientists/science/experts are infallible... But I would rather operate under the best information and knowledge we have at this time rather than cling to a small minority of dissension, ignoring rebuttals or believing in vast conspiracy when all data and logic points in the opposite direction. In this sense, I am using Occam's razor on what I believe to be more likely.

 

[Emo EMAW]

I think there is a great chance the Dax/ksuw/fsd don't actually believe as strongly in their stances as they anonymously post here.  Their posts might be cathartic as well, or help them convince themselves that what we are doing to the world right now isn't all bad.  It's not like we can easily control it, reverse it, etc.  So better to some people to pretend we can't do anything and even if we could it might not matter anyways.

I myself am always a skeptic, but because of some particular expertise I do know there are low hanging fruits out there where regulation would absolutely benefit both the consumer and the environment, if you assume that using less electricity for the same function benefits the environment.  I do see some movements so that is promising.  We should keep doing those.

I do however fear that we the great US, with our insatiable appetite for consumer goods at low prices, have pushed a great deal of manufacturing operations overseas where there is no or little regulation.  Countries like India and China that produce a great deal of the goods we consume, to their own (an maybe ours) long-term detriment.

In the end, if we truly believe what we are doing is bad for Mother Earth, then we need to consume less and consume more efficiently.  That's a tough pill to swallow for almost everyone alive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The same scientists and experts that claim without a doubt that humans are 100% a major contributor to global climate change are the same ones that find 15-20,000 new species of organisms each year with millions of undiscovered ones still out there. The same ones that have discovered less than 10% of our oceans, that discovered new human tribes in the Amazon, that find millions of unknown archaeological finds each year that force reevaluation of what we thought we know/knew, and that still can't accurately predict the weather two days from now.   

Greenhouse theory is proven science, though.

The greenhouse effect in a controlled environment is proven science. Greenhouse theory as it applies to our massively complex climate with countless variables is anything but proven science.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The same scientists and experts that claim without a doubt that humans are 100% a major contributor to global climate change are the same ones that find 15-20,000 new species of organisms each year with millions of undiscovered ones still out there. The same ones that have discovered less than 10% of our oceans, that discovered new human tribes in the Amazon, that find millions of unknown archaeological finds each year that force reevaluation of what we thought we know/knew, and that still can't accurately predict the weather two days from now.   

Greenhouse theory is proven science, though.

The greenhouse effect in a controlled environment is proven science. Greenhouse theory as it applies to our massively complex climate with countless variables is anything but proven science.

 

[The Big Train]

I think we just found out no science is real, of any kind, since they all have some kind of variable this is unknown/complex.

[The Big Train]

Even controlled environment doesn't account for a stray electron or neutrino.  I mean we could have a rogue Higgs particle in a controlled experiment and would never know.

CASE CLOSED!

[camKSU]

I think there is a great chance the Dax/ksuw/fsd don't actually believe as strongly in their stances as they anonymously post here.  Their posts might be cathartic as well, or help them convince themselves that what we are doing to the world right now isn't all bad.  It's not like we can easily control it, reverse it, etc.  So better to some people to pretend we can't do anything and even if we could it might not matter anyways.

I myself am always a skeptic, but because of some particular expertise I do know there are low hanging fruits out there where regulation would absolutely benefit both the consumer and the environment, if you assume that using less electricity for the same function benefits the environment.  I do see some movements so that is promising.  We should keep doing those.

I do however fear that we the great US, with our insatiable appetite for consumer goods at low prices, have pushed a great deal of manufacturing operations overseas where there is no or little regulation.  Countries like India and China that produce a great deal of the goods we consume, to their own (an maybe ours) long-term detriment.

In the end, if we truly believe what we are doing is bad for Mother Earth, then we need to consume less and consume more efficiently.  That's a tough pill to swallow for almost everyone alive.

Couldn't agree more... And a lot of the low-hanging fruit are here by and large because of investment into emerging technologies. As well, to completely adapt and reorient society, economies, and markets will be hard but it also has the potential to create a lot of jobs and new growth. Addressing these very serious and overwhelming issues isn't easy by any means but in this disruption is a lot of opportunity as well.

And sure, it might be easier to stomach and sleep at night taking the "simple but wrong" world view, but I would rather live in reality, know the real issues facing us, and come to grips with the "complex but real" solutions.

Thanks for your thoughts... I appreciate the level headed observations.

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

Nobody itt can explain global climate warming change, let alone the science behind it.

What we do know is that even in the most aggressive of the models (which are all overstated), there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

[mocat]

another thing we do know is that something like 80% of conservative christians are climate change deniers

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

The term "climate change" has no substantive meaning, it is a political platitude, so there's nothing to actually accept or deny.

Anyone accusing another of "denying climate change" is a political tool, a pawn, a stooge. It's the same thing as accusing someone who opposes additional income tax on high earners or a federal minimum wage of $20 as denying "wealth inequality".

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

I mean, you idiots had to rename global warming climate change to account for the cooling you know deny, and you've done so lockstep without a question asked. That's  pathetic.