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

[The Big Train]

https://twitter.com/350/status/858366821883416576

[Emo EMAW]

Candidate trump often said we need environmental regs more like China and India and clean air and water is hurting businesses

Should be pretty easy to find a direct quote with context then.  Go forth chubby wubby!

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

Take it to the libtards losing their minds thread for the illusory right winged effort to pollute the earth

[bucket]

Candidate trump often said we need environmental regs more like China and India and clean air and water is hurting businesses

Should be pretty easy to find a direct quote with context then.  Go forth chubby wubby!

Trump signed an EO that made it pretty clear he's not interested in clean air or water.

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

Illusory truth, brought to you by the libtarded

[sonofdaxjones]

Has Al Gore been given $15 Trillion to fix the climate yet? 

[The Big Train]

I think he's working on fixing the internet first

[camKSU]

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/

Hmm... Sure seems like COLUSION/bribes to me.

(Try not to be triggered by the source Dax, FSD, Wacky)

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

Scott Pruitt didn't need help getting confirmed because majority.  Moral majority, that is.

[Yard Dog]

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/

Hmm... Sure seems like COLUSION/bribes to me.

(Try not to be triggered by the source Dax, FSD, Wacky)

I apologize, but that sounds like a load of hypocrisy. If your candidate was the POTUS right now and you heard that George Soros spent 3 million dollars to get a popular tree hugger in the cabinet you'd be all about it.

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

Don't worry, cam, who represents the party of knowledge, has repeatedly stated the world is in imminent danger (which is insane and ignorant), and equivocates the recognition of this mistruth as super-moral, above all moral principles, which provides a false post-facto justification for taking money away from one group of people and giving it to another.

Most people who orchestrate ponzi schemes ate afflicted with this type of psychopathy

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Repeat after me: Regulating CO2 emissions has nothing to do with clean air or water....

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

https://twitter.com/350/status/858366821883416576

If you squint, you can see Bill Nye at the stage in front of the Capital. He's doing some sort of dance....

[Gooch]

No you can't

[camKSU]

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/

Hmm... Sure seems like COLUSION/bribes to me.

(Try not to be triggered by the source Dax, FSD, Wacky)

I apologize, but that sounds like a load of hypocrisy. If your candidate was the POTUS right now and you heard that George Soros spent 3 million dollars to get a popular tree hugger in the cabinet you'd be all about it.

Not true in the slightest... I just got done stressing in another thread the importance of campaign finance reform, which I hope would include this type of tomfoolery.

Just keep clinging to the irrational belief that our actions and systems don't affect things on a larger scale... Those who believe the consensus of scientists and researchers will be anxiously waiting for you to realize your folly, and hopefully, it's not too late.

[sonofdaxjones]

Love NyeCam's logic.  Even if you just marginally disagree that AGW is driving the entirety of climate change (remember in global warmist propagandist world, ALL climate change is now caused by man) than you're "anti science".

Oh, FFS NyeCam, cut the grade school bullshit.  No one is saying that man doesn't impact nature/climate/our natural surroundings. 

[star seed 7]

Love NyeCam's logic.  Even if you just marginally disagree that AGW is driving the entirety of climate change (remember in global warmist propagandist world, ALL climate change is now caused by man) than you're "anti science".

Oh, FFS NyeCam, cut the grade school bullshit.  No one is saying that man doesn't impact nature/climate/our natural surroundings.

It's like you don't even listen to republicans

[sonofdaxjones]

Love NyeCam's logic.  Even if you just marginally disagree that AGW is driving the entirety of climate change (remember in global warmist propagandist world, ALL climate change is now caused by man) than you're "anti science".

Oh, FFS NyeCam, cut the grade school bullshit.  No one is saying that man doesn't impact nature/climate/our natural surroundings.

It's like you don't even listen to republicans

Weird post

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

We're all going to die
-cam

Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.

Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.

By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn’t, because there’s another lesson here — this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy. As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

I’ve taken the epigraph for this column from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, who knew something about the evils of certitude. Perhaps if there had been less certitude and more second-guessing in Clinton’s campaign, she’d be president. Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.

https://nyti.ms/2qfZ0ds

[sonofdaxjones]

We need to put NyeCam squarely on Team15TrillionForGore

[Yard Dog]

We're all going to die
-cam

Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.

Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.

By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn’t, because there’s another lesson here — this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy. As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

I’ve taken the epigraph for this column from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, who knew something about the evils of certitude. Perhaps if there had been less certitude and more second-guessing in Clinton’s campaign, she’d be president. Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.

https://nyti.ms/2qfZ0ds

[sonofdaxjones]

Still trying to get a feel for the "correct" PPM level. 

Certainly among the trove of "settled science" the optimum level of CO2 has been determined. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/

Hmm... Sure seems like COLUSION/bribes to me.

(Try not to be triggered by the source Dax, FSD, Wacky)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/koch-brothers-donald-trump-clash-resistance-conservative-billionaires-network-us-president-charles-a7560706.html

[sonofdaxjones]

COLUSION?  Oh you mean sue and settle?

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

Is cam zach?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-editors-have-a-meltdown-1493766186