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

[camKSU]

Dax, what do you think of Pruitt saying that Trump and the administration have created 50k coal jobs since taking office? Any opinion on Pruitt appointing Oil/Gas/Extraction/Production lobbyists to the EPA?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/
https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html

[sonofdaxjones]

Wind and solar accounted for less than a quarter of the energy consumed from biomass consumption (wood, poop, leaves etc). 

Accounting for less than 2% of total energy consumed in 2015.

Just 98% more to go even after trillions in mandated investment into wind and solar worldwide.   Gosh, just don't see how the concept of energy poverty could be denied given the amount of consumer funds that have been extracted from the masses to bolster a system that produces less than 2% of the worlds power.

[Gooch]

Well the last mini ice age in the late 1880's was linked to a very significant eruption of the volcano Krakatoa but that does not fit your narrative does it?

[sonofdaxjones]

Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 











LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off. 

[sonofdaxjones]

Well the last mini ice age in the late 1880's was linked to a very significant eruption of the volcano Krakatoa but that does not fit your narrative does it?

Weird, have I ever said that earth's climate hasn't been impacted by solar activity, volcanic activity or anything of the sort?   The problem that people like you have, you've gone all in on  AGW.  All roads lead to AGW no matter what else is happening in terms of naturally occurring climate variability and geological activity.  Not to mention land use practices, technological capabilities of detection etc. etc.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The time magazine cover with the penguin is fake, dax. The blue cover with the frozen guy is real, though.

[Gooch]

I would not be the least bit shocked if you were a flat earther too. sad

[sonofdaxjones]

Dax, what do you think of Pruitt saying that Trump and the administration have created 50k coal jobs since taking office? Any opinion on Pruitt appointing Oil/Gas/Extraction/Production lobbyists to the EPA?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/
https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html

Considering that after trillions have been spent on renewables and it still accounts for less than 5% of the worlds power.   What idiots like you don't get is, your renewable utopia will be built on the back of fossil fuels.

But I'm just remembering that people like you laugh at the concept of energy poverty while systems that receive more government subsidies than any other energy producing system (taxpayer money on top of the monthly bill) is still meeting so little of the worlds energy demands.

[camKSU]

Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

[sonofdaxjones]

I would not be the least bit shocked if you were a flat earther too. sad

tapping out again?

[Gooch]

I would not be the least bit shocked if you were a flat earther too. sad

tapping out again?

Yes, I refuse to argue with idiots.

[sonofdaxjones]

Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 











LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science. 

[camKSU]

Dax, what do you think of Pruitt saying that Trump and the administration have created 50k coal jobs since taking office? Any opinion on Pruitt appointing Oil/Gas/Extraction/Production lobbyists to the EPA?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/
https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html

Considering that after trillions have been spent on renewables and it still accounts for less than 5% of the worlds power.   What idiots like you don't get is, your renewable utopia will be built on the back of fossil fuels.

But I'm just remembering that people like you laugh at the concept of energy poverty while systems that receive more government subsidies than any other energy producing system (taxpayer money on top of the monthly bill) is still meeting so little of the worlds energy demands.

Not answering the questions... Got it.

[sonofdaxjones]

I would not be the least bit shocked if you were a flat earther too. sad

tapping out again?

Yes, I refuse to argue with idiots.

You brought up two factors, of which I have never denied either.  Derp, Volcanoes Derp Climatic/Geological events derp.   You bring those things up yet clearly side with an agenda which purposely seeks to mitigate or completely dismiss the same in order to further its agenda.

Yes, you are an idiot.

[sonofdaxjones]

Dax, what do you think of Pruitt saying that Trump and the administration have created 50k coal jobs since taking office? Any opinion on Pruitt appointing Oil/Gas/Extraction/Production lobbyists to the EPA?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/
https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html

Considering that after trillions have been spent on renewables and it still accounts for less than 5% of the worlds power.   What idiots like you don't get is, your renewable utopia will be built on the back of fossil fuels.

But I'm just remembering that people like you laugh at the concept of energy poverty while systems that receive more government subsidies than any other energy producing system (taxpayer money on top of the monthly bill) is still meeting so little of the worlds energy demands.

Not answering the questions... Got it.

Face it, you just reconcile yourself to the reality that what you desire needs fossil fuels (lots of them) every step of the way.

[camKSU]

Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

[star seed 7]

One of those is fake, the other is the one that was retracted because the author was "over enthusiastic". Smdh dax, how about some infowars links next?

[sonofdaxjones]

Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

[star seed 7]

Let this sink in, dax the denier just posted a photoshopped time magazine cover as proof that global warming is a hoax by the Chinese

[sonofdaxjones]

One of those is fake, the other is the one that was retracted because the author was "over enthusiastic". Smdh dax, how about some infowars links next?

You bring so little any more.

Sad

[camKSU]

Let this sink in, dax the denier just posted a photoshopped time magazine cover as proof that global warming is a hoax by the Chinese

[camKSU]

Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public

[sonofdaxjones]

Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public

That's what I call playing fast and loose with "lying to the public", you implied that there was some sort of broad based consumer disinformation campaign.   That's nothing more than stuff out of beltway lobbying 101, which the vast majority of American's pay no attention to or don't even know even exists.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You do realize that the last ice age was due to a global extinction level event (impact from more than likely an asteroid or comet) not just a random fluctuation in the earths climate, right? Ya know that thing that killed off all the dinosaurs.

This isn't even remotely true. The last major "ice age" - the Pleistocene Epoch - occurred long, long, looooong after the dinosaurs were gone, and while it is certainly possible that a comet impact could cause an ice age, scientists generally agree that ice ages are caused by a complex relationship between things like ocean current, atmospheric composition, distance from the sun, intensity of solar radiation, etc.

I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make, but your statement was so utterly silly that you should probably just stop now.

[star seed 7]

Be cool man, dax is feeling a little embarrassed over his depantsing earlier. No need to rub his face in it.