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

[sonofdaxjones]

The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?

There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?

I know dax is being a pudding brain just for the sake of it, but before you keep saying completely idiotic things I will just stop you right there and inform you there is a tremendous amount of scholarship on the topic of CO2 concentration in the air we breathe and I know you haven’t and won’t read any of it so I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes:

More is bad

Once you’ve put a stake in the ground that “more” a non scientific term by every measure is bad. Then you must then establish and clarify what the optimum level is. 

So, what is the optimum level if we’re at a “more” state which is, according to you, bad??

[I_have_purplewood]

The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?

There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?

I know dax is being a pudding brain just for the sake of it, but before you keep saying completely idiotic things I will just stop you right there and inform you there is a tremendous amount of scholarship on the topic of CO2 concentration in the air we breathe and I know you haven’t and won’t read any of it so I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes:

More is bad

BAC who not only knows the intricacies of Israelie and Palestine history!  He is astute on all things global warming.  Very lucky to get his knowledge on everything.

[sonofdaxjones]

Let it be known that henceforth all states of “more” (however the #blueanon brain defines that) are bad.

[sonofdaxjones]

The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Dax, you kick the crap out of strawmen at an incredible pace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“The era of global boiling has arrived” The UN

SteveDave-A Masterclass in not knowing

[BIG APPLE CAT]

The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?

There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?

I know dax is being a pudding brain just for the sake of it, but before you keep saying completely idiotic things I will just stop you right there and inform you there is a tremendous amount of scholarship on the topic of CO2 concentration in the air we breathe and I know you haven’t and won’t read any of it so I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes:

More is bad

Once you’ve put a stake in the ground that “more” a non scientific term by every measure is bad. Then you must then establish and clarify what the optimum level is. 

So, what is the optimum level if we’re at a “more” state which is, according to you, bad??

Who TF cares what the “optimum” CO2 concentration is? Optimum for who/what? As it pertains to humans — which almost all of the participants in this dialogue are — well we know what the baseline is (around 400 ppm) and we know what happens when that concentration is increased (for you that means “more”) and the results are unfavorable. Diminished cognitive ability, inability to focus, drowsiness, headache, nausea.

But to your incredibly valid point, yeah, I suppose when it comes to tube worms living on deep sea hydrothermal vents, yeah bring on that CO2 babey, as much as possible. I think dax and his tube worms just put me in checkmate. CASE CLOSED

[I_have_purplewood]

The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?

There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?

I know dax is being a pudding brain just for the sake of it, but before you keep saying completely idiotic things I will just stop you right there and inform you there is a tremendous amount of scholarship on the topic of CO2 concentration in the air we breathe and I know you haven’t and won’t read any of it so I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes:

More is bad

Once you’ve put a stake in the ground that “more” a non scientific term by every measure is bad. Then you must then establish and clarify what the optimum level is. 

So, what is the optimum level if we’re at a “more” state which is, according to you, bad??

Who TF cares what the “optimum” CO2 concentration is? Optimum for who/what? As it pertains to humans — which almost all of the participants in this dialogue are — well we know what the baseline is (around 400 ppm) and we know what happens when that concentration is increased (for you that means “more”) and the results are unfavorable. Diminished cognitive ability, inability to focus, drowsiness, headache, nausea.

But to your incredibly valid point, yeah, I suppose when it comes to tube worms living on deep sea hydrothermal vents, yeah bring on that CO2 babey, as much as possible. I think dax and his tube worms just put me in checkmate. CASE CLOSED

.

[sonofdaxjones]

The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?

There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?

I know dax is being a pudding brain just for the sake of it, but before you keep saying completely idiotic things I will just stop you right there and inform you there is a tremendous amount of scholarship on the topic of CO2 concentration in the air we breathe and I know you haven’t and won’t read any of it so I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes:

More is bad

Once you’ve put a stake in the ground that “more” a non scientific term by every measure is bad. Then you must then establish and clarify what the optimum level is. 

So, what is the optimum level if we’re at a “more” state which is, according to you, bad??

Who TF cares what the “optimum” CO2 concentration is? Optimum for who/what? As it pertains to humans — which almost all of the participants in this dialogue are — well we know what the baseline is (around 400 ppm) and we know what happens when that concentration is increased (for you that means “more”) and the results are unfavorable. Diminished cognitive ability, inability to focus, drowsiness, headache, nausea.

But to your incredibly valid point, yeah, I suppose when it comes to tube worms living on deep sea hydrothermal vents, yeah bring on that CO2 babey, as much as possible. I think dax and his tube worms just put me in checkmate. CASE CLOSED

Case closed . . . there is no conceivable way that any element of climate beyond the rudimentary could ever be defined by "case closed". 

Yesterday, the CO2 levels at Mauna Kea were 416.55ppm . . . according to you, we are mere 16ppm away from "optimum" CO2 levels, or less than 5%.

So, 16ppm is "more" and "more" (according to you) is bad.

BTW, CO2 levels even slightly below 400PPM can have a profound impact on plant growth.










'

[BIG APPLE CAT]

I’m waiting for you to say “you’re wrong and I have proof! And  that proof is I’ve been sitting in an incredibly poorly ventilated room for the last week and the CO2 level is currently at 4000 ppm and as you can see I’m doing just fine”

Please actually tell me that’s what’s happening. Please tell me your computer is in a poorly ventilated room, that would seriously explain so so much

[sonofdaxjones]

You've pulled a number out of the sky, claimed it was "optimal".  You use highly unscientific words and then resort to ridiculous hypothetical situations. 

We are at optimum CO2 levels (according to you) and yet the UN (and others) say the Earth is boiling (while the NH has above average frozen participation on the ground). 

BTW, in green house scenarios, anything below 340ppm is considered a "no growth" environment for plants.  So we're literally hanging just above a no growth state for plants. 

[BIG APPLE CAT]

You've pulled a number out of the sky, claimed it was "optimal".  You use highly unscientific words and then resort to ridiculous hypothetical situations. 

We are at optimum CO2 levels (according to you) and yet the UN (and others) say the Earth is boiling (while the NH has above average frozen participation on the ground). 

BTW, in green house scenarios, anything below 300ppm is considered a "no growth" environment for plants.

Dax wtf are you even talking about? At no point did I ever declare some optimal CO2 concentration. In fact I said who cares? And optimum for who/what?

I said the baseline (please tell me you know the difference between baseline and optimal?) is ~400 ppm, and that concentrations above that have been proven detrimental to human beings.

Have you considered reading for comprehension or nah just keep on truckin?

[DaBigTrain]

Pretty sure it’s keep on truckin

[sonofdaxjones]

You've pulled a number out of the sky, claimed it was "optimal".  You use highly unscientific words and then resort to ridiculous hypothetical situations. 

We are at optimum CO2 levels (according to you) and yet the UN (and others) say the Earth is boiling (while the NH has above average frozen participation on the ground). 

BTW, in green house scenarios, anything below 300ppm is considered a "no growth" environment for plants.

Dax wtf are you even talking about? At no point did I ever declare some optimal CO2 concentration. In fact I said who cares? And optimum for who/what?

I said the baseline (please tell me you know the difference between baseline and optimal?) is ~400 ppm, and that concentrations above that have been proven detrimental to human beings.

Have you considered reading for comprehension or nah just keep on truckin?

LMAO, again, if your ilk is going to declare that we have too much C02, then the optimal level should be known, shouldn't it?  How can you declare that we have too much, or "more" (LMAO) CO2 and that's bad, (again using the established BAC baseline that "more" is bad) without knowing what the correct or optimal level should be? 

As far as the rest goes, you're just pulling ridiculous scenarios that have absolutely no bearing on reality.

So again, the earth is barely clinging to a C02 content level that keeps plants out of a no growth state (William Happers deceleration that the Earth is in C02 deficit, not surplus), yet #blueanon scientists and the #blueanon beloved UN is saying the Earth is boiling because we have too much C02 or "more" (which per BAC is bad). 

[sonofdaxjones]

Pretty sure it’s keep on truckin

DuhBigPsycho: Travel thread (and beyond) indicates he's a prolific user of carbon emitting transportation methods.  But super super worried about the climate 

[DaBigTrain]

Pretty sure it’s keep on truckin

DuhBigPsycho: Travel thread (and beyond) indicates he's a prolific user of carbon emitting transportation methods.  But super super worried about the climate 

If more climate change deniers like you would get on board we would progress faster. Alas tho, you and your people have no intentions to do so. So I’ll keep using existing methods that would go regardless of my opinion.

[sonofdaxjones]

Pretty sure it’s keep on truckin

DuhBigPsycho: Travel thread (and beyond) indicates he's a prolific user of carbon emitting transportation methods.  But super super worried about the climate 

If more climate change deniers like you would get on board we would progress faster. Alas tho, you and your people have no intentions to do so. So I’ll keep using existing methods that would go regardless of my opinion.

Calling someone who disagrees with the con job that #blueanon thought and political leaders are trying to foist on us relative to trace gas driven climate change a "climate denier" is the product of the simplest of brains.

I fully understand that mankind is impacting the environment, but trace gas emissions is no where near the top of the list. But at least you're willing to admit that you are not the least bit interested in practicing what you preach. 

[steve dave]

Old people still attempting to litigate man made global warming in the year of our lord 2023 is pretty fuckin’ wild


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

SteveDave - A solo accreditation threat for Kansas State University . . . and prolific carbon user and contributor to urban sprawl (a real climate problem)

[steve dave]

SteveDave - A solo accreditation threat for Kansas State University . . . and prolific carbon user and contributor to urban sprawl (a real climate problem)

Sure, but what is the point of your constant dumbassery here Dax? Man made global warming is 100% confirmed and is 100% confirmed to be a problem we need to deal with. Do you agree with that? Even most pubs finally do. Because it sure seems like you don’t the way you prance around here saying stupid crap like all of the above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

100% confirmed?  100% confirmed by who?  People who stand to get billions of dollars of research funding.

Note: The editors of Science and Nature had a complete meltdown about this, and the usual's piled on and then started attacking the person and the methods.  So, who do we trust, the scientist, or the publishers and their economic sycophants? 

Trust the Science (unless we don't like what the scientist says):

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

[steve dave]

jesus christ dax, the last soldier dying on this moron hill

[sonofdaxjones]

 

SteveDave doesn't like what that climate scientist is saying.

Trust the Science: Unless it doesn't fit our narrative and agenda (#blueanon)

[Tobias]

Nothing is confirmed.  So anyone saying it’s made up doesn’t have the first rough ridin' clue if it is or not.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

Dax makes a valid point. All of the independent scientists are in total groupthink lockstep. Why can’t they see the truth like the researchers from the oil and gas funded thinktanks? (Bc literally the Cato Institute et. al are the only ones making these spurious claims)

[wetwillie]

Just tested my house and I'm at 401 PPM

[steve dave]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk