climate denier in charge of EPA transition

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-17-2016, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'll bet you $100.

And I'm still waiting for that link that shows the planet is actually cooling right now.

Right. My mind is open. And he apparently has all the answers. Why not share a couple links with this knowledge?

[Beaker]

(11-16-2016, 08:38 PM)djam Wrote: Says the guy named after a muppet lol. Keep on living in fear homie. I'll be smiling 

Keep on living in uninformed ignorance. And nobody smiles when stupid rules the day.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-17-2016, 04:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So what am i missing?

Ask the scientists who's models keep getting it wrong year after year.  But for convenience sake, we can just revise past temperatures lower.

Otherwise just some of what you are missing is forcing, feedback, and logarithmic amplification.  And you won't find much info on that at HuffPo or Politico.

[fredtoast]

(11-17-2016, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'll bet you $100.

And I'm still waiting for that link that shows the planet is actually cooling right now.

Hey Mr. "I know more about global warming than anyone else here", where is that link that shows the earth is currently cooling?

[fredtoast]

(11-19-2016, 05:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ask the scientists who's models keep getting it wrong year after year.  But for convenience sake, we can just revise past temperatures lower.

Otherwise just some of what you are missing is forcing, feedback, and logarithmic amplification.  And you won't find much info on that at HuffPo or Politico.

Either you don't know how to read the question I asked, or you don't know the meaning of the words you used in your answer.

Are you saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or are you saying than we have not pumped billions of tons of it into the atmosphere over the last century?

And what does logarithmic amplification have to do with it?

[BmorePat87]

Transition team executive committee member Anthony Scaramucci was on CNN discussing the environment, saying that Trump wants the environment to be clean, something people can believe in whether or not they believe in climate change. When corrected by the host after saying that climate change was still an open question with scientists, Scaramucci, in an attempt to defend his ignorance, said

Quote:"There was an overwhelming science that the Earth was flat and there was an overwhelming science that we were the center of the world"

Except a spherical model of Earth was widely accepted by the scientific community. Hell, even a heliocentric model of the universe had proponents for centuries before we had the ability to prove that the Earth revolves around the sun.

[Dill]

(11-19-2016, 05:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ask the scientists who's models keep getting it wrong year after year.  But for convenience sake, we can just revise past temperatures lower.

Otherwise just some of what you are missing is forcing, feedback, and logarithmic amplification.  And you won't find much info on that at HuffPo or Politico.

Like those cancer researchers getting it wrong year after year, as you mentioned on another thread?

So we can't find much info on Huffpo or Politico, and I know from past experience you aren't going to tell us,
so where should be looking?

[Dill]

(11-28-2016, 10:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And what does logarithmic amplification have to do with it?

Get ready Fred--He is not going to explain that because you would not understand.

[Griever]

(12-15-2016, 03:55 AM)Dill Wrote: Like those cancer researchers getting it wrong year after year, as you mentioned on another thread?

So we can't find much info on Huffpo or Politico, and I know from past experience you aren't going to tell us,
so where should be looking?

obviously you should check fox news, drudge, breitbart, info wars etc

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-14-2016, 02:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Transition team executive committee member Anthony Scaramucci was on CNN discussing the environment, saying that Trump wants the environment to be clean, something people can believe in whether or not they believe in climate change. When corrected by the host after saying that climate change was still an open question with scientists, Scaramucci, in an attempt to defend his ignorance, said



Except a spherical model of Earth was widely accepted by the scientific community. Hell, even a heliocentric model of the universe had proponents for centuries before we had the ability to prove that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Were those beliefs based upon science or creation myths?  Regardless, "Science" proved those beliefs incorrect approximately half a millennium before Christ was born. But, I understand his job: professional bullshit artist. 

[Dill]

(12-15-2016, 11:17 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Were those beliefs based upon science or creation myths?  Regardless, "Science" proved those beliefs incorrect approximately half a millennium before Christ was born. But, I understand his job: professional bullshit artist. 

In fact, one could argue that modern science, what we really call "science" and not just a system of beliefs about nature, emerges in the 16th century when astronomy distinguishes itself from astrology and the "common sense" understanding that the earth is flat.  So it would be quite wrong to pose this historical example as some kind of paradigm shift within science. Astronomy marks the emergence of science from non-science.

What bothers me about Scaramucci in this case is his attempt to use the provisional character of all scientific theory--one source of its strength--as a kind of weakness, a basis for general distrust.  One sees this tactic deployed by big business interests when science threatens profits (e.g., the tobacco and extraction industries), and by religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam) when it threatens religious "truths." 

There are, of course, paradigm shifts within science and periods in which science is unsettled as advocates of an older paradigm face off with those of a newer. But I cannot think of any such case in which one side is invested in undermining science per se to get its views accepted.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-15-2016, 03:49 PM)Dill Wrote: In fact, one could argue that modern science, what we really call "science" and not just a system of beliefs about nature, emerges in the 16th century when astronomy distinguishes itself from astrology and the "common sense" understanding that the earth is flat.  So it would be quite wrong to pose this historical example as some kind of paradigm shift within science. Astronomy marks the emergence of science from non-science.

What bothers me about Scaramucci in this case is his attempt to use the provisional character of all scientific theory--one source of its strength--as a kind of weakness, a basis for general distrust.  One sees this tactic deployed by big business interests when science threatens profits (e.g., the tobacco and extraction industries), and by religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam) when it threatens religious "truths." 

There are, of course, paradigm shifts within science and periods in which science is unsettled as advocates of an older paradigm face off with those of a newer. But I cannot think of any such case in which one side is invested in undermining science per se to get its views accepted.

Well, that's one "theory."

[Benton]

I don't believe in global warming in the context of permanent temperature change caused primarily by people burning fossil fuels. I believe man — as much as any organism with a large population — has an impact on their environment. And we're most likely making it increase some.

But my issue issue: why not change because it makes sense?

Fossil fuels are the main offender. They're also a finite source. With energy needs growing every day as the planet's population gets bigger and bigger, we're needing more and more fossil fuels (some of which are needed in things outside just powering your air conditioner or wife's minivan). The more we need, the fewer we've got, the higher the price goes.

So why not develop alternate energy sources, not because a really REALLY small slice of data (because, really, the recorded temperatures we have are too small to extrapolate much from, other than the fact that we don't have much historical data) points to average temperature increases. Do it because the future of not having gas for you car or electricity for your house is getting closer and closer. Of course, before we get there, it's going to be a cost issue, where you can still get a gallon of gas, but it's going to be at prices too high for many to afford.

Batteries, solar, wind, whatever. We should've been pumping money into researching it 10-20 years ago instead of just saying "hey, look, gas is $1.50!"

[Dill]

(12-15-2016, 04:43 PM)Benton Wrote: But my issue issue: why not change because it makes sense?

Fossil fuels are the main offender. They're also a finite source. With energy needs growing every day as the planet's population gets bigger and bigger, we're needing more and more fossil fuels (some of which are needed in things outside just powering your air conditioner or wife's minivan). The more we need, the fewer we've got, the higher the price goes.

So why not develop alternate energy sources, not because a really REALLY small slice of data (because, really, the recorded temperatures we have are too small to extrapolate much from, other than the fact that we don't have much historical data) points to average temperature increases. Do it because the future of not having gas for you car or electricity for your house is getting closer and closer. Of course, before we get there, it's going to be a cost issue, where you can still get a gallon of gas, but it's going to be at prices too high for many to afford.

Batteries, solar, wind, whatever. We should've been pumping money into researching it 10-20 years ago instead of just saying "hey, look, gas is $1.50!"

73 trillion dollars worth of hydrocarbons still in the ground just begging extraction and you want to develop alternative sources? 

I don't think we are going to be pumping money into alternative energy for the next couple years, if "we" means the federal government or Big Oil.
The Chinese cannot hoax our president elect and his appointees

[GMDino]

(12-15-2016, 04:43 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't believe in global warming in the context of permanent temperature change caused primarily by people burning fossil fuels. I believe man — as much as any organism with a large population — has an impact on their environment. And we're most likely making it increase some.

But my issue issue: why not change because it makes sense?

Fossil fuels are the main offender. They're also a finite source. With energy needs growing every day as the planet's population gets bigger and bigger, we're needing more and more fossil fuels (some of which are needed in things outside just powering your air conditioner or wife's minivan). The more we need, the fewer we've got, the higher the price goes.

So why not develop alternate energy sources, not because a really REALLY small slice of data (because, really, the recorded temperatures we have are too small to extrapolate much from, other than the fact that we don't have much historical data) points to average temperature increases. Do it because the future of not having gas for you car or electricity for your house is getting closer and closer. Of course, before we get there, it's going to be a cost issue, where you can still get a gallon of gas, but it's going to be at prices too high for many to afford.

Batteries, solar, wind, whatever. We should've been pumping money into researching it 10-20 years ago instead of just saying "hey, look, gas is $1.50!"

[fredtoast]

(12-16-2016, 12:39 AM)Dill Wrote: 73 trillion dollars worth of hydrocarbons still in the ground just begging extraction and you want to develop alternative sources? 

Never mind all those pesky earthquakes.