• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pruitt will launch program to 'critique' climate science

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
let's not kid ourselves it will be industry "scientist." There will be no objective discussion, it's all about deregulation for the mighty dollar. We need to relearn our past mistakes. Look up the history on leaded fuel and why it took so long to finally remove lead from Gasoline.
 
Last edited:
The EPA, so called "Environmental Protection Agency" that the regime is assembling right now, consisting of oil industry lobbyists, climate change deniers etc...is probaby THE biggest scam/con of this administration.

We are literally talking human health and lives being at stake here. This Pruitt, the head of this fake agency, he just approved (respective reversed a ban) on an insecticide which is toxic. ("Toxic" == means people get sick or can die, for all those who shouldn't know what "toxic" means).
This is your Environment "Protection" Agency. I really wonder whether it's possible to sue them because of this more-than-obvious deception going on - the name of this agency which implies something which is not the case (any more).
 
boomerang said:
And the rest of the scientists can what, pound sand? Is science ever 'settled'? Does the scientific community operate under the principle of majority rule?
Click to expand...
Majority (actually all) of the evidence rule.

It's funny you think there is some significant downtrodden minority of scientists who are being silenced by the evil Al Gore worshiping majority.

Here's the dirty little secret Boomerang, if the less than 3% of climate scientists who practice climate science and believe something other than the mainstream could support their hypotheses they would be adopted by the mainstream. They haven't and they can't so they have failed.

Science isn't debate club and all opinions are not equal. You either prove your hypothesis or you shut up.

Now that might be hard to understand for someone such as yourself who still believes things that aren't true like trickle down economics and that Santa Claus is real but man-made climate change is so well supported the only changes to its theory that scientists will find will be limited and subtle.
 
pmv said:
There's already a program to critique climate science. It's called 'climate science'. That's how science works.

Wonder if these 'experts' will just be the same few (mostly Alabama at Huntsville?) guys who have been attacking the mainstream science for decades now, without coming up with anything of substance?

This might not be a complete travesty, if it involves funding actual relevantly-qualified scientists. I'm sure the conventional science can cope as it has with the existing 'skeptic' minority, and more science is not necessarily a bad thing even if its funded for biased reasons. But I hope it won't just be giving a louder voice to a bunch of unqualified crackpots with no scientific qualifications at all or qualifications in the wrong fields.
Click to expand...
Yup.

Besides UAH John Christy I'd also expect Judith Curry. She's got a lot of free time now that she resigned form Georgia Tech.
 
Just in case anyone wants to read a different take on that "study"
https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/01/...limate-change-in-the-21st-century/#more-23162

"Another peer-reviewed paper predicting disaster from climate change by misrepresenting and exaggerating the science. We can still learn much from it."


Paratus said:
Well the "good news" such as it is, is guess who will be bearing the brunt of climate change cost in the US through out the rest of the century according to a new study?
hsiang1HR-800x423.jpg


https://arstechnica.com/science/201...e-world-climate-change-will-hit-poor-hardest/

Looks like the red states will be paying more than their fair share. (Just like with health care, jobs, the environment, etc. but hey they voted for it)
Click to expand...
 
boomerang said:
Help what?. It's all settled in the minds of the true believers because it has taken on the trapping of organized religion. One that dictates that everyone must tithe to it regardless of their belief. This program is a good thing. Let the scientific community on both sides of the equation duke it out.
Click to expand...
Funny, I don't know anyone who thinks like that. Seems like most people see a potential problem, and a large amount of data that seems to suggest there is a problem.

It's like when I hear a knocking noise in my car...I don't know shit about cars, but I don't 100% think it's a major issue, and neither think it's 100% not a problem. If I'm worried enough about it, I'll have it checked out by people who know cars. If I still am not convinced, or don't like the cost or whatever, I might get more opinions.

It's quite "conservative" to look at climate change as a potential threat to humanity based on the data.

I also look at problems from a "what if we are wrong" perspective. My job as a database programmer/admin has trained me I guess. If climate change "zealots" are wrong...what, we spend a bunch of money on improving the environment? What a disaster. If they are right...well, we are fucked. If we wait until we are all 100% convinced there is a problem...it might be too late. So if I'm going to err it's on the side of caution.
 
The Republican base who buys into the lies on climate change of politicians who are mostly lawyers in education. Believing that climate change is not real and primarily driven by human activity is one of the biggest indicators that Republicans are being radicalized and the GOP is an extremist group.

The Republican organization is becoming a fanatical extremist group, feeding outright demonstrable falsehoods into the minds of their base, who believe them. Trump is taking this to the next level as well, he himself a victim of right-wing conspiracy theories. There are still plenty of fanatical Republicans that believe Obama is a Muslim from Kenya or that there were 5 million illegal votes and Trump actually won the popular vote.

Climate change beliefs among indoctrinated Republicans are the best evidence that the GOP base is being radicalized and disconnected from reality. They prefer beliefs to facts at this point, when the facts controvert their beliefs, they'll stick with the beliefs. This likely explains why they are also more stuck on religious mythologies and wanting them to be represented in government policies.
 
boomerang said:
Help what?. It's all settled in the minds of the true believers because it has taken on the trapping of organized religion. One that dictates that everyone must tithe to it regardless of their belief. This program is a good thing. Let the scientific community on both sides of the equation duke it out.
Click to expand...
Imagine for a moment you wanted to take an honest look at this because your greatest desire is to know the truth. What do we know about self deception. The first thing we know is that how we criticize others is how we self deflect. That would mean, for example, that calling others true believers is something you are yourself and are motivated not to see. Then we can ask why you might have such a motivation. From the nature of bigotry you should be able to see that you have some high moral purpose in mind, that your beliefs are rooted in the good. And that you express as the good that can come from duking it out. But as we also know, while there is always a good, the bigot has assumptions of what it is that are not accurate. Here, for example, it would not be true that the good is served by duking it out, because as was explained to you in another post, science IS duking it out and a real consensus has already been reached. For a bigot, that means the understanding of that consensus must be repressed because it runs counter to your false notion of what is good.

Now you can tell a bigot but you can't tell him much so you won't see what I am saying, but you may be able to see that either you are right or you are wrong for the reasons I describe. I think a consensus of indifferent-to-the-issue people will agree with me. We can always fool ourselves but it's much harder to fool others who do not have an emotional need to be fooled.

By the way, I am not competing with you to be right. I don't have a need for you to be wrong. I love your will to champion the good. I would also love it if it were the real one. By preserving the sense there is a good you saved yourself from despair. You bet on the right horse. You don't, any longer, have to sit backwards on it.
 
Plus, separate the "human caused" out from climate change in general.

Even if we are not causing it, at least let's explore whether it's actually happening. And IF it is, even if we are not causing it, we'd better damn well try to do something about it for our own sake. Fuck the polar bears if that makes you feel better. If the temperature rises by just a few degrees, it will cause mass devastation--it won't matter a bit to those left here if it's natural or not.
 
Paratus said:
Majority (actually all) of the evidence rule.

It's funny you think there is some significant downtrodden minority of scientists who are being silenced by the evil Al Gore worshiping majority.

Here's the dirty little secret Boomerang, if the less than 3% of climate scientists who practice climate science and believe something other than the mainstream could support their hypotheses they would be adopted by the mainstream. They haven't and they can't so they have failed.

Science isn't debate club and all opinions are not equal. You either prove your hypothesis or you shut up.

Now that might be hard to understand for someone such as yourself who still believes things that aren't true like trickle down economics and that Santa Claus is real but man-made climate change is so well supported the only changes to its theory that scientists will find will be limited and subtle.
Click to expand...
A lie from a liar.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
A lie from a liar.
Click to expand...

Lol. You and how did you put it, "your ilk" always show up with a turd to a tank fight.

When you can show the scientific community a hypothesis supported by evidence that better explains that evidence than currently accepted theory then and only then will anyone take it seriously.

Until you understand that your posts on this subject are a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Oh and have a pleasant afternoon.
 
Last edited:
Stokely said:
Plus, separate the "human caused" out from climate change in general.

Even if we are not causing it, at least let's explore whether it's actually happening. And IF it is, even if we are not causing it, we'd better damn well try to do something about it for our own sake. Fuck the polar bears if that makes you feel better. If the temperature rises by just a few degrees, it will cause mass devastation--it won't matter a bit to those left here if it's natural or not.
Click to expand...

It took nature hundreds of millions of years to create complex hydrocarbons & sequester them in the earth. The notion that turning them into CO2 & putting them back into the atmosphere over a few hundred years will have no effect on climate is delusional.
 
pmv said:
There's already a program to critique climate science. It's called 'climate science'. That's how science works.
Click to expand...

Exactly. One of the things that's hard for politicians and the average joe to understand is that people in the scientific community can't just bullshit their way through things, and they've already considered contrary hypotheses/analysis. Also they don't want to be perceived as morons among their peers.
 
While there's no longer any credible basis to assert that Man is not causing warming via CO2 and other gases, there is still room for argument on the best way to tackle CO2 emissions that maximizes effect while minimizing adverse effects on the economy. That's where I often depart from the "true believers." It shouldn't be controversial to say that there is still significant uncertainty about exactly what the future is going to look like; therefore it's possible that some the more draconian reduction schemes may cause unnecessary harm, and disproportionately so to the most compliant countries. All that said, I find myself on the side of emissions reduction in general, not just for the CO2 reduction, but for total pollution reduction, especially that of coal, the burning of which is the worst offender for many dangerous pollutants, like heavy metals, many radioactive.

Carbon will probably have to start being taxed, modestly at first. Contrary to the proposal of the Climate Leadership Council, I would propose that 100% of carbon tax receipts go into public infrastructure that demonstrably facilitates production and distribution of renewable energy.
 
boomerang said:
Help what?. It's all settled in the minds of the true believers because it has taken on the trapping of organized religion. One that dictates that everyone must tithe to it regardless of their belief. This program is a good thing. Let the scientific community on both sides of the equation duke it out.
Click to expand...

rather than provide data that challenges the consensus, you just call everyone believers. lol. SOP for conned GOP voters: I don't like science because I don't get it, so I'll just interpret my ignorance the only way I know--through a lens of "belief" and claim that those other people just believe the wrong thing!

Are you ever going to have a solution for anything, or is it only ever going to be "blaming the smarty people for making my life miserable!" derpaderpadoo.

do you ever exhaust yourself, living your life being this fucking useless?
 
imported_tajmahal said:
A lie from a liar.
Click to expand...

have you not the stones to provide a counterargument to the piles upon piles upon piles of evidence that Paratus has long provided for you, in the hopes that you would take the time to consider the gaping flaws in your 2nd-grade position?

until you provide evidence and present a cogent argument to support whatever position came to you in yesterday's fortune cookie, you will continue to be the bed-wetter that you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top