Judge orders EPA to disclose any scie...

Judge orders EPA to disclose any science backing up Pruitt's climate claims

There are 10 comments on the Ars Technica story from Jun 6, 2018, titled Judge orders EPA to disclose any science backing up Pruitt's climate claims. In it, Ars Technica reports that:

In March 2017, Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency, appeared on CNBC and said that carbon dioxide was not known to be a major factor in climate change . "I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," Pruitt said, adding, "there's a tremendous disagreement about the degree of the impact" of "human activity on the climate."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Ars Technica.

Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#1 Jun 6, 2018
This may prove to be interesting. It is time to bring these folks to task for their biased statements.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#2 Jun 13, 2018
Denying the science again,#138?

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

You have to add energy beyond what is already being absorbed to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor is that source of energy. YOU try to make energy appear out of nothing. YOU deny the energy conservation laws.

Blocking radiance is reducing it, while at the same time increasing temperature. That's not possible under the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you deny.

Decreasing entropy by warming the lower atmosphere and cooling the upper atmosphere is not possible. Entropy never decreases in any system. YOU try to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

How many thermometers are used to measure the temperature of the Earth,#138?

It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There are nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.

But YOU deny the math. YOU deny the science.

It doesn't matter what some twit judge orders. This judge is obviously biased.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#3 Jun 13, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
Denying the science again,#138?

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

You have to add energy beyond what is already being absorbed to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor is that source of energy. YOU try to make energy appear out of nothing. YOU deny the energy conservation laws.

Blocking radiance is reducing it, while at the same time increasing temperature. That's not possible under the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you deny.

Decreasing entropy by warming the lower atmosphere and cooling the upper atmosphere is not possible. Entropy never decreases in any system. YOU try to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

How many thermometers are used to measure the temperature of the Earth,#138?

It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There are nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.

But YOU deny the math. YOU deny the science.

It doesn't matter what some twit judge orders. This judge is obviously biased.
You must have trained Pruitt. It would be difficult to be that stupid on his own resources. But it seems it is possible because you are. Doofus.

Since: Aug 15

Bellevue, WA

#4 Jun 13, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

You must have trained Pruitt. It would be difficult to be that stupid on his own resources. But it seems it is possible because you are. Doofus.
Insult fallacy.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#5 Jun 14, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
<quoted text>

Insult fallacy.
Better than your 'stupid' fallacy. Go scramble up a pound of eggs. Perhaps that will soothe the savage beaste.
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#6 Jun 17, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

Better than your 'stupid' fallacy. Go scramble up a pound of eggs. Perhaps that will soothe the savage beaste.
Does your meaningless rhetoric of "Scientific Consensus" apply to scambling a pound of eggs????

CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE

The late Michael Crichton, MD, author, film producer, put it this way:
ďI want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because youíre being had.

ďLetís be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

ďThere is no such thing as consensus science. If itís consensus, it isnít science. If itís science, it isnít consensus. Period.

ďIn addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud ofĒ

(From a talk at the California Institute of Technology on January 17, 2003, printed in Three Speeches by Michael Crichton, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, 2009.)
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#7 Jun 17, 2018
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>

Does your meaningless rhetoric of "Scientific Consensus" apply to scambling a pound of eggs????

CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE

The late Michael Crichton, MD, author, film producer, put it this way:
ďI want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because youíre being had.

ďLetís be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

ďThere is no such thing as consensus science. If itís consensus, it isnít science. If itís science, it isnít consensus. Period.

ďIn addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud ofĒ

(From a talk at the California Institute of Technology on January 17, 2003, printed in Three Speeches by Michael Crichton, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, 2009.)
Crichton was a science fiction writer and a global warming science quack. He published no climate papers. He simply wrote a fiction book where he cherry picked or simply made up things to cause controversy so he could sell books. It worked.

Since: Aug 15

Bellevue, WA

#8 Jun 18, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

Better than your 'stupid' fallacy. Go scramble up a pound of eggs. Perhaps that will soothe the savage beaste.
Buzzword fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

Since: Aug 15

Bellevue, WA

#9 Jun 18, 2018
hojo wrote:
Does your meaningless rhetoric of "Scientific Consensus" apply to scambling a pound of eggs????
It does lately. He is attempting to argue that 12 is a measurement.

Since: Aug 15

Bellevue, WA

#10 Jun 18, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

Crichton was a science fiction writer and a global warming science quack. He published no climate papers. He simply wrote a fiction book where he cherry picked or simply made up things to cause controversy so he could sell books. It worked.
Bulverism fallacy,#138.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ever Notice? 1 hr don t drink the k... 3
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Billhaswarmfart 64,976
Poll What is the most STUPID post made by an AGW'er.... (Sep '09) 8 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 1,733
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 12 hr Big Al 41,310
News Gov. 'Moonbeam' says California to launch clima... 16 hr Police Chief Edd 7
News This solar farm is built on oil industry money,... Sep 22 Solarman 1
News Extreme weather like Hurricane Florence shows w... Sep 22 Mothra 2